April 3,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 11

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: I am pleased to inform the House that the

Department of Finance will, today begin distributing retail sales tax rebates to

former policyholders of Hiland Insurance Limited. The rebates will be for that

amount of tax which was paid in advance, and for which no coverage was provided

owing to the insolvency of Hiland Insurance.

Rebate payments totalling $608,000.00 are being issued today.

They cover some $17,067 policyholders who are owed a rebate, with the exception

of those owed less than $2.00, who will not be paid.

Thank you, MR. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see that this

is finally being done, and I guess we have to question why it took so long to do

this. This is no big deal really. You are giving back money that the government

has not earned because the policies were not sold, so the government really is

not entitled to it. Maybe the minister should re-examine the policy of tax

rebates for all business people. I understand that a business that has a bad

debt that is not collectable, and has already paid tax on it has no recourse to

have the tax rebated, so the minister might look at that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Further statements.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very nice of you.

I wish to report to the House on what has transpired to date

since a complaint was made in the House last Thursday concerning Workers'

Compensation appeals. In the absence of the Premier, I undertook to investigate

the matter, and have since reviewed information from the Review Division and

from the Chief Review Commissioner.

The specific complaint laid in the House of Assembly by the

Member for Kilbride was that there has been double billing. He maintains that

cases are being postponed, and being billed for on each occasion that a case is

heard.

The impression being given, of course, for whatever reason,

cases were postponed, and when they came up again the Commissioners were

receiving double payment.

Determination of the matter rests with the use of the words

"postponement" and "case".

When a case is not heard due to non appearance for some

legitimate reason, or the hearing is not completed in one sitting and has to be

"postponed" to another date without decision, it should not be billed twice.

These cases are simply "adjourned", and billing is done only when the cases are

completed. It is the clear understanding of the Review Division that these

circumstances constitute single cases and only one billing should occur.

However, single individuals may initiate more than one "case"

for the Review Division. A single individual may appeal his rehabilitation

benefits, and later may appeal his Permanent Functional Impairment rating. This

would obviously constitute two separate cases for the Review Commissioners, even

though the same individual is involved and would properly result in two separate

billings. Review Commissioners, even though the same individuals is involved,

and would properly result in two separate billings.

Where the confusion exists is in what constitutes the

fifty-nine postponements. I am told that many are instances where an appellant

appeals the Workers' Compensation original ruling, and produces new evidence.

The Review Commission hears the case, determines what is and what is not new

evidence (the distinction sometimes is not clear) and make the determination

that the case should be sent back to the WCC for re-examination. (This,

apparently, Mr. Speaker, is the only way an individual can get reconsideration

by the Workers' Compensation Commission). A decision is rendered, and the case

goes back to the Workers' Compensation Commission. This "case", in the view of

the Review Division, is then completed, and is billed as a completed "case".

If, a few months later, after further consideration by the

Workers' Compensation Commission, another appeal is launched based on a further

decision by the Workers' Compensation Commission, a new case number is assigned,

and this next consideration constitutes a new "case". I believe this

interpretation to be reasonable in light of the processes currently practised at

the Workers' Compensation Commission.

However, Mr. Speaker, a detailed review of the fifty-nine

cases will now be undertaken to determine: (

a) if the process can be streamlined

in any way, and (

b) if there are any individual cases where our

interpretation

may differ from the

interpretation of the Review Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Let there be no doubt to the people of this House or the

people of this Province, the questions that I asked last week deal with the same

case, the same individual, the same case number and before this week is over I

will prove that in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, for last

week of saying to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations about

double-billing at the Workers' Compensation Review Division. In fact, I have

evidence here today that will show clearly that there was not double-billing but

triple billing in some cases.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that the case centres

around what is a postponement and what is a case. Let me say this to the

minister who initiated the investigation, Compensation Review Division

Commissioners have gotten paid $500 for showing up for ten to fifteen minutes

and saying, `Based upon your request, your grounds are reasonable, appeal has

been granted.' They have done that - nothing else -

AN HON. MEMBER: At about $100 a minute.

MR. E. BYRNE: About $100 a minute exactly. Now I thank

the minister for saying that he is going to provide a detailed review of the

fifty-nine cases but I can say to him clearly, that a detailed review will be

done by this side of the House as well because all of this is public

information.

The second issue, Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here - is

when the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations became aware of this action

and we will see before the end of this week, when he became aware. Was it last

Thursday or was it in October.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

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

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

We now know, Mr. Speaker, that a postponement in the Workers'

Compensation Review Division is also a payment. Last week the minister did not

know, he said. Now, I want to ask the minister a question dealing with this: If

Mr. Gullage views a postponement on the same case and gets paid a fee for

postponing the case and then gets paid a fee of $500.00 for hearing the case,

did he do so upon his own accord, did he interpret the rules and regulations as

set out by the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations last June, or

did he act with the full knowledge and acceptance of you, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations for this action?

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

Labour Relations.

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

Let me say to the hon. member, number one: the Minister of

Finance rose today and gave a statement on the allegations raised last week by

the Member for Mount Pearl. I am satisfied that the minister said that the full

fifty-nine cases would be looked into that the member addressed.

The second question I say to the member is - and I think he

said: Did I know? No, no. Let me say to the hon. member, not at any time did I

ever discuss the remuneration process with the Review Commissioner from the time

of the legislation up until last Thursday.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is not the fifty-nine cases

so much that we are concerned about but the principle involved. It could be 159,

it could be fifteen, the issue is that there is double billing and triple

billing going on at the review division, that is the issue here, and a detailed

review of the fifty-nine cases, Mr. Speaker, will reveal whatever it reveals.

The issue is, Mr. Gullage either acted on his own, breaking the rules and

regulations which, if he did, he should be fired today, or, he did so in the

full knowledge that he had the support of the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Did he or did he not, Mr. Minister, that is the question I ask you

today.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, the member rose in his place, accused the

Review Commissioner of receiving $29,000 in extra amount, he said again, on

Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, that it wasn't $29,000 that the Review Commissioner

had overbilled, but $15,000. The real reality is that Mr. Gullage's name is

associated with eighteen cases, which would be $9,000; so nobody on this side

gets excited when the member opposite makes those kind of statements - none

whatsoever - we don't get excited. No, I have never discussed, as I said I did

not have any instructions, and I did not tell the Review Commissioner at any

time, or make any

interpretation of postponements or anything else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations said in the House, in answering a question that

I posed to him, that his understanding of the review division was: A case is a

case is a case, and that it gets paid $500 for one case.

Now let me give him an example, and ask him a question about

this example. In 1994 a claimant, the same claimant, requested a postponement.

He got it. The Commissioner wrote one paragraph, $500 right there. Two weeks

later, the same claimant requested another postponement. The Commissioner stated

that the matter had been postponed on two occasions; nonetheless, sufficient

grounds cited as reasonable and granted for postponement, another $500.

The decision was rendered in December, the same commissioner,

the same claimant, the same case, $1,500. Honestly, Minister, this should be

stopped and has to stop. Will you stand today and say you will, as Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, stop this grotesque overpayment from going on,

and fire the Chief Review Commissioner, as you should have done two weeks ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, without the member getting excited, he heard what

the minister had to say today. We are going to look at the fifty-nine cases. We

are going to review the situation and, when the time comes, we will respond.

There is no sense of the member getting on. He doesn't know the circumstances; I

don't know the circumstances. He thinks he knows the circumstances.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should know.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I would like to say, yes, maybe I

should know, but after 227 meetings in seven months, dealing with all kinds of

subjects, I really don't have the time to take out the 350-odd cases, the appeal

cases. I don't have the time to do that, I say to the hon. member, and when the

times comes, as the Minister of Finance has said, we will disclose exactly what

our finding are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Last week the minister rose in this House, on Thursday, and

in rebuttal to my question said: I will check into it. I will have to take it

under advisement; it is the first I have become aware of it.

I have Minutes here from the Newfoundland and Labrador

Injured Workers' Association meeting of March 13 where the same question was

raised to the minister, to which he responded in the very same fashion. He said:

That is the first I heard of it. I will have to take it under advisement and get

back to you. He was fully aware, Mr. Speaker, that this double billing was going

on before last Thursday. I ask him, why didn't he act then? Why did he have to

wait for the minister, his knight in shining armour, to come to his attention?

Why did he not act then and check into it and have a forthright answer to the

questions I asked of him in the House last Thursday?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I've told the

member and told the media, I have absolutely no recollection. I am not saying to

the member or to this House or to anybody else that the group didn't bring that

particular issue up. I said I have no recollection. I say that honestly and I

say it sincerely. If I had I would have addressed it.

The member again has some problems. Last week it was the

March 7 meeting, now it is the March 13 meeting. The member again is wrong with

his dates, wrong with his times. I don't mind saying to the member I have

absolutely no recollection of the injured workers group being that specific. I

didn't take minutes. They didn't supply me with minutes. If I remembered, I can

assure the hon. member, and all members of this House, that I would address that

particular situation to the Review Commissioner. The only thing that I addressed

with the Review Commissioner since I've been Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is the caseload and its distribution. I say that in all honesty for

all members to hear.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there were five people at that

meeting that day. Three people from the Injured Workers Association, the CEO of

Workers' Compensation Commission, and the minister. In a letter sent to the

Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association from Barbara Taichman, the

CEO, she refers to the issues that were brought up at that meeting that day. She

refers to the fifty-nine postponement decisions that they talked about. Four

people remembered, the minister doesn't. Not remembering, no recollection, has

become a hallmark of this government.

Let me ask the minister another question dealing with this

very serious issue. Again the issue is on double payments. Are you sure,

Minister, that you had no prior knowledge? Are you convinced that you can tell

the people of this Province today that a Commissioner or Commissioners did not

meet or discuss with you at any time this situation, and that you did not give

them your approval to go ahead and bill for postponements? Are you convinced and

are you sure?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to

the hon. member as I said before. I have never discussed billing, double

billing, postponements, with any Commission. The only thing that I discussed

with the Chief Commissioner and other Commissioners was the distribution of the

caseload. I say that emphatically, and I stand by that statement.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister one

more question before I sit down.

If information comes out, Minister, to contradict what you

have said, will you resign as Minister of Employment and Labour Relations? I ask

you that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: The member continues to get on with his

hypothetical whatever. From the $29,000 that was changed on Friday to $15,000 to

$9,000 - I am not going to answer a hypothetical question. I am, as the member

fully knows, extremely busy - an extremely busy minister - doing what needs to

be done to address the situations concerning employment and labour. I am not

going to play the member's silly games.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Premier, and follows along the line of my colleague from Kilbride's

questions dealing with this particular issue that was raised in the House last

week. The Premier, unfortunately, wasn't here, but presumably has been briefed

on the matter by now - perhaps he hasn't - but he would also be aware, no doubt,

by now, that the Deputy Premier announced in this House that an investigation

into the questions that had been raised by my colleague from Kilbride would take

place.

I would like to ask the Premier: Can he tell the House

whether or not he intends to have this investigation conducted independently and

separately from government, let alone from the Workers' Compensation Commission,

which it appears this morning is simply a report from Workers' Compensation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure when the

minister announced the investigation that the member is taking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Friday.

PREMIER WELLS: Friday; well, here is what the minister

said on Friday: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to an issue raised

yesterday in the House regarding the Workers' Compensation Appeal process, we

are currently investigating the matter. If we discover overpayments have been

made they will be recovered, and if we discover breaches of the Act, they will

be dealt with in the appropriate manner."

I can only commend the minister for eminently sensible

action. I think the minister also indicated in the House today that he is

causing a full assessment of all fifty-nine cases to be done, and when the

minister has fuller information he will no doubt advise the House.

I should tell the House, the Leader of the Opposition

inquired as to whether I had been briefed on it. I had; the minister briefed me

fully this morning on it. My advice to him was: Look, you are on top of this

thing; you report to the House on what you have done so far. That will give me

more time to become familiar with it before I address any questions in relation

to it, and I have left it entirely in the minister's hands, and I can assure

members of the House that I have total, unrestrained confidence in the minister

dealing effectively with it.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, for once publicly I don't mind

saying that I can understand why the Premier would have some confidence in the

Minister of Finance, because, in my opinion, he is probably the most competent

minister that he has in his whole Cabinet - no question about that - however, I

regret to say today that I can't say the same now in this instance, for the

reasons I will state, and I would like to ask the Premier how he would respond

to it:

The Deputy Premier said, as the Premier just announced - he

repeated the statement made by the Deputy Premier in the House - that we would

cause an investigation to be undertaken, okay. "We are currently investigating

the matter..." - I have the statement right here - "...and if we discover

breaches..." blah, blah, blah.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, blah, blah, blah. Well, I will read it if

the Premier would like me to. It is two sentences. It is not that difficult.

Even the Premier couldn't complicate it, I am sure. "In response to an issue

raised yesterday in the House regarding the Workers' Compensation Appeal

process, we are currently investigating the matter. If we discover overpayments

have been made they will be recovered, and if we discover breaches of the Act,

they will be dealt with in the appropriate manner." `We', okay.

My question to the Premier was, and still is: Would the

Premier, as leader of the government, because I can assure him this is not some

issue that is just going to be sloughed off; there is a lot of evidence that is

going to be incriminating, in my view, but, nevertheless, it is important enough

for the Premier, I think, to take a first-hand involvement in this and perhaps

order or at least find some other method of investigating this issue and looking

into it a little more closely, because clearly, with the statement given by the

Deputy Premier this morning, he didn't conduct any investigation, he asked Mr.

Gullage what was going on or somebody down at the Commission -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member -

MR. SIMMS: - the very words used by Mr. Gullage this

morning on CBC Radio, Mr. Speaker, so would the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want the member to get to the question.

MR. SIMMS: So would the Premier consider some independent

approach to investigating this whole matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am totally satisfied with

the process the minister has put in place. He has told me what the process is.

It is not the minister himself personally doing it. I am totally satisfied with

the process that he has in place and when the minister feels it appropriate to

make a public statement as to what that process is, I have no doubt that he will

do so. I have complete and total confidence in the competence and judgement of

the minister in this regard and I can say to the Leader of the Opposition, I see

no reason why he limited his comments about the minister's capability to the

present Cabinet. The past Cabinets (inaudible) that -

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

MR. SIMMS: Whatever that means.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Certainly more competent that the crowd

who gave away Churchill Falls.

MR. SIMMS: I certainly understand why all the members of

the Cabinet would -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) to give away Churchill Falls with

you.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't there either.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, you were. Oh yes you were, old boy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Premier

in a supplementary, let me say to the Premier again: Before he is too quick to

dismiss this whole thing and just leave it in the hands of the Deputy Premier,

let me suggest to the Premier, take some advice for a change, this is a matter

that I can tell him involves a lot more than has been seen on the surface thus

far, so my suggestion to him is that he take some involvement himself, directly,

and perhaps have an independent investigation because what has to be shown here

is the truth and it must be shown in an objective way and that's the big

concern.

It could turn out to be another whitewash like the Trans City

issue, the coverups that have been involved in that as he well knows, have

burned him a lot and burned his government, so I want to ask the Premier: Will

he ensure that an investigation or the investigation announced by the Deputy

Premier on Friday will in fact be an independent investigation, not by the

minister, not by the Workers' Compensations Review Division or anybody else

associated with that, but an investigation into the legal ramifications of

breaking the government's own rules and regulations surrounding the act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I won't do is

prejudge, which is what the member wants me to do. I have told the House that

the minister has advised me of the process that he has put in place. I am

completely confident that the minister has the thing satisfactorily under

control, that the process whatever it is, will be disclosed. Now hon. members

opposite may not like what's disclosed or they may, but we will wait and see and

whatever it is, and when that's completed whatever steps need to be taken to

deal with whatever comes out of it, will be done I can assure the House.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I questioned the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology with regard to a number of job losses, companies moving their

headquarters et cetera from the Province while the minister was away on his

travels overseas on the EDGE Legislation. Today, on the news coming out of Goose

Bay, there is considerable talk as to what might be happening with regard to

private contracting of various services that are currently performed by federal

civil servants under the Defence Department. I am wondering, is the Premier

aware of any moves underway with regard to contracting out at Goose Bay and is

the provincial government up to speed on this matter, please?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do know, Mr. Speaker, that the federal

government is considering privatizing to a significant degree a number of its

operations. I am aware that some groups in Goose Bay, some entrepreneurs are

interested in proposing that they take over responsibility for certain

activities carried on, I am aware of that. There is a committee that works

within government, there is a committee involving officials but there is also a

committee of ministers dealing with economic issues as it relates to Labrador

and that committee is fully aware of it and keeps government fully apprised of

developments as they occur.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I was faxed down a document from a person who does not

wish to have his name released - six or seven pages - basically an assessment by

a consulting firm of various economic activities that go on at the Goose Bay

base, many of which are performed by civilian defence employees. A good

three-quarters, by the looks of this document, are slated or could be slated to

be contracted out and that would affect the jobs of several hundred, maybe 600

or 700 employees. Is the Premier concerned that this may lead to considerable

disruption in the lives of individual families and a possible down-turn in the

economy of Goose Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I say two things with respect

to the matters the member raises; I give no credibility whatsoever to statements

made or documents prepared by people who are not prepared to have their names

released. If they are prepared to stand behind it, I am prepared to deal with it

but I am not prepared to deal with shadows.

Secondly, I can tell the House that the Member for Naskaupi,

I know as the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee responsible for economic matters

in Labrador, that I know he has been dealing with this on a constant basis. I

know he has met, as late as this past weekend, with officials and with

representatives of the union, I believe, in Goose Bay in relation to this whole

matter. So yes, the government is fully aware of it, the government is watching

what is happening but I am certainly not going to comment on suggestions made by

some person who has prepared a document but is not prepared to have his name

released.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well the document that was faxed to me is obviously an

assessment of interest/ability of third parties to support CFB Goose Bay, is

prepared by a consulting firm, I presume, for the federal government. Maybe the

Premier or the minister - I heard something on the radio this morning I think to

the effect that the mayor of Portage, La Prairie on mainland Canada, went

through a similar situation where military services, a lot of them, were

contracted out and it had a devastating effect for the ordinary people at least

in the community. I was wondering if the Premier or the minister responsible for

Labrador could have a few comments as to what would be the effect in the

economy, in the daily lives of individuals being well paid federal civil

servants on one hand and having all of these activities carried out by private

contactors, maybe at considerably less hourly rates for the individuals

involved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to deal

with reality as it arises or as it may arise and we become aware that it may

arise but I have no intention whatsoever of commenting on anything that is said

to be contained in a document written by somebody who is not prepared to have

his or her name released.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation, they concern the accountability of the Cabot 500 Anniversary

Corporation. Can the minister confirm for the House that the Cabot Committee has

held a dozen or so dinner meetings at Hotel Newfoundland that have cost

thousands of dollars and would the minister please explain who is paying for

those dinner meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the question. We have had the details

of the expenditures by the Cabot 500 Corporation on behalf of the people of the

Province as they plan for a great celebration in 1997. I have not seen the

details of an expenditure as described by the hon. member in his question but

his description of it may very well be the fact that when the Board of Directors

is here, my understanding is that from time to time they do eat dinner together

and if they are staying at the Hotel Newfoundland that might be where they have

dinner.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister, it may be worth

checking out for the simple reason that my sources have informed me that it has

cost in excess of $30,000, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, travelling seems to be a major pastime for the

members of the Cabot 500 Committee. Can the minister confirm that several

members of the committee have travelled to England and Italy on numerous

so-called fact finding missions and that travel costs for the committee are

totalling tens of thousands of dollars and indeed utilizing the majority portion

of the committee's budget?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker.

No, that is not so. There have been visits by representatives

of the Cabot 500 Corporation quite necessarily, to Gaeta in Italy where there is

a Cabot 500 Corporation in place there, because we fully expect that because of

the connection with John Cabot and his Italian roots that we would have quite a

number of Italian visitors, particularly those from in and around John Cabot's

hometown of Gaeta who are planning on coming here as part of 1997.

There have also been, to my recollection in reviewing the

records, Mr. Speaker, two visits to Bristol mainly in connection with trying to

finalize the legal contract that will allow the Cabot 500 Corporation to put in

place the details of our leasing of the Matthew for its voyage across the North

Atlantic and its spending of some three months of time in the different ports of

call in Newfoundland and Labrador so that it can add a great dimension to our

celebration in 1997.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say once again that the

travels have cost tens of thousands of dollars and the meals have cost thousands

of dollars. I would like to ask the minister today if he would agree to

investigate this matter and report back to the House on the expenses of the

committee, including a detailed account of all travel and meal expenses incurred

to date by the members of the Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we have the information

available in a detailed accounting in terms of the travel that has been done by

members of the board and the staff of the Cabot 500 Corporation, and we will

provide the information, I expect. Another opportunity for the member would be

ask details of the same questions at some length in the Estimates tonight, and

we will certainly provide the information in detail to the extent that we have

it.

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

According to the most recent reports our forests will experience another

infestation again this summer. I wonder if the minister could update the House

on the status and magnitude of that particular infestation and let us know what

parts of the Province will be affected?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to.

In the egg count surveys that were done last fall, and we had

a very extensive egg count survey done, the completed results were made public

about two and a half weeks ago, I believe, by the Canadian Forest Service. We

have a significant increase, particular in the hemlock looper. We have almost

nothing left of the spruce budworm. It has gone down to being negligible in our

forests right now, this year, but the hemlock looper is a problem for us. Our

people are reviewing our options for a spray program for this year and we hope

that over the next few weeks we will make a decision on what we need to do.

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

Baie Verte -White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that the Canadian Forest Service here in

Newfoundland played a major role in identifying this problem of infestation, and

the minister also knows that this particular problem needs to be identified

quickly, and, of course, acted on immediately so that there is no devastating

effect. Is the minister concerned at all that the terminating of the CFS centre

here in Newfoundland could jeopardize our ability to identify these kind of

problems in the future?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we will ensure, in co-operation

with the federal government, that there is adequate capability available to do

the survey that is required every year.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: In light of that, Mr. Speaker, the minister

confirmed last week that there will be seventeen jobs left in the Canadian

Forest Services here in this Province to deal with such things as infestations,

as we just mentioned, seedling purchasing, silviculture, all the things we need

in this Province more than ever to make sure that the forests do not end up the

same way as the fishery, and at the eleventh hour, wait until the last minute

until we do something again. That is the whole problem.

I would like to ask the minister this, are we going to see

experts from other provinces come into this Province to handle problems we have

here now that we have terminated our own centre here in Newfoundland?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have not terminated anything

yet. The job that was done this year was done very well in 1994 and very well

this past winter when doing the evaluation, and I expect it will continue to be

done very well, and we will ensure that it is.

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Environment. The minister had a meeting last week with an

individual from Torbay, Mr. Mike Manning, concerning pollution on the ice in

Withrod Pond on Bauline Line. There is wire from burned tires, there are steel

rims, ashes, soot, garbage and the like. Can the minister tell us what has

happened since his meeting last week with the individual from Torbay?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad the member

raised it with me. I raised it with him last week. I had a call from a resident

out there who is very concerned about some activity that was occurring by some

people during the winter. Apparently this has been going on for five or six

years. Our officials went out last week, in the last few weeks actually, but

again last week, and have done a report. We are reviewing the report as of

Friday past. They are also communicating with the town council today to see what

action can be taken immediately to deal with it, but there is also I think a

problem there that we are going to have to review. Probably a game plan to deal

with the problem that has occurred over the last few years.

It is a bit of a problem that has occurred for some time.

Over the winter there was some activity which also included, I believe, the RNC

going out there to check on that. I believe a couple of snow machines were

confiscated, as a matter of fact. This activity is definitely environmentally

not what we want to see happen. Some actions have been taken but more are going

to be taken, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to submit

the annual report of the Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation, together with

the financial statements of the Corporation, for the fiscal year ended April 2

Notices of Motion

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I give notice today that

on tomorrow I will ask leave to introduce the following private member's

resolution.

Whereas the fishing industry has been and will continue to be

the cornerstone of the culture and economy of Newfoundland and Labrador;

And

whereas the fishery moratorium has placed this Province

in a very critical situation;

And

whereas the present situation demands a new sense of

direction and strengthening;

And

whereas the amalgamation of the Department of Fisheries

into the new Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than

strengthens efforts to revive the fishing industry in this Province;

Be it therefore resolved that this House of Assembly strongly

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its Premier to reinstate a

Department of Fisheries concerned solely with fisheries and fishery-related

matters, strengthened and revitalized, and separate from the Department of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture announced by the Premier on August 26 1994.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you first please call

Motion No. 2? The debate was adjourned on Friday by my friend for St. John's

Centre. Then whenever this debate concludes we will carry on with the Budget

debate. My friend for Mount Pearl I believe adjourned that debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have

a few words with respect to the motion that the hon. House Leader made with

respect to changing the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly.

I note that what he has proposed is basically what we have

been doing for the past six years, with certain improvements. First of all, we

are to speak for fifteen minutes instead of twenty. That would enable more

people to speak than before. Secondly, we will speak for one day and put the

vote, rather than have it carried over for two days as was. It seems to me that

this is a great improvement over the procedure that used to be in place years

ago. Basically what we are doing is formalizing what has been in effect, except

for last fall.

When I look at private members' resolutions, some things come

in mind. I notice that usually the Opposition members, private members, are

resolutions to embarrass the government. That is fair enough. Then on the

government side, when the government members bring in private members'

resolutions, it is very often either for or against some federal policy.

Depending on the party in power in Ottawa, as opposed to the party in power

here. That is basically it - and very often they are on timely issues. I don't

want to put down either side. Very often they are on timely issues. I do have a

concern about a couple of matters that are in this proposal, and I would like

for you to bear with me while I run through this concern.

Members generally are, in this House, and historically have

been, elected to support one or other of the parties - occasionally an

independent comes along - but all members on this side represent one party, and

all members on that side, except one, represent another party, and another

represents a third so, in effect, we basically toe the party line. Members on

this side usually toe the party line, and members on that side toe the party

line; that's the usual way. I suppose the party line is not really correct,

because it is not the party line as much as the caucus line, and there is a

difference between the party and the caucus, in some cases, not usually, not

over a long period of time, of course, but in any particular period of time.

Now the question that I raise is: How does a member on the

Opposition side, or on the government side, who happens to have an issue that is

not particularly shared by other members of caucus - and that is the point that

the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West raised Friday, and I think it was a

straightforward and good point - how do you do it? I have had an issue

personally that I have tried to raise here for the past several months. It has

been on the Order Paper, and never got called, and it may or may not get called,

but it is of extreme importance to the people in my district. How do I get that

debated?

Well, I could bring in a petition from the people in the

district, and speak for five minutes on it. I could bring in, like the hon.

Member for Green Bay, the same petition seventeen times, and get five times

seventeen minutes. I could do it that way. I could get up and speak in the

Budget debate, or in the Throne Speech, and make a small issue of it, but you

can't get the proper interaction back and forth on that particular issue in the

House. So I can see that a Private Members' resolution that is unfettered by

party discipline has some merit, but the problem is, how do you handle it in the

House?

I thought that I might possibly introduce an amendment to

what the hon. House Leader did. I don't think I will, but I thought about it,

and I will tell you why I won't be doing it now. I thought that perhaps the

Private Members' motion should be called not so much by the Leader of the House

on the government side or the Opposition side, but perhaps by the Speaker -

called by the Speaker, for each side - and that he would do it from a lottery

that he conducts from either side. So he would announce on Monday: We will now

debate the resolution so-and-so that he had previously drawn from a hat, or we

could draw it in the House if he wanted to, from all the motions that had been

submitted from members on this side, if it were our turn, and by your side

another turn. Then he would announce that this is the motion.

That is a way of doing it; however, I haven't got it worked

out very well, and we want to debate this thing today. To work it out properly

would require discussion with the Speaker, and it would require discussion with

the members opposite. So what I am proposing to do is not to do anything except

to support what the government has provided and hope that it will work. I have

faith in the caucus here, that if I have a resolution that I consider important,

and no one else does, that they may eventually allow me to put that resolution

forward, and I am sure that the members opposite there have similar faith in

their fellow members of caucus that they, too, will bring forward.

Now if it doesn't happen - supposing that this doesn't happen

- supposing that one of the members opposite, or a member on this side, cannot

get a resolution that is important, then that becomes a very serious matter.

Then, I suppose, we are going to have to depend on the side opposite to bring in

a resolution to change the Orders.

I suppose you can't change the Orders now unless the

government wants it, unless the Opposition wants it. A Private Member couldn't

bring in a motion to change the orders, except through a Private Members'

resolution, and if you can't bring in a Private Members' resolution how can you

do it? It would depend then, on the member for the NDP to bring in that Private

Members' resolution eventually to do it.

In any event, I am prepared to give this a try, what the

House Leader has proposed here, and if it doesn't work out then I think we are

going to have to change it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak at any

great length in the debate on this particular motion moved by the Government

House Leader because in essence we support it. We would like to see it revert

basically to where it was, and that is what this would do. Finally we would have

it written into our Standing Orders so that a Government House Leader, now or in

the future, wouldn't be able to manipulate it as was done last - when was it -

last fall, or...?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) withdrew unanimous consent.

MR. SIMMS: Withdrew unanimous consent or something. So I

really support the idea of correcting our rules and lets get them in place so we

know where we are going.

On the other hand, and having missed the debate that occurred

on Friday, I can only assume that some of the comments that were made, or

discussion that took place on Friday, centred on similar views as expressed by

the Member for St. John's Centre. I'm not sure. I haven't read Hansard and I

don't know. I did see a copy of a private member's resolution that the Member

for St. John's East was going to propose with respect to this same issue. He

endorses the idea of a draw of some sort, with some other changes. I think what

he talked about was every fourth Wednesday would be considered an Opposition day

for an Opposition motion. That has some merit to it as well. I doubt very much

if we are going to be successful in changing it or amending it. We don't intend

to hold the debate on this motion up to the extent that we would on some other

issues to try to get a change made in it, so it is not going to happen unless

the Government House Leader suddenly decides, in consultation with his

government caucus colleagues, he might wish to further amend it.

I think I can safely say we would be open to any further

proposals that might come forth from the government side to further enhance this

Standing Order, as it will now be. If you want to try to improve upon it and

change it, or whatever, we would certainly be open for further discussion. It

isn't going to happen here today, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre. He

knows that.

I support the concept as outlined by the Member for St.

John's Centre, and in essence as outlined by the Member for St. John's East, the

Leader of the NDP, the concept of fairness and balance, the concept of it being

a private member's motion as opposed to a Cabinet minister's. Because a private

member's motion would be all of us. Anybody who is not in the Cabinet would be

entitled to put forth a motion. As the Member for St. John's Centre rightly

points out, if you have an issue that is of extreme importance to your district,

one way of ensuring that it gets brought to the floor of the House and gets

brought to the attention of all members of the House, is if you have a chance to

put a motion forward emanating from that issue that you then can advise your

constituents about, and the results of, if such a debate and vote ever takes

place.

The problem is of course, quite often in that kind of a

situation the issues aren't of a great deal of interest to other members. Let's

be frank about it. The difficulty would be I think in getting a debate going.

That is one of the problems with it. Nevertheless, recognizing private members

have the right to put forth a motion for discussion, it should be wide open and

should be on any issue, no matter how controversial, no matter how sensitive. If

a private member wishes to do that then he should be able to put that motion

forward.

Whether he does it in the way that we presently know is one

thing. I can't speak to the internal operations of this government caucus. I can

speak with some experience from the operations of a government caucus in the

past of which I was a part, but I frankly don't think we had the same kind of

difficulties. I'm not sure, but I don't think we did. Not quite the same. Unless

we go back to the days now when the Member for St. John's Centre was in that

caucus, but then it wasn't the government caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it wasn't the government caucus, and he

wasn't in the caucus, correct. So there is some difficulty there. As he knows no

doubt this side - or, I can't say this side -

MR. HARRIS: My caucus (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Ninety-nine percent -

MR. HARRIS: No dissension whatsoever. No dissension in my

caucus.

MR. SIMMS: - of this side deal with this in a very

straightforward manner.

Every Monday or whenever we discuss it in the mornings, when

it is our turn to give notice of a resolution or whatever, what is a good idea,

what ideas do you have or whatever and we decide within the Caucus through

consensus, the same as a Cabinet would work, through consensus, and ultimately

the Chair or the Caucus makes a decision: okay, that's the one we will go with,

let's draft it up. The House Leader - only because the rules say the House

Leader - gives a notice of it. There is no need for him to even do that. The

person, whoevers motion it was can get up and give the notice on Monday. So I

support the concept of having it done in a more fair and equitable way. It would

not bother me. I don't think it would bother any of us, our members on this

side. If a private member wants to put in a resolution to the Speaker, then you

give your name to the Speaker or to the Clerk or whatever and on a given day the

Speaker would draw or the Clerk would draw and advise the Speaker, or whatever

mechanism you want to use, that this Wednesday it is the Opposition's turn. The

person whose motion will be debated will be the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay and the next day it is the government one, let the Speaker draw it out.

Now I see what the Member for St. John's Centre is getting at

because I gather, in the past, there has been some difficulty over on the

government side, in particular - let's call a spade a spade - in trying to get

agreement with the Government House Leader in particular - who right now has the

responsibility for deciding which resolution is carried - in trying to get

agreement with the Government House Leader, as to what resolution will get on.

Can Walter Carter or the Member for Twillingate get his resolution on about the

garbage disposal issue? Can the Member for Fogo get his resolution on about the

Department of Fisheries? He obviously has not been able to do it so, in fact we

helped him along today. That is why the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes put

forth that resolution. It is basically the same resolution, as the Members for

Twillingate.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Fogo.

MR. SIMMS: Sorry, the Member for Fogo. So we will give

the Member for Fogo a change to now support the resolution if that is what he

wants to do but we can understand why the members opposite would have had some

difficulty in getting this present Government House Leader to agree to allow

these resolutions that some of you members wanted to put forward last fall

because they were controversial and they were sensitive. Some of them would have

been an embarrassment to the government, there is no question about that, but so

what? So what? Who cares? It is not going to breach Cabinet solidarity. It is a

private members' debating day, a private members resolution. It is not binding

on the government. Even if it was carried by the House of Assembly it is not

binding. It could be embarrassing, depending on what the issue is but so what? I

mean we are all living in a day of wanting to see private members have more to

do, more involvement.

I remember the Member for Port de Grave was always a great

advocate of that approach. He wanted to see members more involved, free to

speak, free to open, free again, Mr. Speaker. I can hear him now when he left

the Cabinet there a couple of years ago. He wanted to get in on the fishery

issue. He was free again, Mr. Speaker, he could now speak out and have more

involvement. He supports that concept, I know he still supports it and I would

say - my guess is that of members opposite all but two, possibly three, support

the concept of having more freedom for the private members and letting them

proceed along this way. My guess is all but two or three would support that

concept.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I did not even say who the second one was

yet but I guess he knows.

So even members of the Cabinet might not want to admit it

because somehow they might think that that would be contrary to what the

government feels, right on this issue. Certainly it is contrary to what the

Government House Leader feels, we all know that. So I would support the idea.

So if the Member for St. John's Centre could successfully get

agreement in his Caucus for the Government House Leader to agree with this

approach and bring back a further amendment to this motion that we will pass

today or the House will pass today no doubt, then I can tell him - I mean I

won't be here in a few weeks time but I suspect there would be a considerable

amount of interest on this side in being able to cooperate. I don't see any big

reason for us to want to oppose that except for those - and this is the only

downside to it and the only problem I have with it - the downside to it is that

there are occasions, from time to time there are occasions when a major issue

may develop which would not be raised by the government for reasons of

sensitivity or whatever, and it would be up to the Opposition to do it, and one

of the avenues that we would have to do it is that we know every second

Wednesday we have an Opposition turn at a Private Members' resolution and at

least we would be able to raise it in that context.

If we went along with this, that would not be able to occur

unless there was a provision something along the lines that the Member for St.

John's East mentioned; maybe not every fourth Wednesday, maybe every third

Wednesday, so that at least you have one Opposition side, one government side

and then granted, the third one would be an Opposition one but it would be a

motion put forth by the Opposition not drawn for by the Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: Or someone could defer it if it was really

important.

MR. SIMMS: Or somebody could defer, so you would have to

have some agreement written into the rules, which we could then agree upon. So,

if the Member for St. John's Centre would argue that in his caucus, and get the

Government House Leader - it is too bad, I say to the Member for St. John's

Centre, he wasn't dealing with the former Government House Leader. I say to the

Member for St. John's Centre, if he were dealing with the Member for Gander, the

former Government House Leader, I bet you we would not be even debating it here

today to begin with, we wouldn't even be discussing it, it would be all done

with the support and co-operation of members on both sides of the House. That

would be my guess, because I know the Member for Gander could care less about

having had the privilege of having to stand every second Monday and decide and

announce on the government members Private Members motion. Sure, he is not even

a Private Member. The Government House Leader who announced and presumably made

the decisions on the government side, the Private Members resolution was not

even a Private Member!

AN HON. MEMBER: Quasi- (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, he is not even - well, he is a

quasi-Cabinet Minister but that's as far as I will go on it at this stage. He is

not a Private Member, he is in the Cabinet. The Opposition House Leader, of

course, is a Private Member he is not in the Cabinet so it is quite different

and quite a different circumstance.

I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, we are going to

have to leave it to you people on that side to work out the problems that you

have over on that side in dealing with the Government House Leader and probably

with the Premier I suspect, and there is a third one, I am not going to say it,

the Member for St. John's Centre wants to know who this other character is who

is a close confidante of the Premier's and the Government House Leader's.

Everybody on that side wants to know who is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that's for sure. As a matter of fact,

there is none over there who could admit to it because there are none over there

who is a close confidante of the Premier and the Government House Leader, with

one, other, possible exception, and regrettably, it isn't the man who should be

there providing advice. It isn't the Member for Twillingate, I know that, I am

positive of that, absolutely certain. It isn't the Member for Windsor - Buchans,

of that I am absolutely certain; it is not the Member up in the back, for

Pleasantville; it is not the Member for St. John's Centre. The Member for

LaPoile has the possibility of being in that category, let me say; he loves to

cosy up to the Premier and things of that nature but he is not the third one.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. He is not the third one. I will say this

to you, Mr. Speaker, the third one, to the Member for St. John's Centre, the

third person sits in the front benches on the government's side. Now the front

benches in this kind of a way, you have to include the bench behind the

Government House Leader, that's the front bench as well, from a technical

perspective, but the real answer is staring the Member for St. John's Centre

right squarely in the eyes, if he looks straight ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he is getting very close now, so if the

Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Twillingate, the Member for Fogo

and all these other members over there who last fall had so much difficulty

getting agreement from the Government House Leader to put their Private Members

resolutions through, were dealing with the Member for Gander, the Deputy

Premier, the former Government House Leader, the matter would be resolved.

All I can say to him is that the concept he advocates I

support in principle, with a few slight variations along the lines of that which

I mentioned. I will not be here in a few weeks time but I have talked to our

House Leader, who unlike the Government House Leader, is somebody you can talk

to, I say to the Member for St. John's Centre, and I get an indication from him

and a few of my other colleagues that those kind of changes he advocates, if he

can get them through his own caucus, and the Government House Leader talks to

our House Leader, there is every reason to feel comfortable about getting an

open hearing on it because we are quite supportive of that kind of approach. We

do not really have a big problem with it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, with those few brief remarks I will sit

down.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to delay this debate very long. There are just

a couple of other points I would like to bring to the attention of the

Government House Leader, if I could get his attention for just a moment. I note

that the final clause of the amending legislation deals with changing the hours

of sitting in accordance with our practice over the past number of years, and

reviewing it. That makes all kinds of sense. If the minister would look at our

own Standing Orders, Page 2 and 3, the bottom of those pages,

Section 7 and 8,

which deal with the hours of sitting, the minister will see that

Section 7 deals

adequately with Fridays, which says: if the business of the House is not

concluded at 12:00 o'clock, with the change, then the Speaker shall leave the

Chair until 2:00, which is fine.

In other words if we are not finished at noon and the motion

is that the House not adjourn, then we carry on until 2:00 o'clock. I do not

have any problem with that. But

Section 8 which deals with other days says that

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: Unless the closure rule is in operation.

These are days other than that - deals with days when we come back 5:00 to 7:00,

and now we go from 7:00 to 10:00.

AN HON. MEMBER: So Friday we are here until 10:00.

MR. WINDSOR: On Friday we will be here all weekend. There

is a sentence left out here. There is one that needs to be added to provide that

on Friday we adjourn at 5:00 o'clock. We sit from 2:00 to 5:00 on Friday and

from 7:00 until 10:00 on other days, just so we do not lose a couple of our

weekends somewhere along the way, Mr. Speaker. I ask that maybe that correction

be made.

My only other comment would be, in dealing with the question

that the Leader of the Opposition just referred to, which was dealing with the

methodology, I guess, and the Member for St. John's Centre, the methodology of

deciding Private Members' motions and how they would come forward. I wonder why

government has not referred back to the fairly detailed study that was done in

1990 and the report of a Standing Orders Committee tabled in the House on

December 6, 1990 which gave a tremendous number of areas of review, some of

which are adopted in whole, or in part?

On the issue of Private Members' Day, it provides for a

random draw. Perhaps I will just go through it quickly. It says, each motion

will be debated for one day only, which is in accordance with the change we are

making now. It says the mover of the motion would have twenty minutes debating

time in opening the debate and fifteen minutes in closing, and other speakers

would have twenty minutes debating time. We are now changing that to fifteen

minutes for all speakers, and I do not have any objection to that, Mr. Speaker.

It also says, under this proposal a list of names of members

wishing to introduce motions for debate would be established through a random

draw alternating from one side of the House to the other, conducted by the Clerk

of the House. In order for the motion to be debated it would not have to be

given until Monday before the day of the debate. In other words all members of

the House, be they government backbenchers, opposition backbenchers, or

independent members, could submit motions that they wish to have debated and the

order would be chosen by a random draw, so that neither government nor the

Opposition has control over that.

That is fairer to the individual member but it is probably

not as favourable to either government or the Opposition in trying to bring

forward motions that are important, and particularly issues that come up such as

perhaps issues relating to the fishery, or something that is really topical of

that particular day. On the other hand one could argue that there is always room

for emergency debate. A motion could always be made under some Standing Order, I

forget the number now, to adjourn the Orders of the Day. Standing Order 32, or

something of that nature, which provides for an emergency debate on any issue,

and that can be brought forward by any member, either government or Opposition.

There is provision there in the case of an emergency. I just

bring that to the House's attention that this is a recommendation that has come

from a standing committee of the House of Assembly. I also say to government

that there are a lot of good suggestions in here, not all of which I agree with

personally, but nevertheless this is a report of a standing committee of the

House of Assembly on our Standing Orders. Government should consider adopting

this in whole or in part, or otherwise maybe appointing another committee to

review this report, update it to today, and see if we can't change many of the

Standing Orders. Which are really archaic in many cases, which are inadequate in

most cases, so that we find ourselves continuously referring to Beauchesne and

practice either in Ottawa or in the British parliament.

I think it is long overdue. We have enough experience of

those areas where we are having problems that we should deal with them

ourselves. Lets put them in the Standing Orders so we know what we are dealing

with. There are several things that I've really forgotten the details now, but

over the last year or two, that I personally was frustrated with the

manipulation - I say manipulation, not unkindly - but manipulation of the rules

of the House so the government accomplished what they wanted to do. That is the

name of the game, and that is their right, and our right to also manipulate and

stop the government from doing what they want to do. But there were a couple of

areas here where by motion government has overruled basically our Standing

Orders or precedent and referred to precedents where we probably did the same

thing when we were on that side of the House. That is fair ball. Nevertheless,

obviously it defeats the intent of the Standing Orders, and it defeats what we

are trying to do here, to be fair and to conduct the business of the House

properly.

So I say, while I don't have a problem with these amendments

that are being proposed, with the one extra amendment I've suggested to the

Government House Leader to deal with Friday, I would recommend that we should

really have a good look at the report that was done and updated and bring in a

complete new set of revisions to make our Standing Orders more applicable to

today's world, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand no other member

wishes to speak. My understanding is if I speak that concludes the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) you will close debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me thank the members who've spoken in

the debate and added to the sum of the wisdom and experience brought to bear on

this issue, because it is an important one.

There were a number of matters I would like to respond to. I

will be quite brief. Let me deal first with the points made by my friend for

Mount Pearl. I think he made some excellent points. I've had a look at the 1990

committee report, a committee chaired by my friend for Mount Scio - Bell Island,

if memory serves me correctly, with members from both side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I say to my friend for Mount Scio -

Bell Island, it was a good report. There are a number of areas which in my

judgement we should move on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for St. Mary's - The Capes thinks

it is good for nothing. I would simply say to him that there are some matters at

least at which he should defer to those who've been here before him. He might

talk to his colleagues on his own side. There are some quite good suggestions in

that report which would improve the functioning of the House and the ability of

members to speak, and the ability of the House to decide. We must remember the

House has always these two functions.

I say to my friend for Mount Pearl and to others, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a matter that we are giving attention to. It is sometimes

difficult. There is a rule in administration an old friend of mine tells me,

that the immediate displaces the important, and that is very often true in the

business of running the House as in so many other things.

I guess what I would say to my friend the Leader of the

Opposition with respect to his remarks are two points. I've been in the House

for a bit, as people are fond of reminding me. In the thirty years or more that

I've been following public life in this Province from different points of view -

sometimes up, sometimes down, and sometimes in between - I have learned a few

things, I hope. Usually the hard way, but I've learned one or two things. One of

them is summed up in a very old adage: to beware of Greeks bearing gifts. That I

think comes from the story of the Trojan Horse. The Trojans accepted the gifts

brought by the Greek, namely the Horse, and when they got the Horse inside Troy

the soldiers poured out and destroyed Troy. I wouldn't call my hon. friend the

Leader of the Opposition a horse, or even part of a horse, but I would say to

him that when he makes these suggestions such as he made here, he is in the

position of a Greek bearing gifts. I say to my friends here, we are Trojans. We

work like Trojans, and we also should show the wisdom of Trojans in not paying

any attention to the Greeks bearing gifts. So with all due deference to my

friend from Grand Falls, the Leader of the Opposition, I thank him for his

remarks and tell him that we shall give them the consideration which they merit.

Mr. Speaker, let me go on to say one other thing to my friend

from Grand Falls. I would refer him to a well-known poem - I think it was

written by John Greenleaf Whittier, but I confess I may be wrong on that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I have never been inside a Trojan, I say to

my friend from Burin - Placentia West; he may have. I will let him speak to that

point. I will let him get his head around that issue, and then speak to what is

on the point.

Your Honour, what I wanted to say is that I would remind

members of that well-known American - it happens to be an American poem, but a

good one all the same - that comes to my mind when members opposite are cutting

up on me, and I guess that is one of the burdens that comes with being the

Government House Leader. My friend from Gander consoles me on occasion by

pointing out the names he was called when he was Government House Leader, and

when I start the cry of `Bring back Baker', he says: Hold on, now, remember what

they used to say about me.

I would say to my friend from Grand Falls, the Opposition

Leader, in the words of the old poem, Barbara Frietchie: Shoot if you wish this

old grey head, but spare your country's flag, she said.

So shoot if you wish this old grey head, but spare your

country's flag, I say to gentlemen and members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of other points.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Exploits that if he

is not careful we will cut him off the Cabinet committee, and that is the end of

his travel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I will take my hon. friend's word for that.

Your Honour, Opposition days are a matter that I believe we

should consider carefully. I suggested this many years ago when I sat to Your

Honour's right, as I did for many years in this House. My recollection is that

the government of the day, led by such luminaries as the gentleman from Grand

Falls, rejected the idea out of hand. It is amazing how circumstances change

when the people move just a few short feet from the seats that occupy the

benches to Your Honour's left to those that sit directly across the House to the

right, but I could go back through Hansard, and I could find the gentleman from

Grand Falls, and the gentleman probably from Mount Pearl, if he was there in

those days. In fact, the gentleman from Mount Pearl predates the gentleman from

Grand Falls, and will be here after the gentleman from Grand Falls has gone into

some form of eternal reward, whatever form it may take. It will certainly be

eternal; whether it's rewarding or not remains to be seen, but speaking

eloquently and rejecting the very notion of Opposition days, what I say, as one

who has served in the House for a bit, served on each side, that there is

considerable merit to the idea, and I think we should look at it.

Your Honour, that brings me to just one or two other points I

want to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I have to say to my friends, my

friends thing this is bad; the gentleman from Mount Pearl follows me, so there

you go.

I would make a point, I have heard a lot about Private

Members and the role they play, and I agree with almost everything that has been

said. I certainly agree with the thrust and the gist and the heft of what has

been said, but let me just remind members on both sides, there are any number of

ways in which members who do not sit in the government can make their points in

debates in one form or another.

Petitions: now petitions in this House tend to get abused,

tend to become the sort of argy-bargy that we see from time to time, but they

are nonetheless a way in which a member of the House may raise a point, have it

brought forward in the House and discussed, and the House address it.

Questions: my friend from St. John's Centre showed the other

day what a well-phrased, thought out question can do. I would suggest to hon.

gentleman opposite that they may try to emulate him.

Of course, we have the debates on supply - Interim Supply,

Supplementary Supply, Main Supply - as well as the Throne Speech, and these are

wide open debates to give members every opportunity.

Your Honour, I must make two other points before I sit down.

The first is that I want to draw to members' attention, there is a misprint in

the resolution as it appears on the Order Paper. I say to my friend from Grand

Bank, if one looks at clause 53.1 (8), in the fifth line, the word `other'

appears. It should not appear. It should read: ...to the number of the Members

who sit in the Opposition.

Now the effect of leaving the word `other', which was in an

earlier draft and was taken out, effective leaving in the word `other', is to

increase the number of motions that go to the independent group and decrease the

number that go to the Official Opposition group, that's not the intention, the

intention is to be numerically fair, proportionately fair and that would be

achieved by having it read: "are called for debate in proportion to the number

of those members to the number of all the members who sit in the Opposition." I

gave an example in the House the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The word `other' should be dropped and, I

don't need to move an amendment. The Clerk tells me, Your Honour, that it is

simply a misprint, the resolution of which I gave notice in the House has it

correct.

Secondly, I would say to my friend from Mount Pearl, that his

point is a valid one about the Friday; if the House concurs, I suggest we simply

ask the Clerk to deal with that, assuming the motion is carried, when he deals

with it. The understanding is clear that the House sits Friday afternoon, it

adjourns automatically at five, unless the House by its procedure decides to

carry on, and my friend from Mount Pearl is nodding acquiesence.

The only other point I would make, Your Honour, is, I have

taken advice from the Table officers. The advice I get with which I concur is

that we should have a recorded Division, it is necessary for thirty-five members

to vote in favour of a rule change before it is made -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well if there are not thirty-five members

who are prepared to stand and vote and that includes - if my colleagues are not

here they can't stand and vote but what I would ask, Your Honour, is that we

take a standing vote, if Your Honour counts thirty-five there will be no need

for a recorded Division, if on the other hand, we need a recorded Division, I

shall ask the bells be rung and I can assure, Your Honour, that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Grand Falls, if he thinks for

about a moment. The House of Assembly Act says that the rules must require

two-thirds, not of those present and voting, of two-thirds of the members of the

House, thirty-five.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, sir, it says present. No, I am sorry, it

says members, members of the House, so there must be thirty-five affirmative

votes. The only way to note that is either for the Speaker to be able to certify

that thirty-five members have stood in their places or to have a recorded vote.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: It doesn't mean there are thirty-five here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If there are only twenty-nine in the House,

then there are not enough present to adopt the rule change. I haven't done a

count.

MR. SIMMS: If you ask for a vote on it -

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: - and there are no dissenting votes.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I don't

think that's the case. That is not the case. If we are going to adopt the rule

change, we must do it properly. The advice I have and certainly the advice I

give to the House is there must be thirty-five members present who vote Aye.

There must be at least thirty-five members present and if there are only

thirty-five, all must vote Aye. Now, I could do it, Your Honour, within the

rules by simply asking you to divide the House formally and that would be the

correct way to do it. If that's in order, I have said what I have to say in this

debate, I would -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) standing vote.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, if there are thirty-five members

present. I haven't done a count in the House; if there are not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, then I shall call Your Honour, within

the rules, three of my colleagues standing with me, as I hope will be the case

even as I speak -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Then we get on with it so, Your Honour, I

would ask that you put the vote, please.

MR. TOBIN: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I don't know if putting in a voice vote -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ring the bell. That is the first thing

you have to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The only think I would say is that, you

know, I have done a quick count; there were less than thirty-five members in the

House. I think for the Chair to say how many are in the House without a recorded

Division, I don't think there is any official certification as to how many

members are present -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but I just say I don't think there is

authority in our rules for me to make certification of how many members are

present and voting, I would have to know the numbers.

I say to the Government House Leader, is it the intent then,

to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I point out for hon. members that what the Government House

Leader said is that the Motion that is on the Order Paper does not represent the

notice that he gave and there is just one word that is taken out, so the Motion

we are voting on, in accordance, does not have the word `other' in sub-paragraph

53.1, sub-paragraph (8) and I take it there is no other amendment to take care

of the question raised by the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. SIMMS: Are we going to amend that now?

MR. SPEAKER: All in favour of the motion, `aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, `nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, carried.

I think the question is whether or not -

MR. ROBERTS: Could I ask, Your Honour, to ring the

Division bells?

MR. SIMMS: No need to ring the bells.

MR. SPEAKER: Bells?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, but we are just getting our exercise,

for maybe a minute or two.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, may I first of all - and I

think this will require a consent but the Clerk has drafted an amendment to

Standing Order 8, to take care of the point raised by my friend from Mount

Pearl. The wording I have been given is that we add, at the start of Standing

Order 8, these words: or at 5:00 o'clock on a Friday afternoon. Is that correct,

I say to the Clerk? If that is agreed I would ask that we amend the motion by

adding that as subsection (

c) of the motion. That would have the effect of

dealing with the point raised by my friend from Mount Pearl. If that is agreed

Your Honour, perhaps you could call the question on the amendment if you prefer

that or on the motion, as amended, as the House may wish?

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, if the Government House Leader

could repeat that, he said Standing Order -

MR. ROBERTS: The wording I have, Mr. Speaker, subject to

the Clerk, is to add at the start of Standing Order 8, now this is the problem

with doing things - (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: So that is the one that speaks to the

closure rule?

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) at 10:00 of the clock p.m. or at

5:00 p.m. on Friday.

MR. ROBERTS: Or at 5:00 o'clock on Friday afternoon. Add

the words: or at 5:00 o'clock. Standing Order 8 would then read, `At 11 of the

clock p.m., or at 5 o'clock p.m. on Friday afternoon, unless the closure order

be then in operation,' and then it would carry on. So if that is acceptable -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is good advise, for once. Perhaps then

Your Honour could call the vote?

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment please

signify by standing.

CLERK: The hon. the Government House Leader, the hon.

Minister of Education and Training, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment, Mr. Flight, Mr. Carter,

the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation, Mr. Lush, Mr. L. Snow, Dr. Kitchen, the hon. the Minister of Natural

Resources, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon.

the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney,

Mr. Crane, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Smith, the

hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. A. Snow, Mr.

Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Manning,

Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The amendment is passed, thirty-seven in favour, none

against.

All those in favour of the resolution please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Government House Leader, the hon. the

Minister of Education and Training, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment, Mr. Flight, Mr. Carter,

the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Mr. Lush, Mr. L. Snow, Dr. Kitchen, the hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the

Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture,

Mr. Walsh, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney, Mr. Careen, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr.

Gilbert, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Smith, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. W.

Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr.

Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harris.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When the vote was being counted I noticed that the Deputy

Clerk counted Mr. Tobin, but I didn't think he was standing at the time. Perhaps

I could ask the member to clarify, because we do need to know the exact numbers.

I believe a member is obligated if he is in the House to either vote for or

against.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the member is against the motion then.

The member's vote will be counted as against the motion then. So I will ask the

Clerk for an appropriate number, to do a count for us.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, thirty-five `ayes' and two `nays.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The resolution as amended was passed thirty-five for and two

against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, now that we've dealt with that

issue, before we go into the Budget debate, I wonder if the House would give

leave to revert to Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. I

understand my friend the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board proposed to

table some information that my friend for Mount Pearl would like to have before

the House, so I ask leave for that, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the House give its consent for the hon.

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to revert to Answers to Questions?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for this.

The information was ready but I didn't have time to check it. The Member for

Mount Pearl indicated that he would like to have it during his speech. This is

the information concerning the health care centres that has been put together. I

think it is most of what the member has asked for. Appendix I gives the

construction cost for each centre. The total is about $26.5 million. Appendix II

gives a

summary of the lease and sinking fund payments. The total thirty-year

pay out is just shy of $96 million. That includes everything, including the

sinking funds. That is the total, all of the payments. Appendix III shows the

details of these payments. In Appendix IV I added - and I know the member will

appreciate this as a comparison - the cost of the Newfoundland Enviroponics over

the same thirty-year period, and the total at the end of that.

Appendix V, which is the one that he was most interested in I

think, which gives more details of the other proposals, compares the cost of the

two brick-steel structures with the health care developers wood-vinyl structure,

which was determined by the Court in the initial decision to be the preferred

bidder. The only fair comparison, because of the differences in financing

methods, would be to take the total thirty-year pay out of all three proposals

and discount the total pay out by the Province's (inaudible) borrowing costs to

determine the present value of each proposal. That is the method that was

chosen. It shows obviously that between the brick-steel structures the

Trans-City proposal is by far the better proposal. It also shows, in comparing

the lowest brick-steel structure to the wood-vinyl, that it would have been

cheaper to go with the wood-vinyl by about $500,000. For this 2 per cent

difference, Mr. Speaker, we obtained more durable and long-lasting buildings

that more than compensate for the small difference in cost.

I would like to table this information.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could we please call

the Budget motion, which is Motion No. 1 on today's Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is going on here?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, I thought we were chasing Mr. Speaker

out but we are not. This is not the Committee of the Whole, this is the Budget

Debate. So the Speaker is deemed to have left the Chair but Your Honour stays

there and has the pleasure of dealing with the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for this

information which, through no fault of his own, was just given to me a few

moments ago. I appreciate the information so that I can have some comment on it

but obviously I am going to want to deal with it in far greater detail and have

an opportunity to analysis it, Mr. Speaker.

One point that the minister does make, he says: In comparing

the two brick/steel structures, the Trans City proposal is by far the better

proposal. I don't know if anybody ever questioned the fact that brick/steel is a

better construction material. I think we all know that. The question here was

why government did not ask for brick/steel in the first place. It is a matter of

record that tenders were called without specifying any material.

The real injustice here to the contractors, Mr. Speaker, who

were interested or involved in this whole contract, was that they were not told

up front that wood and similar structures were not acceptable and that the

government wanted brick and steel. The real injustice is that these people spent

hundreds of thousands of dollars probably, in preparing bids. As members know,

it is not just a matter of doing design, because they all had to do preliminary

lists of materials, bills of materials provided by the architects for the

project and the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, filling in

their numbers and bidding quotes on supply of materials and equipment and making

up their bid - which in itself is a costly process - but in this case they

indeed had to engage architects to do a design for them; then they had to engage

financial analysts to do a whole financial plan to come up with the least

payments in the amortization costs on borrowing; then they had to find the

borrowing because you can't put a bid in unless you have the financing in place.

So in order to get the necessary financial documents, the bid bonds that were

necessary, you actually had to raise the capital in order to bid and that is not

done here, that is done in Toronto. That kind of money is not available. You are

talking a total of $26 million.

So these developers in this case - building contractors

normally but now forced to be developers - were forced to go to Toronto or other

money capitals of the world and arrange financing, tentatively. And to do that

through the big capital investment companies, who raise that money for you,

there is a finders fee on that, 1 or 2 per cent that you have to pay out in

order to get that money in place. Even if it was 1 per cent, you are talking

$250,000 and I think it is 2 per cent in fact. I may be wrong but even if it is

1 per cent that is $250,000 that each one of those bidders had to pay out to

somebody in Toronto, win, lose or draw. That is not money they will get back. It

is money they were forced to invest because government failed to specify what

they wanted. If indeed - I think we should throw this question out - if indeed

government knew what they wanted.

I think it is a valid question that maybe they did not decide

what they wanted until they saw who had bid on what and who was the low bidder

on what. In other words, what they wanted was tailored to meet the bids after

the bids were received, Mr. Speaker, and that is where the Public Tender Act is

being violated. They called tenders and the specification of the tenders did not

say that wood with vinyl siding or anything else was not acceptable and since it

did not specify it was not acceptable then automatically you would presume that

any structure that meets the national building code is acceptable. What we had

were bids that were placed on this contract, bids that met the national building

code, met modern standards of design, and therefore were good and valid bids,

and they were not rejected because they weren't the lowest bid. They were

rejected because somewhere down the road somebody in government decided: We

don't want that type of building. We will accept brick and steel only.

Now I am surprised that the rest of these contractors who bid

on wood only haven't taken government to court to recover their costs because,

in my humble opinion - and I am not a lawyer; I am an engineer by trade - I am

not a lawyer, but in my view those people had a very legitimate claim against

government, far more clear, in my mind, than the claim that Health Care

Developers had, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that Health Care

Developers had the lowest bid and had every right to expect to be awarded that

tender; and, in so ruling, Judge Orsborn ruled that government violated the

Public Tender Act.

Now the minister today, with this information that he is

giving us - and again I say I am grateful for it but I am going to need some

time, obviously, to do an analysis of it - but it doesn't change the fact that

on the analysis that we have shown, using the minister's own figures, government

paid $36 million more for this building than they would have paid for the wood

building, or the proposal under Health Care Developers.

Any way you shake it, $36 million has been paid out that did

not have to be paid out, and I am comparing thirty-year leases versus

thirty-year leases. A present day value is the same thing. Thirty-year leases on

Health Care Developers' proposal adds up to $36 million than the thirty-year

leases on Trans City's proposal which was finally accepted. Any way the minister

tries to manipulate numbers, the answer has to come out to $36 million.

The minister confirms here that the actual cost is $96

million, and that gives a

summary of the lease and the sinking fund payments.

Now, there is a new one, that the minister indicated the other day that the

sinking fund payments are, indeed, included in that $96 million. That being the

case, then we are back to only $20 million, which is the actual difference in

cost between the final construction cost of one versus the other.

He is saying that under Health Care Centre's proposal it was

$26 million, and I think the numbers show Trans City's original cost with

estimates comes to $26 million. Well, I am going to have to look at this in more

detail, Mr. Speaker. These numbers don't in any way jive with the numbers that

were provided to us previously, so we will have to... Well, we will have to look

at the information in more detail before we can get into it.

The fact of the matter is that the Public Tender Act has been

violated. Also, now, we are finding out that these payments are made to

Confederation Life. Now, there is one piece of information that the minister, I

don't think, has given us, the interest rate being paid by Confederation Life.

Now, we are taking monies and putting it up front into Confederation Life, in

addition to the stream of lease payments which he has already told us, I think,

is at 9.25 per cent, the final figure that the minister had for lease payments,

and he tried to tell us that was the most favourable rate, and lower than

government's borrowing rate, because we have a Cabinet Minute that says:

Government may enter into a lease/purchase arrangement if the borrowing rate, if

the interest rate, applied to that financing is equal to or better than

government's own borrowing rate.

Now I documented here in the House of Assembly several months

ago that at the time the government was entering into this contract with Trans

City, at a rate of 9.25 per cent - or with Confederation Life - that at the same

time we were in the money market and borrowed, I think it was $100 million, and

the records will show, I had the accurate numbers then but I do not have them in

my head now. I have them in my files but I will not bother to dig them out

unless members want me to, but I think it was 8 per cent. We did a borrowing on

the money markets at 8 per cent, a full percentage point lower than that which

has been applied to this borrowing through the lease payments to Trans City, so

that again is a violation of a clear direction from Cabinet, a policy set by

Cabinet and documented in a Cabinet Minute. That has been tabled here in the

House so we have that in evidence. Not only, Mr. Speaker, are we violating the

Public Tender Act, but in my view we have also violated clear direction given by

Cabinet not to enter into a lease payment situation unless the rate was at least

as favourable, or more favourable, than government's own borrowing rate. We will

get into that in a little more detail in further days.

We did a review here, and again I will comment on this at

some time, on Enviroponics Limited, Newfoundland Enviroponics, total government

assistance $24 million.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What do they have that in there for?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, the minister thought he should compare

this because his defence is, he is trying to say: this is not so bad as compared

to Sprung. Mr. Speaker, at least Sprung created some 400 jobs for two or three

years, created millions of dollars of economic activity in this Province, but

unfortunately it failed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not going to defend Sprung, are

you?

MR. WINDSOR: I can certainly defend Sprung. I thank the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island but I do not need any protection from the

Member for Eagle River, but I do appreciate his help. As a resident of Mount

Pearl he knows full well the economic benefits that Sprung brought into this

Province, particularly in this particular region. Let me add that the majority

of employees at Sprung, by far the majority, were from well outside Mount Pearl.

In fact Sprung itself was not in Mount Pearl. It was actually in the historic

District of Kilbride. Sprung was actually located in the great District of

Kilbride.

The bottom line is that $24 million was paid out, by way of a

guarantee, to an industry that failed. It was not an overpayment by accepting a

bid that was against the Public Tender Act and was $24 million in excess of that

which could have been paid to build similar buildings by the lowest bidder, Mr.

Speaker. There is a big difference in putting up a risk. There are all kinds of

government loans and guarantees out that take the risk.

If there was not any risk involved private enterprise would

not have to come to government for financing. The banks and other financial

institutions would be happy to lend it to you. If there is no risk you can get

all the money in the world, Mr. Speaker, but if you go to a bank to borrow money

and you do not have that much money in your saving's account you can forget

borrowing it today. It is very difficult to borrow money.

So, the banks, Mr. Speaker, and I have said this in the House

many times, over the past couple of years, have very deliberately in my view,

transferred the risk to government, and every time companies, even those that

have existing loan guarantees, when they come to have those renewed, when that

comes up - not loan guarantees by the Province, but have existing loans through

the banks, when those loans come due and those companies want them extended, the

banks have come to say, yes, we are happy to extend it but you must get a

government guarantee, particularly in the fishing industry.

So over the past number of years dozens and dozens, perhaps

hundreds of loans that were in private placement before are still in private

placement but now government has guaranteed them and taken the risk. I have

called on government before, and to my knowledge no action has yet been taken,

to see what impact this makes. If a fish company has a loan from a bank and is

paying 10 per cent on that loan, and then all of a sudden comes in with a

government guarantee so that there is absolutely no risk to that bank or

financial institution, why should that company still be paying 10 per cent? Why

is there not a premium here? Why is government not getting, say a 2 per cent

premium, if there needs to be paid out? Why is the bank not paying the

government a 2 per cent premium for guaranteeing that loan? Government is taking

the risk? If a company wanted $1 million and I had $1 million and government was

going to guarantee the loan I would be happy to loan that company $1 million.

Solid, guaranteed money, you can't lose. The banks are taking absolutely no risk

and they are still getting the same rate of return as if they had accepted the

entire risk.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board - and I understood he was having some discussion with some of

the banks on this issue - but it is time we looked at that. To see if we can't

either get a more favourable rate, which would be a good incentive to business

and a good assistance to them, get a more favourable rate from the banks, in

view of government financing, or let government itself get some return on it.

Since every time we guarantee something it is a contingent liability on the

Province.

It reflects not in the overall public sector debt, but in the

prospectus of government there is an impact. When the money markets and the

credit rating agencies are looking at the Province, when they see that we have

huge contingent liabilities built up by way of loan guarantees for private

enterprise, that has a measure of impact on how they view the Province. That is

an issue that needs to be looked at.

What we are saying here is that the minister is trying to

tell us that Sprung cost $24 million. The loan guarantee pay outs in fact were

only $11 million: $3.5 million to NIDC, a demand note of $6 million, and then a

loan to purchase assets of $3 million. Total of $12 million more. So total

government assistance was $24 million. There was some $3.8 million written off.

The rate was 10.5 per cent for borrowing. The minister says: We would have paid

more for that had we been paying that thirty years and then we still owed it.

You are not comparing apples with apples. You are saying that is the interest we

are going to pay, and we still owe it. Let's put in place something that pays it

off over thirty years so that it is comparable to the present lease on the

hospitals.

Obviously if you are not paying any principle then your

interest payment accrues. The interest you pay on that is higher because you are

not reducing your principle at all. They are not comparing apples with apples

here, but we will indeed do that in due course so that we can - we will respond

tomorrow or the next day, when we've had an opportunity to go through the

minister's submission in some detail.

There is an issue that I wanted to just touch on briefly that

came up somewhat in the Estimates committees this morning. I forgot in fact to

get into it in detail before the committee rose and before I left the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You are glad. Again, I want to thank the

committee, which was very courteous in allowing me as finance critic to

participate in the debate. In fact, to lead off and gave me all the time that I

needed. I think that is appropriate, by the way, that Opposition critics have

the opportunity to go first. The committee members obviously have priority, but

the committee was most courteous to me today and I certainly appreciate it. It

certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the second time today

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Second time you've debated me today. You are

getting worried now. Somebody said beware of Greeks. I did appreciate that, and

I thought the committee hearings this morning went well, and the minister was

able to give us some information.

On one issue, rebate of taxes. I'm aware that there have been

a couple of cases where taxes have been rebated. The minister announced in his

ministerial statement today dealing with the Hiland Insurance fiasco that taxes

that had been paid on home and auto insurance policies that were not honoured -

in other words, if there was a twelve month policy and only six months had

expired by the time the insurance became null and void, obviously if that

insurance wasn't put in place then in fairness neither should taxes apply.

Unfortunately the policy holder may well have lost their portion of the premium

that was applicable to that final six months that wasn't honoured. Some of it

may be honoured through the insurance corporation but a lot of people, Mr.

Speaker, lost a fair bit of money on that. It is only fair, I say, that

government would rebate taxes that had been due and collected on that.

There are many other circumstances where private enterprise

gets involved in transactions on which taxes are due and payable. We all know

that the provincial sales tax is due and payable within thirty days. There is a

proposal that the minister has been tossing around of making it payable

immediately. In other words, you would have to put a trust fund in place to pay

the taxes up front, which in my view it is a crazy scheme and I won't get into

it in detail because I hope and I suspect that the minister is not going to

pursue that, because it is the most ludicrous thing that I have ever heard in my

life and I won't waste any time on it today, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on it

before and if it should ever arise, then I will deal with it again, but there

are many cases where, private enterprise do business transactions on which taxes

are due and payable.

They have to be paid in thirty days and as we all know, in

private business today, everybody tries to get their money in thirty days or

less, but it is quite often sixty days or ninety days, and in fact, many

government accounts are not paid for ninety days, so here on one hand the

government is saying: if taxes are due, you must pay them in thirty days or

there are penalties and interest charged and on the other hand, government will

take thirty days to pay that amount, so if you are selling something that is

being applied to a government contract, you are not getting paid for the service

you provide but you must pay the tax on it. Now, that's hardly fair. If

government is going to insist taxes are paid in thirty days, they should insure

that their payments are made within thirty days. What's good for the goose is

good for the gander, Mr. Speaker.

But what is even worse, if you sell a piece of equipment to

another private enterprise, you have to pay the tax on that immediately as if it

were collected, even though it is simply invoiced out where you have to pay that

tax within thirty days, but if then, that private enterprise goes into

receivership, goes into bankruptcy and you never get paid for that, or if, for

whatever reason, it becomes a bad debt, there is to my knowledge no provision to

reclaim the taxes that you have already had to pay, so it might have been a year

ago - this could go on for a year, obviously, but it could have been a year ago

that you sold a piece of equipment and you paid the taxes on it within thirty

days after, and here, a year has gone by, you have paid for that equipment, you

have paid the taxes on it, you have not been paid for the equipment. Had you

been paid for the equipment obviously you would have received your taxes back

too, but now you find, I have to write off the piece of equipment as a bad debt

and I can't even get back the taxes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that is totally unfair because if

that piece of equipment were sold but never paid for, it could hardly deem to

have been sold and so what you are saying is that the private enterprise is

taking all of the risks for government. Not only are you financing it up front

for any period of time after thirty days that you are not paid for it, so you

are financing the taxes for that period after thirty days but you are also

accepting the risk that it might never be paid, so in other words, government

accepts no risks, except to you I suppose, you could argue that. Well the risk

is that you might never pay it, you collected it for us but never paid it; but

it can't be transferred down the line, to the person who is ultimately

responsible and so we have people who are innocent, who made a sale, who are

penalized and who suffer because they don't get paid for it - the minister

should be listening to this because it is his department that is ultimately

responsible - that they don't get paid for the product, the service that you

provided but you still have to pay the taxes and you can't get a rebate on that.

Well the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board should really

take a look at that, Mr. Speaker, because that is really unfair and there are

many cases where that has very, very seriously impacted on small companies

trying to do business here in this Province. I understand, even if the equipment

say, is recovered through receivership, even if you are able to get your piece

of equipment back, taxes are still paid on it and there is no mechanism in place

to get those taxes refunded. You got the product back, it is not there. It will

be interesting to get some more detail on that.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask a couple of questions of the

minister, as he is coming back, on the consolidated fund. Just in looking

through the Estimates on the consolidated funds, a couple of things came to

mind.

On Temporary Borrowings, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. We

budgeted $100,000 last year and we actually borrowed in Temporary Borrowings

$160,000. Thousands, or is that millions? Thousands, I would think. We budgeted

Temporary Borrowings of $100,000 and we actually had Temporary Borrowings of

$160,000. We are estimating $175,000 this year. These are the debt expenses,

sorry, these are not the amounts borrowed. These are the debt expenses

associated with Temporary Borrowings. So our debt expenses went up by 60 per

cent and we are projecting to go 75 per cent over and above last year's Budget

this year.

At the same time on Treasury Bills the debt expenses went

from $14 million to $18 million and we are projecting $29 million. Maybe the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board would like to listen to this, to what I'm

saying here.

Section 1.1.01 on page 5 of the Estimates, I say to the minister.

Perhaps he would just have a look at this. He can respond in due course, or I

will give him leave to respond if he has the answers now.

Under Temporary Borrowings the debt expenses, budgeted at

$100,000, we actually spent $160,000, and project $175,000 for this year. For

debt expenses dealing with Temporary Borrowings. At the same time Treasury

Bills, we budgeted $14 million and actually spent $18 million, in round figures,

and we are projecting $29 million this year.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) we've increased our treasury bill

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: But why have we increased Treasury Bills, I

ask the minister. Alright?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I could accept the minister's

explanation somewhat if I didn't look down the page and see that in Temporary

Investments we actually increased the amount that we earned on Temporary

Investments. That tells me that there is poor management here. We've increased

Temporary Borrowings and we've also increased Temporary Investments. So while

we've earned more on investments we've paid more on borrowings. That tells me

that we could have, by better management, reduced both the interest that we earn

on investments and the amount we paid on borrowing. Because we are going to pay

a higher rate on borrowings than on investments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will yield for a moment if

the minister wants to answer. If we can get - there's Jack, Jack is coming

running back to his booth. If he could turn on the minister's microphone so we

can get this on the record. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the minister.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a balance between the

various methods of borrowing money. We don't want to have our foreign currency

exposure go too high. We are probably at 40 per cent now and that is reaching a

limit. We would like to have more floating rate debt rather than fixed rate debt

anyway at this point in time, so we increased our treasury bill borrowings.

Which meant we are borrowing less in terms of foreign, the United States, or

elsewhere in Canada.

The Temporary Investments, we have to - one other point

before I go on to that. Also during the year the interest rates rose fairly

considerably. Okay? That accounts for some of the increases in the expenditures

here, which are in essence interest expenses.

However, the Temporary Investments also profited from rising

interest rates. The real interest rates are fairly high right now. Also, we have

to keep a certain float on hand, if you want to call it that. You don't want

your account dipping down too much below zero. When it does it should be only

temporary, for a day or so, or part of a day, or whatever, because of cash flow.

You always keep so much in short-term investments. It is usually prudent to keep

it above $100 million. Sometimes it drops down pretty low, but it is usually

prudent to keep it over $100 million in case of emergency needs and in case you

have difficulty going to the market.

That is not going to be as much of a problem this year

because we only had to borrow $100 million to turnover, and therefore we can

perhaps lower our float a bit, our Temporary Investments a bit. The increase

there is I believe quite normal and does not indicate bad management. It

indicates that at this point in time we didn't want to go into any more foreign

debt. The kind of debt we wanted, Canadian debt, was the floating rate debt at

this point in time. We thought it was prudent to have a little bit more of that.

That I believe explains that.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for his attempt to explain it, but I

have to say to him that it doesn't explain it at all. I think he only confirmed

what I was saying. I am just curious, to the minister, why we would want so much

floating debt at this point in time. Interest rates are probably as low as they

are going to be for the next number of years, in my view. Maybe the minister and

his officials predict something other than that, but conventional wisdom is that

interest rates are not going to go down unless there is something drastic

happens to strengthen the economy of the United States.

Most people today are locking in their borrowings at today's

rate. Now they have gone up a little bit in the last two or three months, but

over the past year rates were down fairly favourably.

The minister just made the next point I was about to bring

forward. He just confirmed that our borrowing program for next year is going to

be down tremendously, so we don't have the same exposure to fluctuations in the

market. You don't need as big a cushion because you are not going to borrow so

much. Yet, your temporary investments are going to go up to $8.2 million in

cost, a 30 per cent increase over your budget for this year, and, as the

minister just pointed out himself, quite accurately -

MR. BAKER: That is revenue (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is revenues, which means that you have

more money invested, which means that you have more money invested but you are

still borrowing more on temporary borrowings, and paying the debt costs on that.

So what I am saying to the minister is that if we accept what he said, that $100

million is probably a fair cushion to have invested at most times, to try to

stay at or slightly above $100 million, but with the decreased borrowing program

for this year, obviously we don't need to have the same amount there at any one

time.

The minister wants to respond. I will yield again.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The hon. gentleman is right in his analysis.

As a matter of fact, I am hoping - I am just keeping my fingers crossed - that

perhaps we may not, indeed, have to go to the market this year. Perhaps we could

even forego borrowing that $100 million. Now, I know that is a big hope. I don't

know if we will reach that point, but perhaps because of the float that we have,

and because of what we had at the end of the year in terms of temporary

investments, we might, in fact, as the year goes on, if we have a little bit of

luck through the year, we may be able to forego borrowing. That would be a

momentous occasion where for one year you wouldn't even have to do any turnover.

That is absolutely amazing, but that might, in fact, be...

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister must be hoping the

tooth fairy is going to come back the second time, two years in a row. We saw

how fortunate he was so far this year in the one-shot deals that are coming out;

or maybe he is putting all of his apples into the one barrel and hoping that he

can convince the federal government to change their position on transfers.

Unless the minister knows something that he hasn't told us, he did say in the

the cutbacks in transfer payments, to change the policy on transfer payments to

be more favourable to the have-not provinces, and while that is a commendable

objective, I suspect the odds of success are about the same as Lotto 649. I

don't think you are going to see it, not in today's economic climate, not with

all the negotiations on with Quebec, unless, I suppose, Quebec could be in the

same class as Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Quebec is a have-not province.

MR. WINDSOR: They are a have-not province, that is right,

so we might do that to keep Quebec happy a little bit. Anything that parallels

you with Quebec this year is a good position to be in. That is another issue

that I could speak on, but I would probably only get myself and the whole

Province in trouble if I were to speak honestly and openly on my feelings on the

whole Quebec situation, so I will resist that temptation, at least for now.

Mr. Speaker, is the minister really putting a lot of his

hopes for a balanced Budget - now he is even saying they are not going to borrow

the $100 million. That is almost too good to be true. It would be wonderful, I

say to the minister, if that could indeed happen, but it would indicate one of

two things: either we have some windfall again, a one-shot deal, maybe we are

going to sell Confederation Building, something of that nature, but there is not

a lot left to sell of great value.

We are not going to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I

think that is pretty clear. That one is off the books. I think we can breathe a

for cancelling the PUITTA clause which made it somewhat attractive to private

enterprise.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) Alberta that he was going to

review that decision or something.

MR. WINDSOR: That is one of the good decisions. So it is

not attractive there, Mr. Speaker. I don't know where this great windfall is

going to come from unless the transfer payments change, unless we are expecting

Terra Nova to go full steam ahead and we are going to have another 3,000, 4,000

or 5,000 people employed all of a sudden at some huge, huge industrial venture

like that and we would all love to see that, Mr. Speaker. That would be the kind

of injection of stimulation in the economy that we would all love to see.

Hibernia, by the way, is going full steam ahead and it is a

tremendous benefit to this Province. If we had not had the kick in the