December

3, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 77

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to advise the House that tomorrow I will be

making a Ministerial Statement. There were no changes in our plans necessary

because of the federal statement so we plan to go ahead tomorrow and do a

financial statement. The mechanism and so on will be worked out by the House

Leaders.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Minister of Finance. For some time now, we have been asking the minister to

consider renewing the consumer confidence and the investor confidence by taking

steps to stimulate the private sector, and to provide incentives for job

creation and investment of private capital. Last evening, the federal Minister

of Finance took some courageous steps, I believe, designed to do just that and

in so doing, showed great confidence in the economy and in the people of Canada.

The Premier obviously disagrees. Will the minister tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether

he is prepared to follow the federal minister's lead and take similar measures

aimed at stimulating the economy? Will he reduce expenditures rather than

increase taxation for the people of the Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We agree that the stimulus to the small business sector is

certainly an excellent way to ensure job creation in the country. I agree with

that. I would like to point out to the hon. member that our ability to stimulate

is limited and that he will see in the statement tomorrow what we intend to do.

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

MR. WINDSOR: We recognize full well that the financial

position of the Province leaves him in difficulty and that his room to manoeuvre

is somewhat limited; therefore, will the minister take the advice that we have

been giving? Will he use the private sector as the motor to stimulate the

economy of the Province and to improve the economic climate in this Province for

businesses to participate in? In particular, Mr. Speaker, will he eliminate, or

at least, greatly reduce the payroll tax which is a disincentive to business and

industry in this Province? Will he provide some investment tax credits, taking

the lead from the federal minister last night? Will he re-institute the

three-year tax holiday for new small businesses in this Province to give

businesses an opportunity to begin doing business? Will he reduce the excessive

corporate and consumer taxes in the Province to further stimulate the economy

and consumer confidence?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would dearly love to eliminate all taxation and wish I

could. Mr. Speaker, we have been taking advice from a lot of people. Through the

course of the last year we have had many meetings with groups all over this

Province. We have received submissions in terms of the financial condition of

the Province. We have listened to advice from the officials within finance and

within government, we have listened to advice from individuals in the financial

communities outside the Province, as well as within. We have listened to all

that advice and quite recently, I might point out to the hon. member, I have

been getting an awful lot of very sound advice from the people sitting on this

side of the House, so, Mr. Speaker, all these things will be taken into

consideration.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, will the minister take some

sound advice from economists across Canada, who have been saying that the way

out of the recession is to do some spending on infrastructure, on capital works;

and we realize full well the ability of the Province to borrow, we realize the

impact that could have on our credit rating. The impact on the Federal

Government of borrowing is far more serious, Mr. Speaker, in view of the

percentage of the federal dollar that is spent on debt as compared to the

provincial dollar being spent on debt. Will the minister show some similar

courage, and will he immediately proceed with some of the capital works that he

announced, funding for engineering work recently? Would he move in that

direction?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, everything will be revealed in

due time. I should like to point out to the hon. member that we have a concern

about our low credit rating, about our ability to stimulate to the level that we

would like to do; I would like to point out to the hon. member that this

morning, economists have been giving a number of different views. The

predominant view seems to be that what was done in Ottawa last night, was a kind

of balanced approach and there was not a lot of stimulation provided, because

the impression has been given by these same economists, that the North American

economy is on the way out of the recession, and that the approach followed by

the Federal Government was, in fact, the middle-of-the-road approach that was,

at this point in time, correct.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is so

confident that we are getting out of the recession, let him show some courage

here. Will he do this, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact that the Government of

Canada announced last night, they will proceed with the reduction in personal

income tax that had been previously announced - that that will not be stopped -

will the minister now tell the House and tell the people of this Province that

he will not impose the 1.5 per cent increase on personal income tax that he has

scheduled for this January, which will more than neutralize the positive impact

of the Federal Government reduction? Will he now cancel that raise in income tax

in January?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has taken

certain measures to create an effect across this country and we hope that we

will be part of that effect and we will see positive measures in this Province

over the next few years. I would like to remind the hon. member that, in the

interim, our problem - one of the very important aspects of our problem, is a

credit rating problem, and although the hon. gentleman indicates ways in which

we can spend more and more money and reduce more and more taxes, at the same

time, he has the luxury of saying: Don't go out and borrow a lot of money. Mr.

Speaker, he has that luxury of being able to take both sides of the question - I

don't have that luxury.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Premier. This morning, people in Western Newfoundland were shocked to learn

that Lundrigan's receiver has accepted a bid from Ches Penney for the former

Lundrigan's Concrete divisions in Corner Brook and St. John's, instead of the

bid from a group of former Lundrigan's managers for the concrete business, the

gypsum plant and Atlantic Design Homes in Stephenville. Won't this put at risk,

not only the continued operation of the concrete business but also the future of

the North Star Cement plant in Corner Brook, since Ches Penney is already in the

concrete business in competition with Lundrigan's and is already in the cement

business in competition with North Star? What comfort can the Premier give to

concrete and cement employees in Corner Brook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, surely, even the hon. member

realizes that we cannot tell the receivers to whom to sell assets that they have

under their control. We have done everything reasonable and everything possible

within government's power to provide for the proposal that was developed. The

government acted, and acted expeditiously. As a matter of fact, I was speaking

with Mr. Harold Lundrigan earlier this morning. I have a meeting with him later

this afternoon to discuss the issue and see how the matter may be salvaged. We

cannot direct the receivers not to sell to private enterprise in this Province,

they have a perfect right to do. Private enterprise has a perfect right to

purchase. We put forward the assistance requested of government and made it

available and gave the assurances. Through a variety of problems or difficulties

involving the bank, the proponents, and so on, the matter was not able to be

realized amongst themselves. I will be pursuing further discussions with Mr.

Lundrigan, all with a view to try to find a means whereby the gypsum wallboard

plant may well be able to continue to operate.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, last Friday when the Premier told

the House of Assembly that the bid of former Lundrigan's managers had failed, he

said it was because the group couldn't meet their bank's request for an extra

$500,000. Is it ever possible that this Premier, who's supposed to be

representing the Bay of Islands, is going to allow Lundrigans' concrete

business, the North Star cement plant and the gypsum plant, to go down the tube

for the want of half a million dollars?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that in the end didn't turn

out to be the problem. They raised the additional half million dollars. There

was another problem, about which the hon. member obviously knows nothing.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier come clean with

the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Would the Premier give a direct answer? Would

the Premier own up to the fact that had the government increased its commitment

to the three western Newfoundland businesses that I mentioned - by less even

than he is spending to redecorate his office suite - those businesses could be

saved?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If she had listened to my answer instead

of working up the remainder of her venom she would have known that the question

she just posed has no value. It's totally without merit. The $500,000 was not -

capital N, capital O, capital T - not the problem. The $500,000 was arranged.

There was another problem about which the government could do nothing. The

government did what it had to do. There were other difficulties, and I have no

doubt in due course they may well be disclosed. People will then know. When they

do, perhaps even the hon. member will accept the proposition that it wasn't for

want of $500,000 extra that the government could have put in it. The government

agreed to put up $3.2 million by way of guarantee from the government to allow

the venture to occur. It wasn't for want of $500,000 that it failed. That was

arranged and in place.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier told the House of

Assembly on Friday morning that the problem was $500,000. He's denying that now.

Tell us what is the problem. Why did the bid of the former Lundrigans' managers

fail?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning, when I

gave the House that information, that was correct. At noon, things changed. The

$500,000 was arranged by afternoon and they were putting forward the proposal. I

didn't raise it. The government didn't put it up. I just say: it was raised by

other sources that put the financing up. That problem was dealt with by noon, I

think - around about noon on Friday I was advised of it.

As a matter of fact, because of the statement I had made in

the House on Friday morning I issued a news release indicating just that - later

in the day - indicating that the matter was back on track again.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a separate

question on a different issue for the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, what is the Minister of Justice's present

connection to the law firm, Halley Hunt? Is it true that the firm in which the

minister was a senior partner until last Winter, the firm to which the Wells'

government awarded the lucrative Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador contract

on a raw patronage basis, and which is still doing that work, is now paying the

Minister of Justice $10,000 a month?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation at all in

revealing the full answer to the question because there is nothing at all to be

ashamed of.

I have two connections to Halley Hunt. I am married to a

partner in that firm, and I am rather pleased, and I hope the lady to whom I am

married is pleased with it.

Secondly, when I resigned my partnership in the firm at the

end of January 1992, two weeks before I joined the Cabinet, I was owed a quarter

of a million dollars by that firm. Now I do not like going into my private

affairs, but the hon. lady did not even do me the courtesy to ask me outside the

House, so I will have to do this.

I was owed a quarter of a million dollars, this being my

account - my capital partnership account in that firm - representing money which

I had earned and which I had or was liable to pay income tax, which I had not

drawn because it was tied up in accounts receivable - not work in progress -

accounts receivable, or assets to which I had paid my share.

The arrangement that I had with that firm is the one that

every partner in that firm has, including those who went to the Bench, or others

who have withdrawn from the firm for one reason or another, and that amount is

paid out over two years - twenty-four months. It works out to a little more than

$10,000 a month, and in addition I get interest at the rate of one-half prime

plus one per cent.

Now I think these are pretty personal matters. I disclosed

them fully to the Premier, because he is entitled to know, before I came into

the Cabinet, and I do not mind saying them here in the House; but I must say to

the hon. lady that I do resent (

a) the tone of the question; and (

b) I resent

her complete lack of courtesy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I have nothing to hide.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I told the Premier. Who should I tell? Some

common gossip who told the lady for Humber East? I am telling the people now;

and Mr. Speaker, let me say, I will put -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: We will ask for your business affairs,

too, your personal business affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - my conduct in public life up against

anybody, including the hon. lady opposite. I can't ask her a question, but I

shall find out, if I can, how many times previous Premiers - Well, I won't, I

will go into that another time.

Let me say, that is the full and complete answer. If she does

not believe me, she can have the audited statements. I earned that money, I paid

tax on it.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. Leader of the Opposition makes fun.

I suppose he enjoys seeing a Minister of the Crown or a member standing up and

revealing personal affairs. Now, would he like to know how much my wife's share

of the partnership is? Would he like to know anything else like that, Mr.

Speaker? I don't mind, but my wife may. Mr. Speaker, I must say I resent low,

slimy, sleazy questions of that nature.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the Premier. I ask the Premier: Why has he

and his government left the Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador legal account

with the law firm Halley Hunt in which his Minister of Justice has a financial

interest? Why is the Premier violating his own stated conflict of interest

standard, his own lofty rhetoric of a couple of years ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is fairly

simple, and I would hope that all of the things that I understood were going to

be done have, in fact, been done. Mr. Speaker, we have put an end to patronage,

the kind of patronage -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I say again, Mr. Speaker, derisive

laughter is no substitute for intelligent comment, but if you are bereft of

intelligent comment maybe it is the only thing to which you can resort.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we will get rid of the derisive laughter

and the loud braying and baying, I will attempt to answer the hon. member's

question. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has found a way to put

an end to patronage in terms of allocation of legal work. We have issued -

MS. VERGE: Some (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If hon. members will listen, they will see

that it was done quite differently than when the hon. member was Minister of

Justice. We will dig out and make available to this House all of her patronage

appointments too, Mr. Speaker, each and every one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We will compare the standards of

behaviour. Have no fear, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is advised the legal

profession of all of the legal work that government and its agencies have to do.

We've advised every agency that's doing it that all existing contracts are to

terminate at the end of December.... is it?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: The end of this month. We have invited

proposals from law firms throughout the Province to provide the service to

government on the lowest cost basis. Now like consultant services or medical or

any kind of professional or accounting services, legal services are not the kind

of thing you can put into slots and say: it's four and half cents per pound, or

whatever. You have to judge it on a different basis. But we're inviting

proposals for the provision of legal services in exactly the same way as we

invite proposals for the provision of engineering services - to eliminate the

patronage from the system, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member who asked the question was Minister of

Justice for many years. Did we see reforms like that?.... not likely. I'll

attempt to find out and table before the House the level of patronage and who

got what, and how many are still there in fact, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: I'm attempting to recognise hon. members who

are standing.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier avoided

answering my question. The question is: why has he left the Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador legal account with Halley Hunt? Why is he allowing his

government to do business with a firm in which his Minister of Justice has a

direct financial interest? Why is he violating his own conflict of interest

standards?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I guess I didn't

go on to fill in. I told the House what we were doing. Now the alternative was

to take Halley Hunt out of it between now and the end of December, put in an

interim, and then take that interim out and put in the one who got the bid at

the end of December. It seems a little illogical. It ends as of December 31,

when all the others end, and they're replaced by those who were successful in

the proposal.

MR. ROBERTS: Tenders close tomorrow.

PREMIER WELLS: Tenders close tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, for

the provision, not only of that, of all of the legal services that (Inaudible).

For the first time in the history of this Province it's being done on a proper

basis, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Finance. While his government is bringing in legislation to

provide tax relief to Fortis Incorporated, will the minister confirm that his

own officials are requiring individuals to pay full sales tax on gifts that they

might receive, such as, for example, a motor vehicle? The minister knows of the

case of which I speak. His officials have interpreted the word "sale" in the

retail sales tax act to include a gift. An individual, one of my constituents,

is being required to pay $500 in sales tax for a gift given to her by a friend.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A tax system can only work

if it operates that way. Otherwise every transaction could be a gift, and a gift

could be obtained in return. So we could have an automobile agency for instance

giving me a gift of a car and I could give them a gift of $20,000. The system

has to operate that way. However, Mr. Speaker, there are certain relationships

where that does not apply. For instance, within a family. A transfer within a

family. That particular condition does not apply.

The hon. member has come up with a situation that may in fact

be unique. I have asked my officials to give me a full report on it and to

advise me whether or not I as a minister have the right to actually cancel the

tax on that transaction.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the

minister knows, or he would know if he checked, that there's nothing in the

retail sales tax act that makes a distinction between family relationships and

any other relationship, in relation to this matter. That what is really

happening is that his officials are making an

interpretation of a particular

section which really can't hold, and applying it to friendships, to other

relationships, but not to families.

This is in fact a discrimination against an individual who is

in a very difficult economic circumstance, Mr. Speaker, and one who also will

obtain an advantage of independence from having the ability to use a vehicle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to indicate that he is able to

instruct his officials to interpret the legislation properly and provide some

compassion in his government's administration of tax?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, we

cannot have a system of collecting taxes that is totally open to individual

interpretation. There are a set of regulations that are applied. If there are

reasons for exemptions, then these reasons are also obvious. I will repeat to

the hon. gentleman, that we cannot allow our tax system to be totally open to

people doing this kind of thing wholesale throughout the Province, that would

destroy the tax system and number two, I have asked for advice on whether I, as

Minister of Finance, have the right to give tax remission in this particular

case.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I asked a question in the House yesterday regarding an

indefinite postponement of the full grant system for school boards, and the

minister asked if I was quoting from a National Enquirer. I would like to inform

the minister that I quoted a letter from his deputy minister and this confirms,

Mr. Speaker, what I have been saying all along, that he is out of touch with

what is going on in his department. This is gross incompetence, and the question

I would ask is: in addition to the millions of dollars that have been taken from

school board funding, will the minister confirm that he intends to claw back

part of the school tax revenue collected from January to March? Will he confirm

that that is in the memorandum also?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain this to

the public because obviously the hon. member is going to put his own

interpretation on what has actually happened.

Newfoundlanders will know that last year this administration

abolished that curse called school tax. Now, Mr. Speaker, the cost of abolishing

school tax was in the vicinity of, I believe, $35 million, so we put an

additional $35 million into the grant system for all the school boards of the

Province, and the Province took over the responsibility then for collecting

outstanding school taxes. We bought their ledgers I suppose, as they say in the

business world, we bought their ledgers; we bought their ledgers and there were

taxes owed, and a lot of that taxes, Mr. Speaker, nobody really expected to

collect. But remember, this administration said if you paid it by a deadline,

some time in June, you could be excused half of whatever it was. As a result of

that, school taxes, which a lot of people never expected to ever see collected,

came in, and that went through the system. Now, some of the school boards, not

all of them, some of the school boards are saying: oh, that is our money, but,

Mr. Speaker, the government bought their ledger; we paid them for that money and

that money belongs to the taxpayers of this Province. To allow them to keep the

school taxes which are now coming in, would be paying double for the school

taxes and we do not intend to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the minister is

practising intellectual dishonesty. Now, will the minister confirm that boards

have been operating since March on a tentative budget, which is millions of

dollars below what is approved in the March Budget, and will he confirm that his

department now, intends to cut back even further by having a 1 per cent salary

reduction and a 3 per cent operating budget? Will he confirm that this is also

in the memorandum?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, when we

abolished the school taxes, we put in $85 or $90 million to deal with the grants

to school boards. Mr. Speaker, there was a system devised in terms of reference

for us to deliver that money. The department knew as school boards know, that it

was impossible for us to work through the whole system to have ready to give to

the boards their notifications in July when they normally get their

notifications, so, Mr. Speaker, in July, all boards were given a tentative

allocation. I would tell the hon. member, that that tentative allocation, in no

case, was less than 8 per cent more than any board had ever received in the

history of Newfoundland and Labrador - no board. The tentative allocation - in

no case was anybody going to get less than 8 per cent. That still stands. In

some cases boards tentative allocation was as high as 15 per cent. Now that was

the tentative budget. Some boards interpreted that to mean that maybe we might

get a few more dollars down the road. Maybe they will and maybe they will not.

That depends on how we work out the details.

As for the 1 per cent and the 3 per cent reduction, we cannot

exempt the Department of Education and ask the Department for Health for a

rebate of one and three. We want to do this without discrimination. All of the

Province has to deal with this problem we are in, and educational boards, like

health boards, like all other boards, are asked to come up with the one and

three, and I personally have no problem with that. If it were the other way

around I would have a problem because we would then be accused of

discrimination.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows; his department has letters; the school

board knows; and I know, and I have letters that indicate that their funding

this year will be below the level of funding that they even got in the tentative

budget, and there are letters and documents to that effect in his department.

Let me ask the minister this question: Given the fact that

his government has been planning for three-and-a-half years for elimination of

school tax, which has made this new grant system necessary, why did he not do

the necessary preparation in March when they decided to do away with the school

tax? Is this more gross incompetence now that delays are occurring at the last

minute, when he knew three-and-a-half years ago?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when we abolished the school tax

we told the people of this Province that as a result of the abolition of the

school tax no board would receive less money than they had received last year.

That would include a grant plus school tax. I stand by that. There is no board

in this Province which is receiving less than 8 per cent more than they received

last year. I stand by that. Now, if the hon. member wants to try to read

something into that, I cannot help that, but no board has received less than 8

per cent more than they received last year. As I pointed out about other

questions, school boards are asked to deal with their operations at the one and

three formula, like everybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome a couple of

student groups today. The first group we would like to welcome is comprised of

thirty students from the district of Harbour Grace. They are from St. Peter's

Elementary School in Upper Island Cove, and they are accompanied by their

teachers, Mrs. Judy Adams, Mr. Winston Lynch and Mr. Norm Mugford. The second

group of students come from Woody Point, from Bonne Bay High School in the

district of St. Barbe, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Kirk Anderson

and Ms. Jennifer Parsons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the appropriate

place -

section 23(1) of the Legal Aid Act says that the Auditor General shall

audit the accounts of the Legal Aid Commission and

Section 24 says that I am to

lay the reports referred to in

section 23(1) before the House of Assembly. I

have here the Auditor General's report and the statements of the commission for

the year ended, 31 March 1991, which I tabled in accordance with that

requirement. We haven't made seventy-five copies available because we stopped

the paper chase but there are copies available for the press and for any hon.

member who wishes one. All that is necessary is to send word to the Clerk in the

usual way, Sir.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question in the

House about a week ago, ten days ago, by the Member for St. John's East

concerning a matter of home repairs in the district of Bellevue. Mr. Speaker, I

think the question, if I got the gist of it properly, was concerning the

sequence of the timing of the approval and completion of the work that was in

progress. Mr. Speaker, the request for repairs from these two individuals was

received by NLHC on October 9 in St. John's and that request was faxed into the

Clarenville office on October 14. Four estimates for repairs were received and

they were considered to be excessive so the other quotes were requested. Those

estimates were subsequently received by NLHC on October 26, and on October 27,

the request was approved, and subsequently - and I guess this is where the

confusion possibly comes in - was cancelled due to NLHC having exceeded its

budget, spent its budget for the year as it was allocated from the Department of

Social Services. We, indeed, had put in place a contract with NLHC to carry out

these home repairs for the Department of Social Services and our clients. So, on

October 27, that approved request was subsequently cancelled. However, on

November 7, the request was reinstated for approval and the work commenced the

following day. Mr. Speaker, I am told, that work is in progress and will be

completed, as this reads, the balance of this week. December 4, actually, is the

date I am given when the work should be complete on the home. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present petitions of teachers who teach at three

schools in Pasadena in the district of Humber East. The three schools are

Pasadena Academy, Pasadena Primary and Holy Rosary. The petitions from the first

two schools are identical. The petition from the third, Holy Rosary, essentially

makes the same prayer but is worded slightly differently, so, with Your Honour's

permission I would like to present them together. The petition of teachers of

Pasadena Academy and Pasadena Primary is, quote:

'Whereas we believe it is unfair to make a select group of

Newfoundland's population, namely, teachers, bear an inordinate portion of the

burden for the Provincial deficit; and

Whereas we believe further cuts in funding to the education

system can only be detrimental to education, detrimental to the economy as a

whole, disastrous to our present population and destructive to generations of

students to come;

Therefore, your petitioners pray that the House of Assembly

and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take no action that will further

cut the teachers' compensation package or cut the number of teachers employed or

reduce the programs in our schools.

Furthermore, we urge the government to increase funding to

the Province's education system.'

The Holy Rosary petition is as follows:

'Whereas we feel it is totally unfair of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to single out any particular segment of workers to

bear the brunt of hardships in order to eradicate debts caused by government

mismanagement; and

Whereas we believe proposed cuts to the Province's education

system will be detrimental to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;

Therefore, your petitioners pray that the House of Assembly

and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1) not cut teachers'

compensation packages, (2) not reduce the number of teaching positions in the

Province, and (3) not cut education programs in the Province's schools.'

Mr. Speaker, these three petitions are signed by a total of

fifty-eight teachers and I have added my signature. Essentially, these teachers

are making a plea for justice for themselves, as professionals, being paid from

the Public Treasury. They are also seeking adequate public funding for

children's education, recognizing the fact that spending on education today is

an investment in our future, recognizing the significance of education for

economic advancement.

Mr. Speaker, teachers have already made a sacrifice at the

hands of this government. This government, with Bills 16 and 17 has stripped

contractual benefits from teachers, benefits which were provided for in

contracts signed by this government. Teachers are saying, 'No more. Against our

will we have been made to sacrifice already because of government mismanagement

and it would be totally unfair for us to lose more, to have more stripped from

our contract. Furthermore, these teachers realize that current education

offerings are not fully meeting the needs of our young people. They are seeing

missed opportunities and they are saying, instead of reducing the level of

educational programming, the government has to ensure that the quality is

enhanced. They are saying firmly, let us improve education.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the petitions of these

teachers and I will be interested in hearing the reaction of the government.

What has prompted the petitions, of course, is the fearmongering of the last

month: the statements of the government to the NTA executive and to other public

service union leaders that the government is contemplating rolling back

negotiated wages and benefits, reducing wages and benefits from the current

level; statements of the Premier and his ministers that the government will not

spare anything in cutting to reduce the deficit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe

that much of what has been said over the past month has been prompted by the

Premier's phalanx of public relations advisors, headed by Edsel Bonnell. I

believe it has been a ploy to make people fear much worse consequences than the

Minister of Finance is going to announce tomorrow so that the headline in the

weekend papers will be: 'Relief - freeze, not cuts'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I speak in support of the petitions presented by my colleague

from Humber East. This government is proposing to make cuts right across the

board, borne on the backs of public servants, in particular, the teachers. Since

1980, the teachers have received increases of 15 per cent below the consumer

price index. I think it very unfair to inflict further cuts and put them a few

percentage points below the standard of living across this country. They have

lost 15 per cent already. Cutbacks in teachers results in cutbacks in service

and cutbacks to students and this petition asks that these cuts not be on the

backs of students, basically.

This government, and the minister, in particular, have

bragged about the level of consultation that is going on in response to all my

questions in the House - `We don't dictate, we consult.' Yet, his deputy

minister in his department, unbeknownst to him, sends out a memorandum to every

school board in this Province, not once asking for input or comment, but

indicating to them a 1 per cent and a 3 per cent cutback, a cutback that is

going to affect students in the Province. Schools had to cancel computers that

were on order, they had to cut back in curriculum that was promised and built in

to a budget based upon a tentative budget that was given to that board. Now,

with the year 75 per cent over, in trying to come up with cutbacks to meet their

needs, it amounts to enormous cutbacks in proportion to what would be obtained

over a regular year.

I think it is a total lack of concern by the minister and the

government for education in this Province, a very important department in which

we should be promoting and encouraging and trying to increase educational levels

in this Province to bring it up to a par with elsewhere in this country. We have

seem an assault, really, on education in this Province, and education is the one

specific area that least deserved to be assaulted. In fact, what it amounts to

now is that boards are being ripped off.

The government didn't anticipate extra school board taxes and

the school boards didn't. The government is now saying, `You collected more

school taxes than you were supposed to collect, so we are now going to take back

money that was rightfully yours.' By going out to bring in a new tax structure

and new grants to boards, this government right now is now saying it could be

postponed indefinitely. So they acted and misled the boards in this Province by

saying, we will eliminate school tax and bring in a new grant structure. Now,

they are saying to the boards, when their year is almost over, `We are not going

to bring in that grant structure anymore.' As a direct result, it is affecting

students in this Province, students in the classrooms, with cutbacks in lab

supplies and curriculum, for French and various other disciplines that are

needed in order to be able to encourage and bring our students up to certain

standards.

A Royal Commission is recommending increasing the number of

instructional days, and this department is saying, `Let's cut back. Let's invent

some more obstacles to prevent people from getting a proper education.' Not only

is it improper to cut in education, it is improper to cut in education when you

have given a commitment. The minister is not coming clean when he says the

boards are going to get at least 8 per cent more. He has letters, and I have

copies and the boards know, that that is not the case. I would suggest that the

minister will, in light of this, change his mind and have the department change

its mind, to ensure that no boards are cut back.

Equalization is another specific area he preached so much

about to ensure that schools that have low tax bases would get extra funding.

These have not been brought up to the average of the Province, either, under the

equalization formulas. I think it is very gross misconduct on the part of the

government, not to be considerate to education, not keeping a promise. The

government and the department have advocated fairness and balance and integrity,

torn up agreements, and then come back again and destroyed tentative budgets

boards were given.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this

opportunity to speak to this petition. I am always encouraged when we receive

words from the teachers who are out working so hard in the districts. A lot of

them are my close personal friends, and I know the difficult time and struggle

they are having trying to deliver education to people in this Province. So it is

always comforting, Mr. Speaker, when we receive word from teachers giving us

suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the teachers who are in the various

schools around the Province, in the classrooms doing a hard day's work, I would

implore them not to be spooked by fearmongering and rumormongers in the

Opposition. You see, this government, above all of the governments that we have

had in the history of this Province, believes in consultation, believes in the

democratic process. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, our belief in the democratic

process is probably what causes us sometimes to get a black eye.

You see, when the Minister of Finance was advised that we

were going to have an operational deficit of $153 million, we had the option of

sitting around the Cabinet table and deciding what we were going to do about

this, and announcing it to the public within a few hours after we made the

decision. That is the way the CBC handled their cutbacks a couple of years ago.

Not an employee had an inkling that there was anything wrong. All of a sudden

there was a news conference called and all the employees were told there were

going to be layoffs and there were going to be wage freezes and what have you.

Government could have done that, but being the consultative

government that we are, we went out and consulted with the leaders of all the

unions. Some of the union leaders - some - not all, have been very co-operative

with government because they recognize - when they hear Don Mazankowski on

television telling about the problems that we are having in the nation; when

they hear the Minister of Finance from Saskatchewan telling some of the measures

that Saskatchewan has to take; when they hear the Minister of Finance in NDP

Ontario saying that they have to discontinue student grants; our people in

Newfoundland and Labrador are not stupid - they know exactly what is happening

throughout the country and throughout the world. They know that.

So we went out to consult with them and said: Here is our

problem. We are no different from Ontario. We are no different from

Saskatchewan. We are no different from Ottawa. We have a severe problem. Help us

deal with it. Would you consider rollbacks? Would you consider a freeze? Would

you consider giving something up in your contract? We considered every single

possible option, but here is where the problem comes in. When you start

consulting with people, the rumours start to fly, and what is said by the

Minister of Finance, by the time it filters through ten or twelve other people,

it comes out diametrically opposed to what the Minister of Finance said.

Even worse than that, when an irresponsible opposition has

nothing on its mind only making political points - nothing to do with the

delivery of education; nothing to do with the delivery of health care - they

could not care less about the Province going bankrupt. They could not care less

if we have an A rating or a B or a C. They could not care less whether we had

junk bonds. They have one thing and one thing only on their minds, and that is

to get over here where we are so they can continue the process of putting this

Province totally into bankruptcy. That is the sole aim in their mind. They do

not care about the teachers in the system. They do not care about health care

workers. They want one thing - to get over here where we are so they can finish

the job which we interrupted. They want to put this Province bankrupt.

Well this administration does not want to preside over the

bankruptcy of this Province and we are not going to do it, no matter what the

opposition wants us to do. We are going to maintain the fiscal integrity of this

Province, and that is for all of our people, and I do not care what the Member

for Corner Brook says, or the Member for Humber East, or the Member for

Ferryland. We are going to maintain the fiscal integrity of this Province so we

can keep our schools open; so we can keep our hospitals open.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

I have two petitions; however, I am willing to join the two

of them together in one petition.

A few days ago I asked the House - because the petitions came

in the form of a fax, and I wanted to lay the fax on the Table - I have already

spoken to the Government House Leader and he has no problem with it; however, it

is up to the Speaker with the concurrence of the House, if I can go ahead.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me confirm that my hon.

friend did indeed come and speak with me and that I indeed did speak with him.

It was a very productive thing.

Fax, spelled f a x in this context, raises a problem. Let me

say that we on this side are prepared, for the purposes of this discussion

today, or this petition presentation, to suggest that Your Honour might consider

receiving it as an original; but I would suggest, Sir, that Your Honour take

whatever procedure necessary to develop a rule on this because this is something

new technologically that the rules simply do not address. We have to decide

whether we are prepared to accept facsimile transmissions as being original

documents; but certainly for the purpose of presenting this presentation, it

makes sense and we consent.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the Chair will deal

with the matter of faxes. I think we have really done some preliminary research

on it, but if the House consents I'll allow the hon. member to present his

petition.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The prayer

of the petition is as follows: we the undersigned, teachers at John Christian

Erhardt Memorial School in Makkovik, give our support to the recent decisions

made by the provincial executive of the Newfoundland Teachers Association

concerning government cutbacks. We are shocked and upset with the Wells'

government's intention to roll back wages, given that they have already frozen

our most recent negotiated salary increase.

Mr. Speaker, to tie in with that one from Makkovik there's

one more from Nain and it is a letter addressed to me. It does have original

signatures to it, and a fax did arrive from the Nain school and I'll read a copy

of the fax to make sure that I am following the rules and regulations that at

least were decided a few minutes ago.

The content of this fax says: as the Newfoundland Teachers

Association representative for the Jens Haven Memorial School in Nain I am

requesting that you present our letter of November 24 - that's this letter, Mr.

Speaker - to the House of Assembly to support our concerns with respect to the

proposed cutbacks of teachers' salaries.

Mr. Speaker, accompanying these I have I think something like

twenty or twenty-two individual letters, from individual teachers in those two

particular schools. I would think it is incumbent upon me as their member to

speak on their behalf, to express on their behalf the concerns that they have.

I guess I can go back to 1959 when I first went teaching. I

wasn't given a choice where I wanted to teach. I was told where I had to teach.

In fact every teacher then in the 'sixties, early 'sixties, was told where they

were going to go. They did not have a choice of where they wanted to go. Today

it's different. Teachers can apply for different schools. I think I should say

too, teachers that devote their life, time, energies of moving out of the urban

areas and going into the rural areas of our Province, going into the Labrador

coast, down on the south coast of Newfoundland, these are teachers who are not

just doing it for a pay cheque. These are teachers who are doing it to give

services to the students in these particular communities.

I would say those teachers are not just going to Nain for the

sake of collecting a pay cheque. They are not going to Cartwright for the sake

of collecting a pay cheque. They're there to use their experience and knowledge

to help our children to better their education. I would think that we should

make sure that we will treat those teachers in a most orderly manner in making

sure that their cost of living is not increased. Because at the present time

living on the Labrador coast, in particular, it's costing more to survive, to

live.

They're up there now and Christmas time - some of those

teachers will be fortunate enough to go back to their own homes or go elsewhere

for their vacation. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it's going to cost now

approximately $1,200 to have a return trip from Nain to St. John's?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my hon. colleague

- and I understand he's going to speak afterwards - there are no petitions from

Eagle River. I should suggest to him that he does have letters in his office

from a number of teachers in his district but he's afraid to bring them into the

House. That's what the problem is. He's afraid to let the people of this House

know.

In my concluding remarks I want to say I support their

petition. I want to say one thing. I say this to the Minister of Health, because

he just got up a few minutes ago and he was talking about what they are going to

do. Mr. Speaker, this teacher said to me, and I'll use the words as close as I

can to what this particular teacher said: we've had Mr. Decker as the Minister

of Health, and just look at what has happened to the health system in our

Province in the last two and a half years, and now the Premier has the gall to

put him in charge of the Education system, so just imagine where we are going to

be in the next two or three years. In fact, they are saying, to use a final

remark from a teacher in Makkovik, and I think this will sum up what the

teachers are saying: this will definitely not be forgotten when the election

draws near. This will definitely not be forgotten when the election draws near,

and I say to the Minister of Education and to this government: pay attention to

the teachers; pay attention to the teachers. Look what they did to the late Joey

Smallwood's government, look what they did to the Peckford government and I will

tell the Premier now, they will do the same thing to his government.

Thank you.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and

speak in support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member

for Torngat Mountains, on behalf of the teachers from Makkovik, who are

petitioning this House to treat them fairly. These teachers who signed this

petition talk about being shocked and upset with the actions of this particular

government. The proposal of a 1 per cent freeze in salaries and a proposal of a

3 per cent cutback in operating costs in departments and agencies controlled by

the government; that is what they are upset with and the hon. Minister of

Education said that what people are upset with is the fearmongering being set

out by the members of the Opposition and the unions.

Mr. Speaker, the fearmongering was done by members of the

government and I would suspect that it was very deliberate, very deliberate,

because it has become quite evident now that there is not going to be any roll

back of wages, it is quite evident that they are not going to do it, they are

not going to roll back any wages and this is all the softening up, softening up

the work force, softening up the public employees of this Province, so that when

they announce the wage freeze they expect that this is going to be accepted with

open arms.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for Port de Grave says, yes,

he is right, he is right, he is agreeing with me; he nods his head in an

affirmative manner, he is agreeing with me that it was all a big scam from the

beginning, all a big scam, that the boys got in the Cabinet room and the fancy

digs up there with the thick carpet and expensive chairs and cooked up the deal:

this is what we can do now, we will just orchestrate all this so that when we do

announce, just a freeze, they will accept that.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the public employees of

this Province have been treated fairly by this administration, and I do not

think that the public employees who are in my district will ever support this

particular administration for the betrayal of trust when they formed the

government, because a lot of the public employees in the last election,

supported the Liberal party and they feel betrayed by them. They feel absolutely

betrayed because of what they have done to them, very similarly, what the public

employees had done to them by the Pequiste government in Quebec after the

election of 1980, when they too, rolled back public sector wages in 1980.

I believe it is only this regime and that regime that did

those things in this country, but, Mr. Speaker, the teachers in my district as

the teachers in Makkovik, are very concerned about what is going on. It is not

just their wages. They are also very concerned about the quality of education

that is going to be delivered to the younger people of our Province. They are

more concerned about that than even their cut in wages. I know that the teachers

in my district whom I met with last weekend spoke to me very strongly about how

the quality of education in Western Labrador is going to be lowered because of

the actions of this government. The hon. the Minister of Education speaks very

proudly about the abolition of school tax in Western Labrador and throughout the

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I can tell the hon. minister that the people

in Western Labrador would prefer to have the previous school tax in place.

MR. REID: They could afford to pay it.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, they could afford to pay it but the

problem is they are paying three times as much now. The hon. the Member for

Carbonear doesn't realize this - they are paying three times as much now and

getting less in service. They are going to pay for you now out here so you can

sit down and do nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: They are tired paying all those extra taxes.

Could I have extra leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion

MR. SPEAKER: I told the hon. member his time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be able to get up today and use this

opportunity to talk about education and the educational commitment this

government has displayed to the people of Coastal Labrador. Let me say from the

outset that this government has no apologies to make when it comes to our

contribution to education on the Coast of Labrador. It is very timely, Mr.

Speaker, that the petition should come from Makkovik. It was only a year ago

when the people from Makkovik came to this government and asked, would you try

to do something for our community by putting a new gymnasium onto our school in

Makkovik? Now, what did this government say? Did this government say, go, be

gone, we don't want to see you? Did this government and the Premier say, we

don't want to hear your concerns? No, Mr. Speaker, this minister rose in his

place and gave $140,000 to see a new gymnasium put on the school in Makkovik.

That is the record of this government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,

on a point of order.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say this, but the

member is definitely misleading this House, because the $140,000 did not come

from this government, it came from the Federal Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is not a point of order to get up when a member is

speaking and to indicate whether what he is saying is either correct or

incorrect. It is not a point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To another point of order. The hon.

gentleman from Torngat Mountains just accused the hon. gentleman from Eagle

River of deliberately misleading the House. That is not parliamentary. If the

hon. gentleman from Torngat doesn't know it then perhaps Your Honour might wish

to tell him and make him withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am going to have to check Hansard to

review it but the Member for Torngat Mountains did not say that the Member for

Eagle River was deliberately misleading the House.

MR. SIMMS: Even the member says, no.

MR. MATTHEWS: He did not say that, Mr Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. Again, it is to the

benefit of all hon. members to maintain decorum in the House. The Chair cannot

say for certain what the hon. member said. Only the hon. member knows what he

said. Members might think they know what he said. I know, I heard the member

say, mislead, but whether he said deliberately mislead, I do not know. The hon.

member could take care of it rather quickly.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, Sir. I am

sure Hansard will record tomorrow what I did say. I did say, and I will say,

that the member is misleading this House. He had done that this evening. I know

he has done it and I will say he has done it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has no apologies to make and as far as the

reference to the hon. member is concerned, the previous Minister of Municipal

Affairs will note that it was through his efforts, as well, along with the

Minister of Education at that time, that this was done. I don't want to dwell on

that the whole time because we have so much good news to tell this House about

our commitment to education, Mr. Speaker. It was only a year ago when the people

of St. Lewis, Labrador said to this government, 'We would like to have a new

school in our community,' and he said to the people of St. Lewis 'No, you would

be gone. We don't want to talk to you. We have no commitment to this.' No, Mr.

Speaker, that Minister of Education went down there a year ago and opened up a

brand new school in St. Lewis, Labrador - over $2 million, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: And now, Mr. Speaker, only a week ago, on

Thursday November 27, this present Minister of Education went to Red Bay,

Labrador. And Red Bay, Labrador, Mr. Speaker, had a new school built twenty-five

years ago when the previous Liberal Government was in power. They came back to

this government a couple of years ago and said, 'Our school is in disrepair and

it is time that we had a new school in our community.' They asked, 'Would you,

as the member, do what you can to see that we get it done.' I was in the hall,

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, when a lady in that community said, 'I am sure

that if the Liberals get in, I will never see my children go into a new school.'

I said to that lady, 'You can be assured that the Liberal Government will not

abandon the people of Red Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: The Liberal member is continuing to mislead

the House -either that, or he is saying something that we are not aware of.

Because it is my understanding that the DEC decides on where the money goes for

schools. Now, if he is saying that government decides on where the money goes

for the schools, then I think the Minister of Education should point it out, but

he is clearly misleading this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to tell the hon. member and all hon. members that it

is not a point of order to get up and say that a member is misleading the House.

If that were a point of order, then members would be standing, because it is

only a judgemental thing that members would be standing all the time and members

would not be given an opportunity to speak. So there is no point of order. I do

want to remind the hon. member, however, about our Standing Orders with respect

to petitions. The hon. member knows, as all hon. members know, that we are not

supposed to get into debate and every member speaking to a petition, this is

what he or she ought to do. And I am quoting from petitions, from Standing Order

92, which says: Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine

himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of

signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains

Now, I know the Chair has been a bit flexible on a couple of

petitions here today and I have allowed a little bit of tit for tat, but I do

want to remind the hon. member that he was drifting somewhat, wandering somewhat

from the prayer of the petition and getting into debate. I want to remind the

hon. member that his time has elapsed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: It is quite obvious what is going on

here.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River, on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious what is

going on here, they can't take the tat. they can't accept the fact that the

truth is, this government has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of when it comes

to the contribution it makes to the education of Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members on both sides of the House to please

refrain from abusing points of order. If we do that - hon. members know what a

point of order is, or they ought to know, and as I have said again, to suggest

what someone is doing, what someone is saying or what someone is not saying or

what somebody said or what somebody didn't say is not a point of order, was

never a point of order and I do not expect it ever will be a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I would like to

present on behalf of some 500 people concerning the closing down of a post

office on Pearson Street in my district. Unfortunately, it is not in the proper

form, so I will have to ask leave of the House to present it in the form it is

now.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the Chair did not get the hon. -

MR. NOEL: The petition is not in proper form, so I guess

I need to have leave of the House to present it in the form in which I have it.

MR. SIMMS: If I could, Sir. I happen to know the petition

the hon. member is referring to and I know - well, he is not here, so it doesn't

matter. It doesn't have the proper cover, and it is not for the Newfoundland

Legislature in the sense that it is a matter dealing with the federal party, but

I have talked to the Member for Pleasantville and we would agree to let him

present it. I am going to speak to the petition and whoever else may wish to

speak to it, so we have no problem there.

MR. SPEAKER: To that request, the Chair is going to be

dealing with petitions in the next little while. We have indicated to members,

up to this point in time, to speak with the Clerk of the House so that it is not

a surprise when we come here that the member will know whether it is in present

form or that it is not in present form - or in the proper form, I should say.

Over the next few days, we will deal with it, but for now we will allow the hon.

member to present his petition.

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, the people

who are presenting this petition, are asking the members of this House to

support their efforts to have Postal Station B at 38 Pearson Street, which is in

my constituency, remain open.

This has proven to be a very convenient postal station for

everybody in our area. The petitioners are asking that Canada Post be encouraged

to keep the station open because of the personal aggravation it will be causing

the people who will be affected if it is closed; because of the great expense it

will cause to people who have had their business cards and other stationery

already printed up on the assumption that the postal station would remain open;

because of the convenience of the location, particularly in comparison with the

substitute that they are going to be expected to patronize; because of its

serves so many customers.

Mr. Speaker, I endorse the petitioners, in this case. This is

the only postal station in the East End of the City of St. John's. It has some

700 postal boxes, I believe, and serves many thousands of people. It is an

excellent location that people can get to without any inconvenience and

particularly in comparison with having to go to one of the local shopping malls,

which is what they will have to do if this postal station remains closed.

As I understand it now, the boxes are still open for another

few days but the counter service is only open for people to pick up parcels. The

petitioners believe, Sir, that they were not given adequate notice of the

closing of this postal station. Apparently, it was only something like thirty

days and they believe it should be something like ninety days, at least.

I think this is another example of the kind of misguided

economic management we are seeing on the part of some government agencies and

Crown corporations in Canada at this time. We are closing out facilities like

this that are of great service and convenience to many citizens of the country

and of our Province in order to save some money - that is the rationale for it.

But what are we saving if we are putting people out of work, if we are creating

more inconvenience, if we are creating more hardship? This is a station run by

professionals who know how to do the job properly. Some of the substitutes that

are being opened to replace postal stations are being run by people who only do

it on a part-time basis and who don't know how to deal with the customers'

problems adequately.

This has been experienced by a number of the people who have

signed this petition. They have had goods damaged and they have been unable to

do things they wanted to do at the post office because the particular people

they had to deal with at some of these stations in commercial establishments are

not very well-versed in how to deal with their problems.

So the petitioners are petitioning the federal government and

our House of Assembly and all the members of our House of Assembly to support

their cause. They realise that it is not something over which this House or this

Province has jurisdiction, but they would like us to support their cause and

exert whatever influence we can on the Crown corporation, Canada Post, and on

the federal government, in order to encourage Canada Post to maintain this

postal office.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak in

support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for

Pleasantville. I have had conversations with the same individuals who have been

working very hard to get support to keep open this Postal Station B on Pearson

Street.

If you read through the - I am not sure how many names the

member referred to.

MR. NOEL: Five hundred.

MR. SIMMS: Five hundred. I was going to say it is close

to 600. But you probably counted them, I didn't. Anyway, there are 500 or 600.

There are probably more people, not only in the member's district but, as the

petitioners point out, it serves a number of people in the West End, Center,

East End, Pouch Cove, Torbay, all over the place. So there are probably many

other people who feel just as strongly as these particular people do who are

pushing the petition.

They make the point in their covering notes, of course, about

the personal aggravations that are involved with people having to change their

addresses, the expenses involved with people having to change their business

cards and notification to customers, how inconvenient and costly that is, to

change their business addresses, business cards, letterheads and all those types

of things. They are very upset about the short notice that has been given with

respect to the closing.

They make the point, of course, that politicians cannot order

a Crown corporation what to do. We hear that explanation here in this House from

Ministers of the Crown from time to time, about not being able to interfere in

the operation of Crown corporations. I am not sure if they are correct with that

assessment. I think politicians can order Crown corporations what to do if they

want to flex their muscles a bit and use their authority.

Anyway, the point that the petitioners are making is that

even though this is a postal station and it is a federal Crown corporation

matter, what they want to see is an outcry from among the people, and hopefully

that outcry might prompt the powers to be that are making this move to change

their minds. Thus, you have the petition being presented in the provincial

Legislature.

They also make the point, Mr. Speaker, which I think is

important to make, that from their perspective this is a non-partisan political

issue. Evidence of that is the fact that the member for Pleasantville, who is a

Liberal, and myself, as a Conservative, have agreed co-operatively to allow the

petition to be presented even though it is not properly worded, and all the rest

of it. I have taken the liberty of speaking to the Member for St. John's East,

whose approval and agreement would be required to allow the petition to proceed

even though he wasn't in the House when the actual request was made. He is quite

prepared to have the petition presented to the Legislature. I don't know if

members of the House will give him a chance to speak if he asks, or even if he

wants to. We will have to wait and see about that.

In any event, they make the point that it is a non-partisan

political issue and it should cross all party lines. Their request, really, is

for all people, civic leaders, individuals, provincial/federal interests, or

whoever, they want to see all people of all stripes try to help with the outcry,

try to increase the outcry, I suppose, so that those who are way up there in

Ottawa, who may have to make these decisions, will be in a position to hear what

we say. I am not so sure how successful this outburst and outcry will be. I do

know, as we all know, it has been tried in other places, I don't think, too

successfully. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't continue to voice and

express their concerns about the arbitrary decision that has been made here by

Canada Post.

The other point that they make in their petition is the fact

that from their knowledge, at least, this particular post office is a

money-maker. They say it is a money-maker. You would think that a Crown

corporation, when looking at the difficult times we face and the monies that

government needs in these times and the Crown corporations need, so they

wouldn't have to get money from the government, would have a look at this kind

of an argument, if indeed it is a fact. They say it is. I have no reason but to

believe them. If it is, it is a reasonable point for these petitioners to make.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand in support of the

petition presented by the Member for Pleasantville and hope that those of us who

have an opportunity to speak out from time to time might be able to add some

credibility to the outcry of these ordinary people who live all over the St.

John's area about protesting the closure of Station B Post Office on Pearson

Street here in St. John's.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the Member for Pleasantville and

the Leader of the Opposition to support the petition presented in connection

with the closure of Station B on Pearson Street. It is sad to see, Mr. Speaker,

that the division of public services that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to bring to hon. members' attention, if I

understand the Standing Order correctly, and I think I do, Standing Order 92.1,

page 31, says, "In addition to the member presenting the petition only two other

members, one each from both sides of the House may speak to a petition, and in

so doing they shall not speak (inaudible). It seems to me that it is only by

consent we have had the one from that side and the other speaker ought to come

from this side. Other than that we are through unless hon. members by consent

would allow the Member for St. John's East to - we are allowed one more member

to speak, but it ought to come from this side; but I had recognized the hon. the

Member for St. John's East in error.

MR. SIMMS: A point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Which is really the point of order Your Honour

has raised himself, I guess, in this sense. I alluded to that in my remarks when

I spoke to the petition and realized, and I know the member does, that he would

have to get leave, but he stood; he was recognized. He spoke for several seconds

and nobody interrupted, so obviously nobody on that side really had a problem

with it, I guess, but you are right. The point of order is well taken but from

our point of view we are prepared to give leave.

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

speaking to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition was presented. It is not in the form that is

normally acceptable to the House and at the request of the Leader of the

Opposition, on behalf of the Member for Placentia, I consented to the use of

this, although I was not in the House at the time. Although consent, of course,

and leave is not conditional, certainly it would be the honourable thing to do

to give consent in a situation like this. That was what I understood I was

speaking on when I rose, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may, the Chair had made an error, and I

guess what the Chair was doing was taking back its recognition because it had

made an error. I guess the question we are dealing with is whether the Member

for St. John's East will be allowed to carry on by the consent of the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the whole procedure is

thoroughly irregular because the matter should not be in this House; but we have

agreed to hear it. That being so, we are prepared to be even more irregular and

hear the gentleman from St. John's East.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to join with the Member

for Pleasantville and the Leader of the Opposition in supporting the petition

concerning the important matter of postal services.

Now this happens to be a public service that is provided by

this Province, and all members of this House and their constituents make use of

these postal services. It is not solely a federal matter. If all we could talk

about in this House were federal matters - there are many things which have been

raised in this House by hon. members having to do with what they would like the

time, and I suppose it is in that sense that the petitioners seek the support of

responsible for Canada Post, to try and change this decision.

I do support this petition. Many people across this country

have been fighting against similar kinds of decisions taken by Canada Post. A

group called Rural Dignity, which members may well be familiar with, have been

making a stand for the last five or six years against the efforts by Canada Post

to close down rural post offices. They have had success in some areas and some

cases, and they have been unsuccessful in many others because it seems that the

government in Ottawa is determined to see the dismantling of this important

public service.

Mr. Speaker, here in St. John's we now see the same arbitrary

tactics being used by Canada Post in a postal stage. It is not the first one. It

is one in a series of arbitrary moves by Canada Post and I understand, from

talking to the circulator of this petition, that no reason has been given by

Canada Post for the taking apart and dismantling of Postal Station B, other than

the fact that they refer to it as a business decision - being done for business

reasons. That is a coverup for an essentially arbitrary action by Canada Post.

As the Member for Grand Falls has stated, this is a

money-making proposition, we are told. This particular place does make money.

The business reasons must be some other business reasons having to do with the

ideology of Canada Post, the attempt apparently to break down the structure of

the postal service that people have come to rely on. In this case, Mr. Speaker,

I understand, very many small businesspeople rely on and use the station as

their mailing address. They use it on their letterhead, they use it on their

business mail, they use it on all their business forms and documents, invoices,

and that sort of thing. As anybody who has ever been involved in a small

business knows, this can amount to a considerable expense to have replaced in

this way, and that's only one part of it.

There are many other parts, of course, the convenience of

having a stable postal service and a stable place at which to operate. This is

something that businesses rely on for stability and people rely on for service.

The experience has been in the rest of St. John's when postal stations like this

have been closed that recipients of mail are often directed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - to go to many places around town. That's

what's going to happen here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition

that I was to present on Tuesday. I asked for leave of the House at that time

because it wasn't on the correct letterhead that the House expects. I would ask

leave to present this petition as the others have done today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to know what the

petition is about and see it, please. Again, as I've said, I've told hon.

members that they should check their petition with the Clerk of the House. Then

we don't waste the time here. But if the Chair could see the petition.... The

Chair hasn't seen the petition.

Again, I would point out to hon. members, the petition is in

letter form. If I'd been the member receiving this petition I would get the idea

that it was clearly for me to work with and that the petition was not to be

presented. It's for the member to deal with, that's the way I would interpret it

as a member. But I will tell hon. members what the petition says.

It's a letter. One, clearly a letter is not a petition. But

it does have a separate petition which says: we the undersigned wish to express

our concern over the fact that the Royal Commission on Education has recommended

that the school in Seal Cove, Fortune Bay, be consolidated with the school in

Hermitage. If this recommendation is accepted by the government the affects on

our community will be devastating.

If hon. members want to give their consent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members consent to giving the petition?

The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage may present the

petition.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I received the

petition from the chairman of the Save Our School committee, Mr. Loveless. I'd

like to address the petition. I'd say at the beginning that I support it,

because I think they have a valid reason.

One of the proposals in the Williams Report was to

consolidate this school with the one in Hermitage. Many of the small schools

along the south coast in my opinion cannot be closed out because of the terrain

and the geography along the coast. Like Seal Cove, like many of the schools in

the other communities, like Rencontre, like Gaultois, like Hermitage, do not

have different schools within the community. There's just one school there and

that particular school crosses all denominational lines.

When we see in some of the larger communities where the

schools are only 25 per cent or 30 per cent filled then obviously these

particular people would obviously say that these should be addressed before

theirs, be that as it may, I believe that this school as every other school, has

to be looked on in terms of merit, and I think that many of the smaller schools

along the south coast and the northeast coast in Labrador whatever, have turned

out to be key educational institutions in this Province.

Many of us here have come from small schools. The former

Minister of Education came from a three-room school, I came from a three-room

school, from the same school that these people here are talking about, and in

fact when I went to school in Seal Cove, there were not as many students there

then as there are now. Also, if one were to look at what has happened in

education over the last little while with new technology in distance education,

I believe that there is an alternative to busing of the kids from one community

to the next. I have seen how distance education has worked in Rencontre, in

Gaultois and also this year it is being introduced at Terrenceville for the

first time and I am hoping that next year it will be introduced in Seal Cove and

many other students -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and support

the petition from the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. Again, what we are about

to see is the erosion, the continuing erosion of rural Newfoundland which we

have seen in the past three years since this government came into power.

The people of Seal Cove, like most of the people in Fortune

Bay and Hermitage Bay, the whole southwest coast and indeed the whole Burin

Peninsula, Placentia Bay and other places, as I am sure it goes around this

Province, when you look at the terrain that is involved, the communities

involved, the mode of transportation that is involved, it is not as simple as

someone deciding to close down a school when they look at numbers. If you look

at the numbers of people enrolled in the school system and all of a sudden they

want to close down that school system, Mr. Speaker, it is not as simple as that

and the people of Seal Cove have just as much right - and I would say that I

have not seen the petition, but I asked the Member for Fortune - Hermitage and

the petition as I understand it, is from Seal Cove and I would say that the

people in Seal Cove, the students in Seal Cove have just as much right to have

an education in their community as do the people of St. John's or Corner Brook

or Marystown or anywhere else in this Province.

When you continue to look at the erosion in government

services that have taken place in the past three years in this Province, in

terms of health care, in terms of education, it is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that

the people in small communities like Seal Cove are standing up and demanding

that their representatives address their needs.

I would say to this House that it is regrettable, and it is

now up to the Minister of Education, now that the member has brought this to the

House, that the ball is now in the court of the Minister of Education, whether

or not Seal Cove continues to have a school.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: Whether or not Seal Cove continues to have a

school. We heard today, I say to the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, the Member

for Eagle River get up and talked about schools that the provincial government

built and constructed in Labrador; well then, the people of Seal Cove and

Fortune Bay and Placentia Bay deserve that type of treatment as well. So now it

is up to the Minister of Education. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage should

tell his constituents that he has presented it in the House and he should tell

them that it is up to the Minister of Education whether or not they have a

school and he should demand today, on behalf of his constituents, an answer from

the Minister of Education.

The Minister of Education, should today, stand and address

this very important petition and tell the people of Seal Cove whether or not

they are going to have a school. They deserve no less than a definitive answer

today from the Minister of Education and that should be conveyed to the people.

I will be looking through the petition, getting the name of the chairman and

explaining to the people of Seal Cove what has to be done and who alone is the

person who can save the school.

o o o

MR. TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin _ Peninsula,

on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Education is reading the

paper, probably he did not realize that it is over-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - I am sure he wants to support -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not going to be asking people to speak to

petitions. There is no point of order. The Chair looks around and if nobody is

standing and if members or ministers are reading papers that is unfortunate, or

whatever, but the Chair is not going to be waiting for people to stand.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has called Orders of the Day. Is

the hon. member on a point of order?

MR. HARRIS: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of

privilege. Having heard the Minister of Social Services speak in the House today

and having reviewed the rules with respect to points of privilege I wish to give

a notice and actually address the point of privilege right now. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the statements made by the minister today in the House I

have a different set of facts and circumstances than when I raised a similar

point of privilege last week concerning the same issue. The matter referred to

concerns the provision of government services to two individuals in the district

of Bellevue. On November 5, after the minister had notice of the question for a

day and went and checked, he said: the two disabled individuals who required

heat and electricity added to their house - through the intervention and hard

work of the Member for Bellevue and my staff, we were able to carry out that

work some two months ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want the hon. member on a point of privilege to state what

his point of privilege is. He seems to be going over the details, which he has

done before. The hon. member should state what his point of privilege is, what

point of privilege has been breached, and then the Chair can deal with it

accordingly. The hon. member should get to the point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has deliberately misled the House on November 5.

MR. SPEAKER: As the Chair ruled, to deliberately mislead

the House is not a point of privilege. All the authority states is that

deliberately misleading the House is not a point of privilege but an allegation,

and the member is making an allegation that the member deliberately misled the

House. Now, unless the member can make a different point of privilege, then the

Chair will obviously listen, but as he makes an allegation that the member

deliberately misled the House that is not a point of privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am entitled to

present my argument as to why it is a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is to intervene at any time when it thinks that the

hon.member is not making a point of privilege. As I said, to make an allegation

that a minister deliberately misled the House is not a point of privilege. If

the hon. member is about to say how his privileges were breached then the Chair

is willing to listen.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The general statement as to the privileges of the House has

to do with the ability of a member in his capacity to serve the people who have

chosen him to represent them. That has to do with the ability of members to

represent their constituents and represent people they are called on to

represent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I was raising questions in this House about the

services being provided by the Department of Social Services and the minister

has advised the House today that he in fact misled the House on November 5

thereby preventing me from carrying out my responsibilities.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Chair to

have an opportunity to hear what I have to say. If the Member for Port de Grave

wants to speak perhaps he can join in the debate a little later.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is that the minister came

into this House and advised the House of certain events that he said had taken

place two months ago thereby requiring me to accept these statements. The

minister had checked the statements apparently. He had gone and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is making no point of privilege. What we have

here is a difference of opinion between two hon. gentlemen as to the facts.

The second point he's made is that there's an allegation of

misleading the House. I didn't hear the minister say that he misled the House.

If the minister had said he misled the House then that would be something else,

and that in itself is not a point of privilege. But I would deal with that if

the minister had said it.

What we have here is the Member for St. John's East saying

that the minister misled the House. That is not a point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is the Member for St. John's East

standing on now?

MR. HARRIS: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order? The hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have to

raise a point of order. I wasn't given an opportunity to state my case on the

point of privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: It's a legitimate point of order, Mr.

Speaker. The Minister of Justice is trying to prevent me by interrupting me. Now

on this point of order. I have stated to this House that I wish to make a point

of privilege, that my privileges as a member were interfered with by the

Minister of Social Services in his actions. I have not been yet allowed to even

state my case because the Speaker has, in the middle of my presentation, made

the ruling without allowing me to make my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, let me first of all

say I didn't say a word one way or the other when the hon. gentleman was

speaking. The only person who interrupted the hon. gentleman was Your Honour,

who had every right and in my view the duty to do so, for the reasons Your

Honour explained.

What the hon. gentleman is now trying to do is to do by the

back door what he either is unwilling or afraid to do by the front door. If he

wishes to challenge a ruling of the Speaker there is a means by which he can do

so. Your Honour has made a clear ruling. The hon. gentleman did not state a

prima facie breach of privilege within the rubric provided by the rules. Now he

has only two choices: one is to accept the ruling, the other is to challenge it.

He cannot do what he is attempting to do. There's no more point of order than

there is, I don't know, the chance of the hon. gentlemen opposite winning the

election. There's no chance of either.

MR. MATTHEWS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. TOBIN: If that's the case he got a good case. It's

established.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, to be very honest about

this, I personally don't think that the Member for St. John's East had a chance

to make his case either, I say to the Government House Leader. He was not heard.

He was interrupted partway through his presentation. He was not heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: By who? By who?

MR. MATTHEWS: Whoever was listening to him. He was not

heard. The man was not allowed to make his case. I think that he should be

afforded that opportunity in this Legislature. Make a ruling once you hear the

case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Let me remind hon. members that with respect

to a point of privilege it's not a matter of an hon. member getting up and

debating certain facts. A point of privilege is that the member had his

privileges breached. The hon. member should get up and say precisely what was

breached. The Chair was listening. If the Chair was not listening, didn't get

the hon. member's point of privilege, the Chair is willing to entertain him for

a few moment's longer. The job of the Chair is to expedite the proceedings of

the House, and to inform hon. members what the ruling is and what the rules are.

Let me quote for the hon. member page 188 of Maingot, just to

show the Chair's rights: "The Speaker also intervenes to curtail debate when he

is satisfied that he has sufficient information and has heard sufficient

argument to assist him to arrive at a decision."

The Chair just can't entertain a twenty minute debate. Now if

the hon. member thinks that he can submit to the Chair in three or four minutes

his point of privilege the Chair will listen to him again.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't realise

there was a three minute rule on privileges but I will try to be succinct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I refer Your Honour to Cater's Case which is

quoted in the eighteenth edition of Erskine May, on Page 137, which states that

the conspiracy to deceive either House or a committee of either House will be

treated as a breach of privilege.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what has happened in this particular case -

and I would submit this for Your Honour's review at your leisure - is that the

minister got up in the House today and he did not say he misled the House, but

he advised the House of the facts of what actually happened today, which was

totally contrary to what he said in the House on November 5 after he had

apparently gone and checked with the Member for Bellevue and his staff, because

he advised the House that the work was completed two months ago.

Mr. Speaker, he has not said today: I misled the House, but

he has provided himself the direct evidence of the fact that he misled the House

on November 5. Whatever the source of that misleading of the House is, is a

breach of my privilege as a member because I accept the hon. member's word when

he comes to this House and says that: I assume that I was wrong. I assume that I

was wrong, and I can be wrong.

When I, as a result of the assertions of the hon. member,

saying: Okay, I am wrong; I accept his word, and then I go on about my business.

But if I'm (inaudible)- I have to accept his word, then my privileges as a

member are in fact violated because I cannot do my job if he, in fact, is

misleading the House in that representation.

That is the breach of privilege. I think it is an important

one. I think it is a serious one. It is not a mere dispute over what the facts

are, that people can disagree on, or anything like that. It is a very important

point and I simply would accept the minister's apology for misleading me and the

House. I would be quite happy to accept that; but in the absence of that I would

like a ruling from this House and the Chair that my privileges as a member have

been breached.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I

have no doubt, truly believes that he has the foundation of a point of privilege

but I must, with all respect, say to him and to the House that a belief does not

make an unreality into a reality. All that he is really doing is saying that he

disagrees with my friend, the Minister of Social Services, about a given set of

facts. That is not a breach of privilege.

Now the hon. gentleman is shaking his head. I can only say

that I listened to him today as I listened to him the last time he tried this. I

may not understand him, but I have tried my very best to understand him. He may

not have stated it at all well. He is asking for more time. Mr. Speaker, he has

had oceans or oodles, or whatever the correct noun is, of time to deal with it.

If he has not been able to express himself, I cannot do it for him.

What I can say is that what he said to Your Honour, in my

judgement and in my submission Sir, does not constitute even the basis of a

prima facie case for privilege and therefore he has not brought himself within

the ambit of the rule.

MR. SPEAKER: Well the Chair will take it under

advisement.

o o o

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call for the

thirty-five minutes left before we go on into the Late Show, let me put on the

record the arrangement that has been reached by myself and the House Leaders of

the other two parties - the gentleman from Grand Bank, on behalf of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and the Member for the troika, the gentleman from

St. John's East, speaking for the troika, with respect to tomorrow.

Here is what we have agreed and I would ask either of my

friends, please, to correct me should I misstate what I understand to be the

case. It is this: We shall tomorrow, by unanimous consent, suspend the routine

orders. I should say that the Minister of Environment and Lands may ask to make

a brief statement, a Ministerial Statement, on the fact that the 6th. of

December is coming up and that is an anniversary of a very tragic event. I

forgot that. We may ask for a minute or two on either side to make a statement

of respect. We are all wearing white ribbons to commemorate the unfortunate - I

am sorry -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I do not mind if my hon. friend wants one

minute, half a minute, half a half - but the routine orders we will ask to stand

suspended for tomorrow.

We will then follow the following procedure: The Minister of

Finance and the opposition spokesman on Finance, my friend from Mount Pearl,

will each have half an hour. The Minister of Finance will present a statement up

to half an hour. The opposition spokesperson will take up to half an hour. The

next speaker we would ask to be recognized would be the gentleman from St.

John's East who will have twenty minutes, as will every other speaker. That will

carry down throughout the day tomorrow. We will come back on Monday. We will

call the same order of business except there will be a regular Orders Of The Day

on Monday with a Question Period and the normal routine carry on until the House

adjourns on Monday. I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I do not mind agreeing that there will be no

petitions on Monday, if that is agreed. I mean I would have concerns - we have

spent an hour on petitions today and there is an issue here the House will have

to address sooner or later but we are certainly prepared to. The other thing I

will say is that we on this side and I believe my hon. friends opposite concur,

are prepared to ask your honour to make arrangements to have the television and

radio cameras in here as we have often done before on I think the Throne speech

and Budget speeches. Should that be the wish of the House we are prepared to

consent. I think I have stated all the elements of it, of the agreement, if not,

either my friend from Grand Bank or the gentleman from St. John's East perhaps

could help.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Opposition

House Leader, if I may tell hon. members what is on the Late Show. I was

supposed to do this at 4:00 p.m. The first matter is raised by the Member for

Menihek who says he is not satisfied with the response from the Minister of

Education to a question respecting an amount of decrease in funding for school

boards in Labrador West. The second question is from the hon. the Member for

Ferryland, stating his dissatisfaction with the response from the Minister of

Education to his question regarding cutbacks to school boards. The third

question is from the Member for Humber East who is not satisfied with the

responses given by the Premier to her questions relating to Lundrigan's and

North Star.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Government House Leader has covered the points very well. I certainly would like

us to have an agreement that we would forego presenting petitions on Monday

because that could certainly defeat the purpose of making a special arrangement

to debate the Budget, so if the Member for St. John's East concurs we will do

that. The only other question I have is on media coverage, does the Government

House Leader know exactly what the media plans to cover, is it just the

ministers statement, is it the response from the Opposition Finance Critic? I

would like to have some guidelines on that. I think it would only be fair that

they do both.

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

Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have had no communication

direct or indirect with any member of the media, that is why I phrased it by

saying should the House so wish we would be prepared to consent. The only thing

I would say, if we are going to do it, is we would let the cameras come in and

record or broadcast live as they prefer and they can then do what they want the

same as the members, the media who sit in the gallery can write down what I say

and not what the hon. gentleman says or vice versa as they prefer. We cannot

tell the media they must broadcast all or nothing that is just not-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: - well, Mr. Speaker, I mean that is

foolishness if we want to tell them we can, what I would say is I am prepared

and my colleagues on this side are prepared to say that if Your Honour wants to

let the electronic media into the House we are prepared for our part to agree to

it. If hon. gentlemen opposite have some concern that is for them to say. I

mean, we cannot put preconditions on it, we could say that they are here - Mr.

Speaker, we cannot put preconditions on it or we can't enforce them. For this

side we are prepared to let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, through the

electronic media, see what goes on here tomorrow, no conditions, no terms, no

nothing, as long as they come in and behave themselves in the House, they are

welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: We are still into Orders of the Day.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, have we got agreement on

whatever we are going to do? That is all I need to know for tomorrow, the media

point I will leave with the Chair or the Clerk, they can work that out, but I

understand we have agreement among the three groups in the House or the two

groups. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining to us I

wonder if we could proceed with -

MR. SPEAKER: If I might - the hon. the Opposition House

Leader was trying to get to his feet and I assume - I thought he was maybe I was

wrong.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: The only point I wanted to make, Mr.

Speaker, is that in order for this thing to occur tomorrow to be televised or

media coverage from the House is that it has to be by unanimous consent of

members, so if any member does not give consent then it does not happen, that is

the only point. Two of us can agree and the Member for St. John's East can agree

but if there is some member who will not agree than it is all for naught.

MR. ROBERTS: I speak for the members on this side and

unless one of them wants to disown me, speak now or forever hold your peace, as

we say in a different context.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would give my

leave to the arrangements that are made - speaking first of all to the issue

that the Minister of Environment and Lands will bring up and then the other

matters. On the issue of the media, Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Government

House Leader, we do in fact have every right to control our granting of leave.

We can't tell the media what to broadcast, obviously, and that's a question that

I'm sure will arise no doubt again when the opportunity for televising the House

comes up again, as it probably will.

But that's one of the reason why there isn't televising of

the House, or televising of courts, for that matter. Because the media does pick

and choose. Obviously on the Parliamentary Channel if somebody wants to watch

everything that goes on they have the right to do so, and not just get whatever

the media thinks is important or relevant.

So what we're doing by giving unanimous consent without any

agreement with the press is essentially allowing them to come in and take and

pick and choose. I understand, although I don't believe the minister stated it,

that the intention was that the permission for the media to participate in the

floor of the House also stands for the debate on the balance of Friday and for

Monday as well. Is that still...?

MR. ROBERTS: It'd certainly be my (Inaudible) that the

media ought to be allowed to cover the entire debate. I have no quarrel with

that.

MR. HARRIS: So that appears to be a very extraordinary

decision by members of the House, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour may, despite our

unanimous consent, have his own things to say about that. I don't know if hon.

members have actually thought through this business of consent, but at least for

the moment I'm prepared to offer my consent, and I guess take your chances with

the media on tomorrow morning. It is quite an unusual departure from this House

to just go beyond just having the Budget speeches or the Throne Speech, which is

usually all that's covered by the media, or all that's permitted.

I suspect maybe hon. members ought to give some thought to

the balance of the meeting as to how it's going to go. For now at least I'm

prepared to offer my consent.

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

MR. ROBERTS: We're on to Orders of the Day? My friend the

Minister of Health has impatiently been waiting for me to call a bill which he

will present on behalf of our colleague, the Minister of Finance. Order 23, Bill

51, Mr. Speaker, if I haven't lost myself in my notes here. That's the one

(Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, what we're attempting to do in

Bill 51 is to give legislative approval for what was contained in last year's

Budget with respect to the abolition of certain fees. You remember that in that

Budget we abolished a very major fee, namely the school tax. As we've been

stating to hon. gentlemen opposite, no matter what they say we will not be

bringing back the school tax.

Now that was the major abolition. In addition to that there

were 170 more abolitions. One hundred and seventy more little abolitions of

licences, fees and permits and so on. This particular Bill 51 details the

various acts that have to be amended in order to implement this tremendous

reform of 170 licences, fees and permits that are outlined in the March Budget

of 1992. I don't think I'll read them again because we went through it all

before. If there are any questions and any points that people will make I'd

gladly respond to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, Bill 51 is a very simple

straightforward bill as the minister has stated. What is not simple and

straightforward is the minister's statement of his Budget of last year, which

was one of the most misleading statements ever contained in any Budget document.

I was just quickly trying to find his exact words here in the

Budget Speech, but basically he says that he was very pleased to announce the

elimination of 171 fees and licenses. That was his statement in the Budget

Speech.

As I recall last year in responding to the Budget Speech, I

stood here in my place and complimented the minister on that because that was

something, in fact, that the previous administration had started. We had

reviewed a number of fees and licences and regulations, and I think we all agree

that there are far too many such regulations. We are overregulated,

overlicenced, and overtaxed, and overcharged on fees and licences. So I stood

here in my place and I congratulated the minister on Budget day, and said how

pleased I was that he had, indeed, taken such action.

Of course, once I had time to review the Budget document in

some more detail, and particularly simply as I looked in the Budget Speech

itself, in

Schedule B1 of the Budget Speech, which gives a complete list of the

fees and licences to be eliminated, the first thing that I saw, obviously, is

that 171 is certainly taking poetic licence in the number of fees and licences

to be eliminated.

There may well be 171 fees eliminated, but when we talk about

171 we say, for example, a tourist establishment (inaudible) with nine rooms or

less, zero; with ten to nineteen rooms, zero; with twenty to thirty-nine rooms,

zero; with forty to seventy-nine, zero; and eighty rooms or more, zero. That is

five fees or licences. That, to me, is certainly taking poetic licence.

I found, outside of the fact there are not 171, there are 171

components thereof, or variations thereof, but there are certainly not 171 fees

and licences being eliminated. Then I discovered that what was really the most

misleading aspect of it was that there may be 171 fees being eliminated, or

close to it, but not 171 licences.

The minister stood and said: There is too much red tape. It

is too much of a burden to have to go and get a licence and have to pay a fee.

The cost of it is not justified. It is a nuisance to have to go and get this

licence, so he is going to eliminate it; but when you look at

Schedule B1, first

of all, you will find a column that says, 'licence removal' - no, no, no, no,

and no. Licences are not removed. Only the fee is removed. So we still have the

nuisance. We still have to go and apply for a fee. The only thing we have done

is lost and given up the little bit of revenue that we would have received from

it.

Then I find that not only that - you look at the effective

date of when the fees are to be removed. For example, tourist establishment

licences - my friend, and the present Minister of Tourism, who was not at the

time, thought this was a great idea. Tourist establishment licences are going to

be removed. They are not. It is only the fee that is removed; and was it

immediate? No. Was it in 1992 at all? No. Not until January 1, 1993 are the fees

eliminated.

Now, the minister can say: Well, many people had already paid

their fee for the year. Many people had already paid their fee for the year, Mr.

Speaker, and that is fair ball; but the minister did not say that in his

statement. He said: We are going to eliminate them all.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Do you want the fees back?

MR. WINDSOR: Well, in some cases, I think the fees might

well have stayed there. The hon. the Member for Eagle River brings up a good

point. It was one that I was about to come to, in fact, that the Salmonier

Wildlife Park had a fee, and the fee, as it was, was fifty cents for adults and

twenty-five cents for children - not a very onerous fee. In fact, the comment

that has been made to me over the years is: Really, you are not charging enough

there - fifty cents to get in. If you go to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick you pay

at least $2 a head or $5 a head. Five dollars maybe is a little exorbitant. If

you have to take a family of husband, wife, and two or three children, it is

going to get a bit expensive; but $2 a head for an adult and $1 for a child - I

don't think anybody would complain.

All the minister did, was that by eliminating those fees, he

eliminated - and I will accept it, if somebody can correct me - but I understand

there were eight student jobs eliminated at the Wildlife Park last summer. There

were eight summer jobs for students eliminated. Now, if the minister can correct

me on that I will accept that.

MR. FUREY: I said I do not think so because I think what

we did at the time was re-assign them. Now, I could be wrong myself but I do not

think so.

MR. WINDSOR: If the minister can verify that I will

accept it and I accept the correction. As I said, I am not entirely sure of

that. I am led to believe that there were eight positions eliminated. Certainly,

you didn't need people on the gates anymore and if you re-assigned them

throughout the park, and if they were able to do other useful employment

throughout the park, then that is fine. I can live with that. Nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think we accomplished a great deal by eliminating that fifty

cents and twenty-five cents at the gate. I would prefer that the minister had

increased it to something more reasonable and more in line with other parks. But

if it is a policy of government to eliminate entry fees for these things, well,

it is a good thing - if we had lots of revenue. But if we have to make up that

loss of revenue - and I realize there probably was not a great deal of money

there, but we have done the same thing on provincial parks. It is certainly

pleasant now. Everybody can drive in whenever that takes place, March 1992. Is

the license removed? Yes. The fee, nothing. So now there is no seasonal entry

fee. There is no daily entry fee. We don't need a license anymore to enter a

provincial park. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that is a welcome thing. But what

have we lost in revenue and what have we lost in control over who is going in

and out of those parks now? Do we still have people there that have to control

them? I suspect we do. I don't think anybody objected to paying a $5.00 fee a

year for a vehicle entry fee. The present government had raised it to $11.25 a

year or two before and now we have eliminated it, as they did, Mr. Speaker, as I

recall for waiter's licenses. A waiter's license fee has been $5.00 for many,

many years, and two or three years ago, this government increased it from $5.00

to $15.00. Hon. members will recall that I objected then because a large

percentage of waiters and waitresses, those people who take out licenses to work

part-time, students most likely, many of them, who work part-time to try to

finance their education, had now to pay a $15.00 fee. Well, I am delighted the

minister has seen the error of his ways and has eliminated it altogether now.

No, he has not eliminated it altogether. He has only cancelled the fee. We still

have to trot off down somewhere and get a license.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, yes. Well, maybe I am wrong. I am

speaking now from memory. The minister is correct and I apologize. The license

is removed. It is one of the seven which gets me back to my original point. When

the minister announced 171 fees and licenses being removed there are only seven

licenses being removed out of his 171, seven in total. Now, the minister stood

there and this is why I say it was one of the most misleading statements ever to

be contained in a Budget document delivered by a Minister of Finance. If hon.

members care to go down through this list they will find the waiter's licenses.

No wonder I made a mistake. It is only one of seven that is being removed. There

is not a license at all being removed on the next page. There are no fisheries,

forestry, or health licenses being removed. Most of them are not even coming

into effect, the reduction of fees, until April 1993. There is nothing in the

Department of Mines and Energy being removed. In Municipal Affairs there is one

fee being removed, the initial fee for mobile home development. Well,

whoop-de-do. How often do we pay an initial fee for a mobile home development? -

once in a lifetime. What a big deal that is, Mr. Speaker. That one is eliminated

altogether. The license for pulpwood trucks operating on woods roads is being

removed. There will be dancing in the streets in Grand Falls, Corner Brook and

Stephenville tonight, I am sure, because those fees were removed as of March.

What else is removed? - not very much. Provincial park fees have also been

removed, those licenses. Non-resident trout license - and I spoke to that

before, Mr. Speaker. I do disagree with that. I suspect the Member for Eagle

River will have an interest in it, the removal of the non-resident trout

license.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Ah, I suspected so. The Member for Eagle

River does disagree, because he knows full well the problem that particularly we

are having in Labrador. We don't have a problem on the Island of Newfoundland,

nobody really cares; but I doubt if there has ever been a non-resident license

sold on the Island of Newfoundland to anybody who comes in, because nobody is

ever going to check. But in Labrador there is a serious problem, in that

outfitters in Quebec near the Labrador border, fly in or even come in by boat,

by canoe, come in through Newfoundland waters in Labrador, fishing and

overfishing; flying in with coolers and stocking them up with tens and hundreds