November

16, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 56

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to welcome on behalf of all hon. members to the

gallery today, sixty-four Level I and Level II students from the Democracy/Law

Class from Discovery Collegiate, Bonavista, accompanied by their teachers,

Stephanie Machim and Larry McCarthy. As well, we have sixteen students from the

Central Newfoundland Regional College, along with their instructors, Mr. Randy

Arsenault and Ms Mary Kelly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

At the AGM of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Municipalities in October, the minister spoke about the inauguration of a new

approach to municipal-provincial relations and how he would be facilitating that

approach. Specifically, he spoke his commitment to collaboration and dialogue

with municipalities.

In view of his unilateral mean-spirited and callous actions

on the slashing of the municipal operating grants, and his compilation of a

White Paper on regional government without even the courtesy of a

tele-conference with the federation executive, has the minister, I ask, decided

to replace dialogue and discussion with ministerial authoritarianism,

cold-heartedness and condescending approaches to the resolution of municipal

problems?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, that certainly hits me `right

here', because, for such a wonderful colleague and friend that I have had for

the past twenty years, both of us involved in municipal politics, and his

knowing - in fact he is the one who nominated me for the Presidency of the

Federation of Municipalities some years ago, and for him to get up and accuse me

of being hardhearted and callous, it's really a distressing comment for me to

have to deal with.

No, Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely no. I have every

intention of continuing dialogue with the Federation of Municipalities and any

council and any mayor in this Province, as I have been doing in the last

two-and-a-half years. I regret that - I will not say for no fault of this

particular government, but because our Budget estimates this year were thrown

off because of reductions from the Federal Government, we were put in a position

where we had no other choice but to save money, to find money to balance our

Budget and to be able to keep the services going that we provide to the people

of this Province.

I will say to the hon. member that I hope when this is over,

when and if it is over, at the end of the day our relationship, mine and my

department with the Federation of Municipalities, can be as cordial as it always

has been.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that the White Paper on regional

government has been written, and will he also confirm that the White Paper

acknowledges that local government will collapse in many communities, and that

these communities will be given observer or advisory status on the new regional

councils? Will he also confirm that the new regional council boundaries will be

similar to the boundaries of the nineteen new economic zones?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that the White

Paper is completed. I haven't seen the White Paper myself so I am assuming it is

not completed. If he has a copy I would like to see it. The White Paper, as far

as I am concerned, and my officials have told me that the White Paper should be

ready for perusal in the next couple of weeks. In fact, the first people who

will get the White Paper will be the Federation of Municipalities. They have

been working with me on a number of issues over the past two-and-a-half years

and will continue.

The hon. member knows that I have already made the commitment

to the Federation of Municipalities, and municipalities in general around this

Province, and anyone else in the whole community who wants to see the White

Paper, discuss it and have input into it, we are going to provide that

opportunity.

The answer to his question is, no, I don't have the White

Paper ready. I haven't seen it myself, and when I do see it myself, at that

particular point in time I will make it available. If he doesn't already have

it, I will make it available to the hon. member. If he has it, then he is doing

better than I am, because I don't have it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Will the minister now admit that his cuts to

the MOGs were well planned to severely disrupt the functioning of municipalities

in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to cause the creation of an environment where

his designs for a `made in Confederation Building' regional council approach

will be more readily accepted by cash-strapped and orphaned towns and cities,

and communities in this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, up to two weeks ago, I had no idea

that we would have a shortfall of in excess of $60 million. I had no idea. I

don't know if any other minister or any other member did. There is absolutely no

truth in the supposition or the proposal that you are putting forward. There is

absolutely no truth in it. I know the hon. member knows that. I didn't have any

idea up until two weeks ago that I would be forced to share the deficit burden

that we have in this Province, and my department will share it on an equal basis

with every other department of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: It is not right, Mr. Speaker, for the hon.

member to accuse me of plotting or planning to do anything with rural

municipalities in this Province, other than trying to help them in every way I

possibly can.

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

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

for the Minister of Health. The minister informed this House two weeks ago that

the Labrador health care board purchased a house for $182,000 for its CEO in

Happy Valley - Goose Bay. Since Mr. Woodward wrote that cheque for $182,000 for

the house, I've been informed that there have been further expenditures of

thousands of dollars recently including replacing new carpet because of colour

clash, landscaping, other major internal renovations, driving the cost in excess

of $200,000. Is the minister aware of those extra costs and does he feel it is

appropriate to spend upwards of $250,000 for a house for his CEO when they are

laying off front-line health care workers and the people in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay are waiting up to six months for dental services?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question of

the house purchase and its availability to the CEO in Happy Valley - Goose Bay

has been the subject of some public comment for the last couple of weeks. I've

answered the questions in the House regarding it.

Let me answer the question by outlining the circumstances

very briefly. The new Labrador health care board purchased a house for $182,000

some months ago and provided it to their new chief executive officer without

charging an appropriate, or in fact without charging, as best I can judge, any

rent for the house. He was or he is paying the utilities.

What happened was clearly outside of the policy established

in 1991 by my predecessor's predecessor, the Minister of Education, when he

informed all boards that for administration personnel no monetary or

non-monetary benefit was to be provided outside of the regular compensation or

salary package for that position. The new board was not aware of this when it

took the decision to purchase the house. It was a new board created in Labrador

and the new board chair had not been involved in health care prior to this. I

spoke with him personally and asked the question: were you aware of the policy?

The answer was clearly no or we would not have done that. So the house has been

purchased. I have directed them to correct the situation in such a manner as to

fall within the current policy which is to not provide non-monetary or monetary

benefits outside of the salary package. I met with Mr. Woodward last night. I

asked him for an update on the situation, he advised me that his board has not

yet addressed it fully. I have asked him to go back to his board and address the

problem that has been created by correcting it as soon as possible and I have

given him a number of days in which I want that done. Clearly it is not

acceptable to provide a house for free rent to the CEO of any health care board.

We will not condone it or accept it as being the norm or we will not make an

exception to allow it to happen.

As to the other expenditures that you have just referred to,

I can only tell you that I am hearing them from you for the first time. I have

no knowledge of additional expenses other than the purchase of the house.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said two weeks ago and yesterday in the house

what he said today. He has answered that before; that was not my question which

he just barely answered. I say to the minister, it is no excuse if someone who

is chairperson of a health board doesn't follow government policy. It is no

excuse because you appointed the board, I say to the minister and you are the

man responsible. Now the minister said in this House yesterday that if you buy a

house and amortize the mortgage and his words were, `you collect rent so that

the mortgage can be paid off then that does not add any costs to our health

care,.' that is what the minister said. Now will the minister tell this House

what the Labrador board is charging its CEO for rent for this house that is

close to $250,000 cost to purchase and renovate?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The house was provided to the CEO of the Labrador health care

board rent free. The only thing that they asked of him was to pay the utilities

and that was the arrangement which they put in place with him. They now clearly

understand that that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to government. It

is outside of policy and practice as permitted and the Labrador health care

board has been directed to correct the situation immediately and we will ensure,

Mr. Speaker, that that happens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Now, the question you asked me was what

the rent was. The rent today is nil, but the rent being nil is a violation of

government policy and we have asked that to be corrected such that not a nominal

but a reasonable market value rent be charged for the property so as to comply

with government policy.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister said in this House yesterday that the purpose of

rent is to recover the cost so there was no cost to our health care system. Now,

the amortization rate on a property of that size, I say to the minister, at

current rates today, it would have to collect over $2,000 a month to recover and

not be a cost to our health care system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I do.

The minister has denied the public opportunity to have input

into the operation of our health care system by personally appointing members to

boards in Labrador and the rest of this Province. Will the minister open that

closed door to secrecy? Will he stop making political appointments? And will he

have fully accountable and elected members to serve on boards in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The practice of appointing health care boards did not

originate with this minister or with this government. It has been a practice

that has been in place in this Province for many, many, many years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: That is how you are going to be after

the next election; they are all going to be partly elected. They are not going

to get enough votes to get back; I can assure you of that.

As to whether or not electing health care boards is a proper

course to follow, it might be something that we should consider in the future. I

am not fundamentally opposed to democracy. I am not fundamentally opposed to

electing or partially electing boards as a matter of principle, and it might be

something that in the future we may have to give some consideration to, but I

have to say to the hon. member at the moment that all of the health care boards

are in place. They were appointed either last year or this year, for a

three-year period, and it is not something that is contemplative in any sense in

the near future.

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

Bay.

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

the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, it is now public knowledge that a company known

as The North American Environmental Technology Incorporated is interested in

establishing a seal processing plant here in Newfoundland. Can the Premier

confirm that this company has submitted a business plan to the provincial

government, as well as the federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Tobin, and how

long has the provincial government had that proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am aware of the existence of a proposal,

and generally what is proposed. I do not personally have the detailed knowledge

of it. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, if he were present, could

give that information. I would have to undertake to get it and provide it to the

hon. member.

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

Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is moving along quite

rapidly now. As a matter of fact, meetings start tonight in my district in Baie

Verte and they are continuing throughout the northeast coast over the next few

days. I would like to ask the Premier if he would tell us if there is any action

taken so far by the provincial minister, and are there any meetings planned with

Mr. Tobin to see if we can speed up this process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Are there meetings planned with Mr. Tobin?

Yes, but not specifically for this process. For a variety of matters. How far

along is it? The minister has that detail and I can get the detail and provide

it to the hon. member after.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Seeing he isn't here I don't know

if I direct it to the Premier or to the senior minister of employment, the

chairman of social policy. In any case, for some time I've been asking questions

of the minister as to whether or not he has been advised by his federal Liberal

friends in Ottawa as to how they plan to crucify the seasonal unemployed in this

Province as it relates to those who depend on UI. I would like to ask either of

them now, whoever chooses to answer it, if their bosom pals in Ottawa have yet

advised them as to how they intend to inflict this punishment.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Let me tell the member that the minister who

is not here today is very much on top of this issue, and is, as is the whole

government, very much on top of the issue in trying to deal with the federal

government on this matter. We are making representations and have been doing so

for a number of months. I'm sure the minister could give you more details of it.

We've had a committee of Cabinet working on it and so on. But I mean, there are

major concerns. We have major concerns. The government has concerns, sir, and I

can tell you we will continue to have concerns until we see where the matter

goes in the future.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no, I can say that that is the

most information we've got, because the other minister had told us that he had

never been advised. Now that the minister has confirmed that the minister has

been advised, and indeed the Cabinet had been advised and are on top of it, will

he now tell the House what they have been advised as to how this punishment is

going to be inflicted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this minister or this

government has not said we have been advised. This government is making

representations continuously to the federal government. We are very concerned

about the major changes that they may make, or whatever changes they may make,

to the changes in unemployment insurance, that may affect seasonal income

earners in this Province, we are very concerned. We are expressing our concerns

in a number of ways to the federal government; we may express them more, once we

get the details of the plan that the federal government may be bringing down.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition can preach doom and gloom; we are

working with the federal government to try to see where we go with this issue

and when they give us the details, the government of the day, the details, we

will respond in kind but we have also told them, up front, that we are concerned

about this issue in a major way.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what I am

hearing. They are going to wait until such time as the federal government

decides on what they are going to do, and the mode in which they are going to

inflict this punishment and then they are going to make representation.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister or ask the Premier or

someone, will they change their attitude at this stage in the game, go to Ottawa

and demand, demand, Mr. Speaker, that they not inflict the punishment that they

are talking about upon these seasonal, unemployed people of this Province?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't have

ESP. You know, we have to see what the federal government is proposing. When

they tell us, when they tell the government what they are proposing, the

government will tell them what they think of the proposal, so until we get

something that is realistic, until we get something that the government can

respond to, Mr. Speaker, the government will continue to express its concerns

about changes to UI that will affect seasonal employees in the Province,

seasonal people.

I mean, we have a lot of seasonal workers, we are concerned

about any changes to UI that will affect those workers, we are concerned, Mr.

Speaker, but we cannot deal with something that we haven't got yet and are

waiting to get it and when we get it, we will respond but in the meantime, I

will repeat again: We have been making continuous representations; the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations, the Minister of Education and Training and

so on, so, Mr. Speaker, we are working on it, we are working towards it and we

are going to be dealing with it, hopefully.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, everybody is aware of the very high unemployment

rate in the Province; some people say it is 23 per cent, some say it is 30 per

cent, 40 per cent whatever, but because of this, Mr. Speaker, more and more

people in the Province are finding it very tough to survive especially as it

pertains to obtaining legal services in the Province.

Everybody knows that you probably cannot get into a lawyer's

office under $100 and if you get in, you probably can't afford to get out. Some

enterprising people in the Province, Mr. Speaker, have identified the need for

paralegals and indeed have set up office. Paralegals, as our learned friends in

the House know full well, are non-lawyers who perform legal tasks that were once

done by lawyers. Their rates are much cheaper than lawyers, making legal

services more affordable to people with very little money.

Would the minister, now tell the House what his department's

policy is concerning the establishment of paralegals in the Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for a question that I

suggest goes to a matter of considerable public interest and my first response

must be to the point made by my friend from Menihek, who has obviously spent

much more time in lawyers' offices for whatever reason than has my friend from

Humber Valley.

I agree with my friend from Menihek. It is not getting into a

lawyer's office that costs money it is getting out, but with that said, let me

say the problem is a very real one. We look upon it as a consumer-protection

issue. My officials have been, at my direction, looking into the issues

involved. They are not simple.

There are essentially two types of issues involved, Mr.

Speaker. The first is to ensure that no profession, and in this case we are

talking about lawyers, but the same principle would apply to psychiatrists,

doctors or to chiropractors and everybody else, uses their regulatory authority

to benefit themselves, economically unreasonably or, unreasonably in an economic

sense.

In other words, they have a monopoly. The law society has a

monopoly on the practice of law in this Province, it has had it for 160 or 170

years and that's fair enough. We have to make sure the lawyers or any other

professional group do not use that monopoly so as to restrict the availability

of services with the view of benefiting themselves economically but, on the

other hand, we have to make sure that people holding themselves out as

performing certain kinds of services are, in fact, qualified to do it. A lawyer

who handles something badly must answer to a disciplinary process. The problem

with the paralegals at present is there is no disciplinary process. We have to

address that and put one into place.

Now, that is a brief answer. I have probably gone beyond the

time that normally would be allowed for an answer. I would be delighted to - the

hon. gentleman may have a subordinate question, in which case I will respond to

that as well, but he is raising a very important issue and I tell him there is

no simple answer. We are looking very hard to find the correct answer.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister

said it or not but I think he alluded to the fact that paralegals sometimes

stray into areas of services that are provided only by lawyers. No person should

provide a paralegal service without having adequate insurance to cover both the

paralegal and the client or the consumer especially against errors and

omissions. Now, some of the people I have talked to in the paralegal community

so far cannot obtain this insurance because of the fact that they are a

regulatory regime. Will the minister tell the House if he is going to bring in

any regulations that will define the role of a paralegal and, at the same time,

protect the consumer?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the very quick

answer, in my understanding, is we do not have authority at this time to

introduce regulations. We would need legislation to sanction the regulations.

The Law Society Act, I understand, does not have - the regulation-making power

in the Law Society Act is not, in itself, sufficient. I agree with my hon.

friend. I tried to make the point in response to his earlier question; the issue

really is consumer protection. That is why we incorporate these associations. It

doesn't matter whether they are lawyers in respect to paralegals or any other

professional group one wants to go with.

The problem is not simply one of insurance, it is also

training. There are, doubtless, functions which have traditionally been done by

lawyers, it could be done equally well and perhaps a great deal more cheaply and

a great deal more easily by non-lawyers. The issue is how far do we go? It is

one thing to have a non-lawyer appear to represent one on a traffic ticket but

what about a drunk driving charge where, if the court finds one guilty, the

penalty is considerably higher than in respect of a parking ticket or even a

ticket for breach of the anti-speed regulations and so on. So I say to my hon.

friend that we will be moving in this area. I have a White Paper that has not

yet come to Cabinet but it addresses the issues involved in regulating

paralegals and in a whole host of other professions.

We have recently been asked to corporate the massage

therapists. We have any number of these out there. In fact, we have identified

thirty-eight professions at present which are regulated with a wide variety of

powers and a wide variety of - there is a public interest to be identified, a

public interest to be addressed and it applies to paralegals elsewhere. We have

two or three individuals, that I am aware of, now in this Province who are

performing paralegal services. If they are contrary to the Law Society Act the

Law Society will have to deal with that, but I am concerned with the broader

issue which I think is the one which my friend is raising and I think it is a

proper one for us to address.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: In view of the fact - I don't know if the

minister is aware of it - that there is a two-year legal studies program now

established at Academy Canada, both in St. John's and Corner Brook, if he brings

in the White Paper, would he consider then putting in - or any plans for the

certification of paralegals that would recognize a professional level of

achievement? Because those courses are being taught. Now there is that two-year

course being taught out of Academy Canada, St. John's and Corner Brook and when

those people come out they are expecting to get certain jobs. So would the

minister, in his White Paper, in conjunction with the Minister of Education,

make sure that there is a certification program there to honour that?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a rose by any other name...my

friend, the Minister of Education tells me that the courses being offered, to

which my friend, the Member for Humber Valley refers, are not on paralegals as

such. I suppose the real answer is, what is a paralegal? Every lawyer in the

Province for years has been using paralegals in the sense of real estate work

where a great deal of the work is done by secretaries, but at the end of the

day, the lawyer is responsible. If something goes wrong with the transaction,

the client comes back properly against the lawyer and we go on from there.

The overall answer is, yes, we are looking at where we should

regulate, the standards by which we should regulate and how we should regulate.

We want to allow on the one hand, people the freedom to practice professions, on

the other hand, we have to ensure that the public, the community, is protected,

and that people who describe themselves - it doesn't matter what they are,

denturists, dentists, optometrists, ophthalmologist, we have had this discussion

many, many times, in this Province, and the paralegals\lawyers one is simply the

latest manifestation of it. The answer, in my judgement, and I believe that of

my colleagues, is to address the issue as a totality, to put some principles in

place, and ask the House to put legislation in place, and deal with it on that

basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, this is a question for the

Minister of Finance, again relating to Holiday Inns. The minister told us last

week that government had accepted a tender for $6.5 million for the sale of

Holiday Inns, which he had told us a week or so before, on the book at least,

was worth $30 million. Would the minister like to tell us, have any renovations

been done to the Holiday Inns in the past two or three years, in fact, and what

the cost of those renovations might be?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I didn't tell the House that the hotels were on

our books for $29 million. What I said was that the cost of building them,

together with accumulated interest since about 1966 or thereabouts, 1968, would

have amounted to $29 million and, of course, there is a difference.

Secondly, yes, we were forced to carry out renovations in the

current year to maintain the Holiday Inn franchise. It cost us $1.5 million.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate certain

renovations would have to be done to maintain a franchise. I assume the minister

is talking about certain interior renovations, and upgrading of that nature,

normal, routine maintenance.

Would the minister like to tell us, under what basis was the

decision made to go ahead with installing heat pumps at Gander and Clarenville -

30 ton heat pumps - that is hardly normal renovations? It had nothing to do with

maintaining the Holiday Inn franchise. Would the minister like to tell us how

much that cost, and why would we put in heat pumps at this point in time,

knowing that the buildings were about to be sold?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a good question. I had

no idea they had installed two heat pumps, but I will check into it and let the

member know what, if any, reason there was for that, if indeed it did occur.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I refer the minister to

the latest Watt's Current , which is a publication of Newfoundland Light

and Power. It is such a massive project; I understand these are the largest heat

pumps installed in Newfoundland. No doubt, they are very cost-efficient, and you

will recover that in saved energy costs over a number of years, but that is

hardly the kind of thing you would undertake at a time when you have buildings

for sale. I would like to know why we are spending, I am sure the minister will

find, it is quite a large amount of money for these two heat pumps. Why are we

doing that, or are we just getting them ready for Fortis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The renovations were contracted for earlier this year before

I became minister. I didn't approve them. My understanding was that they were

done on the basis that they had to be carried out. I will inquire into the

amount and the reason for the heat pumps being installed, and let the hon.

member know in due course.

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

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting The

Investigation Of Fatalities." This is the act that some people may refer to as

the Coroner's Act. It is the bill that will introduce the new system.

May I, with leave, say that I have asked the Chair of the

relevant Standing Committee to convene his committee to see whether they wish to

examine this bill, and there will be two others that will be coming in of a like

nature, the Conflict of Interest Act, which will introduce a new regime for

public servants, and a Limitations Act, which is not a act to describe my

friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, no matter what he may think, but

rather, a bill to modernize the law with respect to limitation periods. I have

asked the committees to meet to consider whether they wish to deal with these

bills in detail. In any event, this bill should be in the House later today or

in the morning, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on behalf of the residents in the community of Muddy Brook. The

petition reads:

We, the undersigned, as residents of the community of Muddy

Brook, sign this petition to show that we are solely against being incorporated

into the town of Port Blandford.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Muddy Brook, I

have received correspondence from a representative, Garfield Peddle, and in this

petition, Mr. Peddle indicates that 80 per cent of the residents of Muddy Brook

who are over the age of eighteen years have signed the petition against the

extension of the municipal boundaries of the town of Port Blandford to include

their community.

The background to this matter is well known to members of

this House. In fact, it is well known to the minister. It is a case of where the

Terra Nova Park Lodge applied for funding under the infrastructure program and

they were approved, however, they were approved with a little bit of a twist to

it. In this particular case, approval was given to the town of Port Blandford to

borrow and to put in a sewer line from the Terra Nova Park Lodge through the

community of Muddy Brook and for the sewer to exit in the town of Port

Blandford.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, we see that the

community of Port Blandford has been used by the Terra Nova Park Lodge as a way

to access funding of $600,000. We acknowledge that the town of Port Blandford

will receive financial assistance from the Terra Nova Park Lodge for the

$200,000 which is their share. Of course the Province and the Federal Government

will each pay $200,000 of the funding cost.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, the Mayor of Port Blandford, Mayor

Penney, has admitted, in a newspaper article, that prior to this, the community

of Port Blandford had no interest in putting water or sewer towards the Terra

Nova Park Lodge. As a matter of fact, their infrastructure program had them

going in a far different direction. However, when all this commitment was made

the minister discovered that he might have to make some changes, therefore

awhile ago an add was placed in the local paper which basically advertised the

feasibility study to incorporate the community of Muddy Brook into the town of

Port Blandford. In other words to make matters right.

Now, we view that is not appropriate because, in this

particular case, there was no interest at all by the people of Muddy Brook to be

incorporated, but to make things appear to be right, to have things go

appropriately, the minister ordered a feasibility study.

Mr. Speaker, the real concern that we have is that the mayor

of Port Blandford has said in the public press, and I quote: Mayor Penney

explained that the area is not now incorporated, but once the sewer services are

installed it will become part of the incorporated town of Port Blandford; which

tells me that the minister had given, or his officials had given, a commitment

to the town of Port Blandford that this incorporation would take place.

Now, we have no objections to the town of Port Blandford

seeking the incorporation. We are just concerned about the lack of consultation

with the people of Muddy Brook and the incorporation against their will. A

forced amalgamation, you might call it. Also, we have concerns about what will

happen once you take a sewer line from the Terra Nova Park Lodge and extend it

all the way into Port Blandford. What you will have done is you will have

disturbed the water table in Muddy Brook, and at the end of the day, then we

will end up with a situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: - where the people will need a water –

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. HODDER: - and sewer line put in.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity to support my colleague, the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount, in presenting the petition on behalf of the people of

Muddy Brook, a very small - I'm not so sure if it was incorporated before. Was

it a local service district or were they just...?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Unincorporated altogether. It is not even a

community.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new here with regard to telling

people or - so-called forced amalgamation. The only thing about this particular

case here that I see that is different from all the others I have seen over the

years is that the people in Muddy Brook, if it is true, will get a new sewer

line although they didn't request it, they didn't ask for it. Having said that,

they were quite satisfied with what they had, but now they will be saddled with

the burden of extra taxes when they didn't even request a sewer line going

through their community.

It is funny. I have an area over my way in Deer Lake,

Nicholsville and Spillway that was sort of amalgamated. They didn't want to be.

It was against their wishes a few years ago, but within consultation and

communication and meetings and so on with the minister and his department, they

came to some agreements on what would be done over a five-year period. A

five-year phase-in would say: well, they will fix the road between Deer Lake and

Spillway. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation would bring the

roads from Nicholsville up to specification and then pass them over to the Town

of Deer Lake. The Town of Deer Lake then would absorb the local service district

of Nicholsville and Spillway and then go on to collect taxes, the same as they

are doing in the Town of Deer Lake. In fact, that has occurred with regard to

the amalgamated part of it, against the wishes of the people, but now, three

years after the fact, there is absolutely nothing done.

Now, if the government is going to ask people and ask

communities around this Province to amalgamate, to get together and see if they

can get more services, and tell them that by amalgamating they will come out of

it better off with better services - water, sewer, street lighting and what have

you, garbage collection - they are going to have to act and put their money

where their mouths are now, with the communities that they have amalgamated now,

and the agreements that were signed some three years ago. Then some of the other

communities around the Province may avail of the opportunity to amalgamate so

that they will try to get better services.

But, Mr. Speaker, I have a funny feeling there is something

else to all this. Changing the municipal operating grants - since 1989 the

municipal operating grants have gone, period, flushed right out of the room

altogether. A change, a complete new local revenue component, an equalization

component, the formula for repayment on capital debt has changed. The whole

gamut of social structure in the Province has changed. I have a funny feeling

that a lot of the stuff that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is

doing now is tied in with the Minister of ITT, those nineteen economic zones.

Something tells me that there is something else; there is something devious

going on here that, at the end of the day, the communities and the

municipalities in this Province will be associated with those nineteen economic

zones.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not serious.

MR. WOODFORD: You can venture to bet.

Regional government just brought in - there was some

legislation brought in here a few years ago, some amendments brought in just in

1993-'94 with regard to regional government in the Province but, as sure as I am

standing at this desk this evening, I would say within the next eighteen months

we will see communities in the Province that are associated with the nineteen

economic zones also brought into play with the municipalities in that particular

area of the Province - regional councils, without any input from local service

districts, without any input from unincorporated bodies, so we will become like

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, county government. We will have county government in

this Province, I would say, within eighteen months. The only thing that might

stop it is a provincial election. That is the only thing that might stop it from

being incorporated. Everything will be put in place, but it will be tied in with

the nineteen economic zones, so I say to the people of Muddy Brook that they are

no different, really; this government has been treating municipalities since

1989 in much the same manner. I have a prime example in my particular area now

whereby they agreed, really - government agree, the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation, in conjunction with the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs - to put certain things in place there and have not been

done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: So I say to the members opposite,

especially the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that he is going

to have to act in the next twelve to eighteen months to try to get a few things

in place there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my two favourite

friends and colleagues over on the other side a few minutes ago, and I had to

laugh all the while. I was laughing all the while they were talking because when

I look back and think about what the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount, when

he was Mayor of Mount Pearl, and his colleague was, I believe, the Minister of

Finance at that time, from Mount Pearl, and sent around two separate plebiscites

in Newtown - that is part of Mount Pearl now - and on two separate occasions the

vote came back; almost 100 per cent said: No, no, no, we do not want to

amalgamate with Mount Pearl, and these two gentlemen said: Never mind that; we

are going to put them in anyway. It is unbelievable.

Then, on the other side, I cannot let my very good friend

from Humber Valley - my very good friend from Humber Valley - and I cannot

really say a lot about him out there because he is such a wonderful member and

everything, but right next door to him... You remember the episode we had with

South Brook and Pasadena, and the racket that was kicked up over that. The

people in South Brook and Pasadena said: Absolutely no way are you going to

combine us; there is no way. I wonder who the Premier at the time was, and what

government was in. I think you were a minister at that time, and the member

representing from that area was also Minister of Justice at that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was done democratically.

MR. REID: It was done democratically. That was done

democratically. Let me tell you what democratic is. This is what democratic is:

A month ago this department had a letter from the Mayor of Port Blandford

requesting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, I do.

- requesting that the Town of Port Blandford -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: The Town of Port Blandford was interested in

incorporating the area called Muddy Brook into their town. Now, under the act I

have to respond to that, and my response to that was: If that is what you are

requesting, then we have to go through a procedure, and the procedure is that we

write the people of Muddy Brook - it is not even a community, by the way - we

write the people living in the area called Muddy Brook, and we tell them what

the plan is, what the letter that we had from Port Blandford included, and what

we plan to do, and here is what we are going to do. We have appointed a

commissioner, and independent commissioner - I do not even know who he is, to be

honest about it; I will get the name for you, but he is an independent

commissioner - he is going to go out and talk to the people of Muddy Brook, he

is going to talk to the people of Port Blandford, and then at the end of the day

he is going to come back to me and say: Mr. Minister, here is what I recommend

you do.

Now let me tell you this: If at the end of the day, the

commissioner recommends that Muddy Brook not be included with Port Blandford,

then Muddy Brook won't be included with Port Blandford. We do it the democratic

way, not the way that you two, you two hon. members did it in your regions, but

the way we do it as a Liberal government, a democratic government.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Your Honour, we had got along so very well with the debate on

Bill 29, which is Order 20, that I suggest that we may resume the debate. My

friend from Grand Bank I think, had used up his time and so the debate is in the

hands of whoever Your Honour chooses to recognize or, we would be prepared to

call the question if that's what members wish, but anyway, if you would call

Order 20, Sir, we would get on with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister want to speak?

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

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

Treasury Board. If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to acknowledge some of the questions from my

learned friend from Mount Pearl and the hon. Member for Kilbride and the Member

for Springdale.

I think most of the issues raised by them were not of

particular relevance to the bill; I think they were mostly with respect to the

current position of government vis-à-vis the deficit. The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl raised a question of early retirement plans to try to reduce the number of

permanent employees and also questioned the number of temporary employees

working with government.

The point I want to make again, was that, we are looking at

all the options. One of the concerns about any early retirement packages the

last one that government had I believe was in 1988, and at that time there was

no anticipated take up of the plan that cost government $118 million, the result

unfortunately was that, rather than positions being eliminated, a lot of people

who took the early retirement option were in fact, in positions that had to be

replaced particularly in the health sector, so the result of that is very

difficult sometimes to tailor an early retirement plan, a general application

that always will reduce the workforce, but it may be something that government

could look at in a certain context, but certainly, the issue of the workforce

will have to be addressed.

The rest of the questions were of a similar nature and dealt

generally with the Budget and of course, we are trying to deal with that at this

point in time, but that's a specific provision of the bill. I believe most

members spoke in support of the provisions and understood the basis on which

they have been brought forward, and on that basis I move second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government Money

Purchase Pension Plan Act, The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991, The Teachers'

Pensions Act, The Uniform Services Pensions Act, 1991, The Memorial University

Pensions Act,

Chapter 18 Of The Statutes Of Newfoundland, 1993 And The Pensions

Contributions Reduction Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we are doing so well on

pensions, let's go on to Order 22, Bill 25, which is another act to amend

pensions' legislation.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," (Bill

No. 25).

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very straightforward bill dealing with a very

narrow issue under The Public Service Pensions Act And The Uniformed Services

Pensions Act. What it allows is, an employee who is eligible for medical

retirement, when their position becomes redundant and do not use all their sick

leave to receive those medical retirement pensions commencing from the

redundancy date. As my hon. critic is aware from his position at Treasury Board

and Finance, people are retired from time to time on medical grounds and that's

provided for under a general pension legislation.

We have a medical group who evaluates these and I believe in

the last several years, Dr. O'Shea here in St. John's who has a specialty in

compensation matters was contracted to review claims that come to government for

retirement on medical grounds. Almost without exception we found his services to

be valuable and his advice is invariably received and taken.

We believe that the medical pension issue is one that all

hon. members support. It is one that I believe is administered well by the

department. Although there have been some questions in the past, I believe that

the present system is working reasonably well.

This addresses a minor point I believe in the triggering of

when that pension is to be taken up or calculated from. What it essentially says

is that if an employee is on sick leave and just happens to be in a position

that is declared redundant, then the pension plan picks up as of the time that

the employment is terminated. That is just necessary for us in order to make the

proper calculations and removes any question as to whether or not the employee

is entitled to sick leave benefits and things of that nature.

I would be happy, Mr. Speaker, to answer any questions the

hon. members may have with respect to this provision.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the minister says it is

really quite straightforward. I assume that, if I understand correctly, these

are people who are on sick leave when their position is declared redundant.

Rather than being redundant they can accept their medical pension, that is what

you are saying. I think that is a benefit to public servants, Mr. Speaker. I

don't have a problem with it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few words.

In so far as this is a bill out of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board

and does allow for what the Speaker ruled the other day was a wide-ranging

debate, I would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to remind the hon. member that

yes, it is a bill out of the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and I

guess there is some wide-ranging debate. But referring to Tuesday's debate, I

don't think some of the discussion that we had was relevant to the particular

bill that we were discussing at the time, and have no intention to let the range

be that wide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: Just as a point of clarification. Not to

question Your Honour, but it is my understanding that any finance bill is very

broad ranging. Simply because, if you are talking financing, anything that

relates to financing impacts on anything. So I mean this bill, and the cost of

this bill, could be said to impact on anything that has any financial

implications to it. That is why traditionally in this House and every other

House any matter dealing with any finance bill is very broad ranging. Great

scope is given.

I appreciate what Your Honour is saying, that a lot of the

debate that took place last week or whenever it was, Tuesday, had absolutely

nothing to do with the bill itself, with the principle of the bill, but there

are still financial implications. It is my knowledge that it has always been

interpreted quite liberally and that great latitude has been given.

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. To that point of order, Mr.

Speaker. My hon. friend for Mount Pearl makes a valid point in that

traditionally with finance bills the House has allowed a latitude of debate that

may not be accorded to ordinary matters. But with respect, simply because a bill

is introduced by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board doesn't make it a

finance bill. Simply because it has some kind of financial aspect to it doesn't

make it a finance bill.

I would say to my hon. friend for Mount Pearl that we have

already announced that we will be calling today Motion Nos. 1, 2 and 4, and I'm

prepared to call them in any order that members may wish. I hope we will deal

with all three of them today. Number 4 is supplementary supply. I would agree

with him that on supplementary supply, or on a supply bill, the debate is

absolutely wide-ranging. There the traditional rubric - and he may even find it

when he looks in - he is skimming through the sixth edition of Beauchesne over

there - he will even find, I suspect, the hallowed phrase is: No supply without

redress of grievance. This is when the Commons, which is what we are, the

Commons comes forward and makes its speech or raises its grievances but, with

respect, on a pensions amendment act, the debate surely has to be relatively

relevant to the matter in the bill which is an amendment to pension's

legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I acknowledge that

while this bill is from the Department of Finance and that it may be interpreted

as a wide ranging debate, I did indicate that in second reading we are dealing

with a principle of a bill, that the statements must be relevant. If the Chair

determines that the statements made on the debate is relevant then, no problem,

but I must say that some of the debate that we had earlier on a similar bill was

certainly, in my estimation, not relevant.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sorry to have caused such a disruption in the House with my

caveat at the beginning of my remarks. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I think

what got people worked up with the debate on a similar issue the other day was

not so much with what was said but rather sort of how it was said. The tone and

the tenor of the debate got rather heated and intemperate in so far as - I do

believe I am probably the guilty party in that I did make a speech of general

political proportions which did arouse certain sentiments in the hon. Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation. After that minister had a go at me

individuals on all sides of the House were going at each other in somewhat of a

mélée. So I can appreciate your honours concern that the debate not get out of

hand.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to pensions, we have a situation on

the go in this Province right now where the Minister of Finance has indicated

that a number of public employees in this Province may well have to take their

leave of this environment by virtue of the $60 million overrun on the current

budget and no doubt there will be people leaving early and invoking their

severance rights. There may well be people invoking pension rights as well. That

brings us, Mr. Speaker, to the entire situation that this government finds

itself in financially. When we had the budget brought down last spring, Mr.

Speaker, there was considerable applause from the government opposite, that for

the first time in the history of this Province we had a balanced budget. Recent

statements from the minister would indicate that anything like that is not at

all the case and that is certainly what we indicated some time ago when the

minister brought the budget down.

Mr. Speaker, we have a government here, that with regard to

many matters has been basically using crisis management. In the matters of

pensions, they have dipped into employee pension funds as a short term budgetary

measure. As I indicated earlier, some employees may have to draw on their

pensions in due course because of the requirements of balancing the budget. That

brings us generally to the situation with this government and the way it is

managing.

As I indicated the other day, the federal government,

whatever you think of their particular policies, appears to have developed a

sectoral approach to its budgetary situation and its debt management. It has

chosen the priorities to finance in this nation and as indicated in certain

programs and policies that are under review. Some, such as the National Defence,

the UI program, transfers to provinces are going to be either eliminated or

significantly curtailed. That being the case, we have a government in Ottawa at

least that appears to be about certain directed policies to bring its budgetary

situation in line. What we have down here is a government, when faced with a

crisis, tends to handle the situation as a crisis and so we see what is before

us today. The House of Assembly Department obviously has got to make a

contribution to the budgetary problem, the line departments of government will

all have to make their contributions to the budgetary problem to see us through

the rest of this fiscal year, and I guess we will have to deal with it all over

again come the fiscal year 1996-'97. This government really hasn't reviewed any

of its programs or policies to see if some of them are outdated, unnecessary,

etcetera, so that there is a more surgical approach to meeting Budget targets

rather than a broad-axe approach of any and all government programs and

personnel taking a certain across-the-board cut. While that may have a certain

perception of fairness, it may be an abandonment of the government's mandate to

govern effectively, to provide the people of the Province with a level and

quality of service, and a degree of service commensurate with its mandate as a

government of a provincial legislature.

Mr. Speaker, we have, in recent days, seen also in regard to

what I said earlier, the Federal Government making certain directed changes in

its economic policy; we saw it again here in Question Period today. The Federal

Government is undertaking a major review of the unemployment insurance program,

a program that operates in surplus. Any significant cuts, as they would impact

on Atlantic Canada, are basically as a result of a policy decision on the part

of the Federal Government to engage in a degree of social engineering. What we

have is a deliberate decision that seasonal work, UI as a cyclical ongoing

lifestyle in rural, Northern, and certainly, Atlantic Canada, has been deemed by

the Federal Government to be no longer a legitimate lifestyle, and we have

governments in other parts of Canada, in other regions of Canada, speaking up

loudly and vociferously against these moves.

Our bone of contention with regard to this particular

Administration, and it was evidenced here today in Question Period by the

Minister of the Environment acting for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, is that this government appears to be acting anything but

vociferously in its defence of Newfoundland's interest with regard to this

matter. We had the Premier, the other day, indicating: what would be the good of

sort of ranting and raving, or being loud and aggressive with regard to these

proposed cuts?

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier or, I suppose, any minister of

this government: What have we to lose? They have played the reasonable back room

broker, `be nice to my cousins in Ottawa' line for quite some time now, and that

doesn't seem to have worked. And I guess, one of the main reasons for changing

direction in how you deal with the problem like the Federal Government is that

if the tune you have been singing all along is not getting an appropriate

response, then maybe changing your tune would do just that. And, Mr. Speaker,

when I indicated that, to some extent, there the other day, I think that was one

of the things that led to the debate sort of going off the rails, because

government members, especially the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, took extreme exception to my indication that this particular

government has basically gone soft on talking to Ottawa on matters affecting

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to kick over the traces with

regard to UI. It is indeed pitiful when we see a federal Liberal backbencher

having to speak up on behalf of his constituents on this matter when we have our

Cabinet minister in Ottawa, Mr. Tobin, and an array of ministers on the front

bench here, appearing to go through the motions of expressing concern with

regard to the social engineering coming on UI, but doing very little else. The

time has come for this government to realize that its jurisdiction lies within

Newfoundland and Labrador, and just as it has jurisdiction over the pensions

referred to in this bill, it has jurisdiction over the economy and certain

general matters with regard to the well-being of this Province. There is an onus

on this government to focus on its role as both the provider for the people in

this Province and the protector of the people in this Province in its dealings

with the Federal Government.

Mr.Speaker, I was an employee of a former Administration that

had absolutely no problem in taking on Ottawa. Whether Ottawa was governed by

the Progressive Conservatives or the Liberals, the main criteria for our

opposition to matters out off Ottawa was whether or not what Ottawa was about

was good or bad for us. If what they were about was good for us we said, all

well and good, but if it was bad for us we fought back, Mr. Speaker. Because it

is not enough, in the world of politics and public administration, to do what

you think is the right thing - you have to be perceived to be doing what is the

right thing.

In the case of a small province standing up to a large

Federal Government backed by several large and prosperous provinces in this

nation, it is not sufficient to quietly operate behind the scenes, to lobby, to

cut the best `lost cause' deal we can. A cause is not lost until the fight is

over, but first we have to have the fight. Out of this particular Administration

there has been very little fight.

The ilk of this particular Administration has been to hold

sway and to swagger at times on the national stage, but only in matters of

constitutionality. We have a people down here in this Province who are more

concerned on a daily basis with putting bread and butter on the table, sending

their kids to school, maintaining decent education and health care systems and

so on. This government appears to get exercised, this government appears to get

worked up, this government appears to stand its ground on the nebulous and

intellectual issues relating to the Constitution. What we need is a government

of the Province that will take on `Uncle Ottawa' when needs be.

They have certainly showed no hesitation whatsoever in

jumping up on the stage when Ottawa is in the good light of day, but somehow,

when Ottawa is in the bad light of day, they seem to be content to whisper

behind the curtains without coming out on the stage and taking a few pokes at

Ottawa, rather than only coming out on the stage to shake Ottawa's hand when it

is convenient for both St. John's and Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, anytime I have a chance to speak generally with

regard to this government - you know, I can pick on individual programs and

policies with regard to this government, but one thing that is the hallmark of

this government, that is the signature of this government, that is the logo of

this government, is its acquiescence in dealing with the Federal Government.

Occasionally, when utterly pressed, they will bring forward a

back-bencher to bring in a private member's resolution, to at least put some

smoke screen or some show of emotion, some show of standing up for Newfoundland

and Labrador. But, on the whole, all the ministers, including the minister who

is currently yawning over there, that's what they have been doing when the feds

have been putting the boots to us - they have been yawning as well. I don't know

if I should continue in this vein, Mr. Speaker, because I have a funny feeling

that even the minister from Exploits may get exercised enough to rise from his

seat and go into a round of furious debate, but that would be a surprise indeed.

So, Mr. Speaker, this government has to change its tactic in

dealing with the Federal Government. It has to be as strong in terms of

protecting our fiscal position, as strong in terms of protecting our national

social programs, as it was in protecting the Premier's intellectual concerns

with regard to the Constitution of Canada. Until such time as this government

stands up, speaks up, fights back, this Province will be a net loser in

Confederation. And, as a result of that, if it doesn't change, I think the

Liberal Party will be a net loser in the next election. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Member for

Bonavista South, I would like to take members back to what happened on Tuesday

in the debate. The point of order, I think, was raised by the hon. the

Opposition House Leader in reference to the issuing of purchase orders and

signing of purchase orders.

I read through Hansard, the transcript of what happened on

Tuesday. I find no reference to the hon. the Member for Eagle River saying that

the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West issued or signed the purchase

orders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member did indicate that - and I think he was

referencing the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West when he talked about

the issuing of purchase orders. And then the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West said: "Several times today he made reference to my name being

signed on purchase orders." But he didn't indicate that the hon. the Member for

Burin - Placentia West's name was signed on purchase orders. In a sort of

withdrawal, the hon. the Member for Eagle River said: "I said that there were

purchase orders issued by Executive Council for particular aspects of how they

govern, and obviously I stand by that particular statement, but I made no

insinuation whatsoever that the member over there signed that purchase order."

I would like to refer hon. members to Beauchesne, page 151,

paragraph 494: "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by

Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must

be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made

by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional

falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having

to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident."

I would like to remind hon. members in this House that all

members are honourable, and whenever there are speeches we should take that into

account. When you say something in this House, it is accepted as being factual,

and I remind hon. members that we should keep this in mind. The rules are there

for the protection of members, and we can say things in this House that normally

can't be said outside the Chamber without being subject to legal consequences,

but that is there for a reason. Sometimes, in the heat of debate, members get

carried away and say things that they shouldn't say, and if they did say them

outside the House there would be problems.

So, I would like to remind hon. members - there is no point

of order here, but I think that this is a time for all of us to reflect why we

are here and what the House is all about, and I would caution members, in their

speeches, to be cautious in terms of what they say. I think we should treat each

other in this House as being hon. members.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I respect Your Honour's ruling, and I don't want to belabour

the point. I guess I feel compelled to say this, that it is unparliamentary to

impugn motives upon another member. There is clear reference in Beauchesne to

that, that it is unparliamentary to impugn motives upon another member of this

House, and in my humble opinion, the Member for Eagle River certainly did that.

Even though he didn't say that the Member for Burin - Placentia West signed

purchase orders, he mentioned `Glenn' on any number of occasions where he

alleged that former Premier Peckford told him to go and get cigars, and go and

get alcohol, and go and get food, and in other references in Hansard, he

referred to the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I respectfully submit to Your

Honour that he certainly did impugn motives upon the member, and I think that is

unparliamentary, and I think the Member should withdraw and apologize to the

Member for Burin - Placentia West for impugning motives upon him.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, I think if we refer

the hon. the Opposition House Leader to page 1912 of Hansard in terms of the

response of the Member for Eagle River -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Page 1912, the last paragraph. The hon.

member did withdraw, in his statements, what is indicated the Opposition House

Leader was talking about.

Order, please!

I guess we are on a bill. The hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, I will give him

enough time to close off debate before he goes to his meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise and say a few brief words on

Bill 25. I will certainly try to keep it relevant to the bill. I understand, on

a money bill, the debate is pretty wide-ranging and you are allowed to speak on

just about anything concerning your district and anything as it relates, I

suppose, to spending by government.

A prime example, I suppose, of money being spent unwisely is

what we have been witnessing here in this House this last couple of weeks. The

Member for Waterford - Kenmount has been questioning the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs on $600,000 being brought forward to spend to put a sewer

line into St. Christopher's Resort, a privately-owned operation in the District

of Terra Nova and passing through another unincorporated community. Those

people, it appears, will be forced into amalgamation with Port Blandford and it

will be an enforcement that those people want no part of. Mr. Speaker, I myself

know many people who live in Muddy Brook. I know many people there who have

consistently not wanted to be part of the municipality of Port Blandford, and

now, because this luxury resort has gone up there - and granted, it does employ

some people, which is very, very important, but I don't think the taxpayers of

this Province should have to finance water and sewer facilities for some private

exclusive club, which is what this resort is going to turn into. The shame of

it, Mr. Speaker, is when we see so many other municipalities out there today

without water, without sewer and without sensible roads to drive over.

I refer to a couple of municipalities in my area, Mr.

Speaker, a couple of community council areas. In one particular case this lady

lives on a public road there with a mentally and physically challenged son who

is forty years old and confined to a wheelchair. Mr. Speaker, this lady hasn't

been able to get her son down over the public road that leads to her house for

months now, hasn't been able to get her son in a wheelchair down over the road.

The only way that she can get him out to the main road to take him to the store

or to take him to other functions in the community is to call people, call

neighbours to physically pick him up, pick the wheelchair up and carry him about

800 feet down to the main road. I think if this happened in most other

communities, not only would the road be upgraded but it would probably be paved,

so that this challenged individual could have suitable access to enjoy some of

the things that most of us take for granted. Mr. Speaker, it has gotten to the

point where the ambulance won't go over the road and the grocery delivery truck

stops at the main road, and the lady has to go and physically carry the

groceries from the main road up to her house. And that is the shame of seeing

$600,000 put in this direction and so many of the other needs forgotten about.

I brought this to the minister's attention and I am sure that

he is going to be looking at it. It has gotten to the point now, Mr. Speaker,

that the department of highways which normally snow-clears those roads that I

refer to, are refusing to provide winter maintenance because of the condition of

the roads. They are in fear of putting their equipment there, because of the

danger of damage being done to the equipment, forcing it to be taken off the

roads altogether.

MR. EFFORD: What!

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister knows, because I wrote him a

letter on the same issue. He didn't have the decency to respond, I might add. I

have never received an answer. I have to give credit to the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who is aware of it, Mr. Speaker, and has said

to me personally: We are looking after it. I compliment him for that, because he

has a heart, Mr. Speaker, and he realizes that Newfoundland exists outside of

his own district. So I compliment him on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he does. I feel the minister will go

down and his officials will do something about it. But as for the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, I am sorry, but I can't say the same about

him. A couple of times we came in and we had delegations meet - one particular

time we had delegations meet with the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and the meeting was so positive, they couldn't wait to get home,

because they thought the work would be done before they got there. They thought

the work would be done before they got there. And I said to them: `Boys, that's

the type of individual you are dealing with - it will never get done.' But

that's his way of dealing with people in a situation - `Treat me nice now that

you have me here and I'll forget about you when I'm gone.'

But people are remembering, people are remembering, I say to

the minister, and one thing that he has to remember is that he is the minister,

a Minister of the Crown, and it is for Newfoundland and Labrador not only for

his own district but for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Liberals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let the record show, Mr. Speaker, what he

said.

MR. FITZGERALD: Let the record show. He will be taken to

account because of that.

Mr. Speaker, the days are gone when you can do those kinds of

things. In rural areas, Mr. Speaker, the days are gone when you can do those

kinds of things and not be taken to task over it. The minister found that out

when he came down to my district a couple months ago, when he flew in by

helicopter to look at the condition of the roads there. Somebody, one of my

constituents, did pick him up and all he talked about was politics. How come the

former Minister of Transportation never won Bonavista South? That's all he

talked about. He wanted to know what happened in Bonavista South. How come the

former minister never won? Well, I say, it could be a repeat in your district

the next time around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I guarantee you - you are not the local

hero that you are here in the House of Assembly that you portray yourself to be.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) take me on.

MR. FITZGERALD: People see you out there. I have people

to take you on. I say to the minister, I am not going to take him on; no, he

knows different from that - it is not the district I want to run in. But I

invite the minister, I throw out the challenge. I throw out the same challenge

to the minister, come down to Bonavista South, come down; you will have no

problem to come down, but I tell you, you won't be occupying the benches the

next time around. They see through you; they see through the minister, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Be very careful when you (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I will issue the challenge and I

won't be careful about it. I say to the member: Come on down! The fishermen out

in Port de Grave might have been donating boxes of crab to the P.C. Party, but I

can guarantee you that the fishermen in Bonavista will not be donating cartons

of anything to the minister down there. He will be forgotten about like he is in

his own district.

Mr. Speaker, to show the incompetence of the minister, a

prime example was a couple of weeks ago when he came out with a budget. There is

$10 million - I just want to read this into the record: There is $10 million

existing in a kitty somewhere between here and Ottawa to upgrade Route 230, $10

million. The minister is saying -and we are leading up to 1997, the first time

in 500 years that the Bonavista Peninsula has had a chance to be the focal point

of the nation. The minister, in his wisdom, is saying that he is not going to

spend the money before 1997, he is not going to spend the money because he is

afraid of having construction equipment on the roads. What about 1996, I ask the

minister? What's wrong with 1996?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Come down - I ask the minister to come

down to the district and drive over Route 235, the one that he flew over last

year, and see the condition - very seriously - to see the condition that the

road is in today, and he will find that there is certainly a need to have money

spent there and they certainly need to have that road attended to, a road that

school children have to drive over every day of the week, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Trinity North is giving it

to him as well; bring that to the attention of the House.

MR. FITZGERALD: A prime example, the Member for Trinity

North agrees with what I am saying, but can't get any satisfaction from the

minister as well. Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, I will now allow him to close debate so that he can go and deal

with other issues that concern this House. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased that the bill has received such universal

acclaim and acceptance and therefore I will move second reading. Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service

Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No.

25)

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Walsh): Order, please!

The House has been dissolved into a Committee of the Whole to

discuss Bill No. 14,

An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is a perennial piece of legislation that comes before

the House pursuant to the Local Authority Guarantee Act, which each year lists

the guarantees that have been offered and given on behalf of various

municipalities in the Province by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These are outlined in the body of the act. They represent for the most part, if

not entirely, municipal works in these different communities. The Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board each year has assigned guarantees on behalf of the

Province for these municipalities in order for this work to be carried out.

These particular guarantees were entered into during the

period October 13, 1994 to March 10, 1995. In order to give them full legal

authority, it is necessary that the House consider and pass this resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess it is not so much what is in this bill as what is not

in it. First of all, it is the amount of money this year as compared to previous

years. Every year it seems to be less. It is probably just as well, based on the

announcement the minister made last week. Having given all these municipalities

the authority to borrow - let's be very clear that there is no grant component

involved here, this is simply approval to borrow. The municipality is totally

liable for any work done under water and sewer program -totally repay. The

Province guarantees it. So some municipalities that are not able to pay the full

shot receive some assistance if they can't pay their loans, or they default on

their loans.

Mr. Speaker, there are going to be a lot more of them now.

Having reduced the municipal operating grant to the extent that it has, I

suspect there are going to be a lot more municipalities which are not going to

be able to pay on these loans. So, what the government is taking in one hand by

reducing the operating grant, it may well have to pay out in subsidies to honour

these guarantees in future years. One has to question the wisdom. It is like

penny wise and pound foolish here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the lack thereof.

MR. WINDSOR: Or the lack thereof. Lack of wisdom is very

obvious on the opposite side, Mr. Chairman. But it is a very real question as to

why a government would do that.

It is a breach of faith that concerns me most. These

guarantees or these loans were given a year ago, over the last year - and they

are given every year, this is standard procedure - to municipalities to engage

in major capital works, essential water and sewer works within municipalities in

this Province. Municipalities accept that responsibility under the assumption

that they have certain revenues coming in each year, based on the Municipal

Operating Grant system that was put in place, I'm proud to say, by myself, in

1979. I have always considered that probably one of the greatest contributions

that I made to municipalities in this Province was to introduce the Municipal

Grants Act in 1979 as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. And it bothers

me quite a bit to see it being dismantled now. It has been changed quite a bit

over the years and it is starting to be totally dismantled. If the indications

the minister has given this week are any indication at all, then we can expect

to see the Municipal Operating Grant disappear over a number of years. The

minister has indicated he would like to see that. He hasn't said he would do it

but he certainly said that he would like to see that.

Clearly, what we are seeing here is a downloading of

financial responsibility from the Province to municipalities, and this

particular case is the worst breach of faith that I have seen since I have been

in this House - a total breach of faith, to totally change the operating system

under which municipalities have made multi-year commitments, borrowing

commitments, and every municipality that has a water and sewer system in this

Province has a tremendous amount of commitment there, a financial liability that

they have accepted on behalf of their taxpayers to repay these loans over a

period of years.

Now, they can come forward and say: Well, sorry, we can't pay

it, but I suspect they will get pretty stiff opposition from the minister and

his departmental officials when they do that. I am sure the minister is not

going to be too generous in picking up the tab on those loans. But it may well

be that many of these municipalities may find themselves in such a position as

my friend, the Member for Waterford -Kenmount indicated this afternoon, where

not only will they not be able to pay the loans, they may totally dissolve

themselves, and the minister may find himself totally in possession of all of

these guaranteed loans. He may well own numerous water and sewer systems around

this Province in municipalities that can no longer carry on, either because

financially they don't have the wherewithal, the tax base to do it, or they are

probably not going to be able to find people who are prepared to run, volunteers

to run for office to manage the municipality, Mr. Chairman.

I think that is a very, very real possibility. The whole

municipal structure in this Province is being seriously threatened by this

government, by the actions of the minister, and that is only one example of it.

Now, we are hearing again today about the possibility of another concept of

regional government. This is almost like the resettlement program, except you

are not being paid to resettle; you are being starved out so you are not going

to have any choice but to resettle. This is government's way of reducing the

number of municipalities in this Province - reduce the amount of financial

assistance to them and make it absolutely intolerable for them to continue as an

operating municipality. Take full control away from the local areas and put it

into one of these great regional councils.

Now, there is a big difference in regional government and

having a totally amalgamated area. We have said many, many times before that we

have always supported the concept of regionalization and the sharing of regional

services that are more cost-efficient to operate on a regional basis. There are

many, many examples in this Province where government should be moving forward

to encourage municipalities, not to shove it down their throats, but to

encourage them to combine their services, to jointly share their services, and

to be cost-effective for all municipalities involved, Mr. Chairman. But this is

not the way to do it. You don't starve them out.

This is a time in our history when the economy is in terrible

shape and rather than saying: Well, we have a terrible problem and the only

thing we can do is pass the buck to the municipalities and let them bear the

brunt of it, let them do the tax increases, so that the Minister of Finance can

stand in his place, as he did last year, and say, this is a wonderful Budget, it

is a balanced Budget, and there are no tax increases or no taxes of any kind -

the most dishonest statement ever put forward in this House of Assembly. It was

totally dishonest, and we all knew it at the time. We said it at the time and it

has been proven now.

The $60 million deficit that we are now faced with is not

something that just appeared. There is nothing magic about that. Do you recall

the Premier standing here about two years ago and saying: We are going to have a

great plan to get out of this financial situation, to get rid of this deficit.

We are going to do it over a three-year period. And we congratulated him.

Finally, we had a plan that was longer than twenty-four hours come out of this

government, a three-year plan to eliminate the deficit. It was going to be

eliminated by 1996 or 1997.

Last year, he said: We are a year ahead of our target. We

have done so well, we are such a great government, we have done such a job of

managing the economy that we are going to come in a year ahead of time.

He said it was true, but we knew it wasn't true, and we can

see now, it is not true. We are looking at a $60 million deficit, but now what

has the Premier done, and the Minister of Finance? He has said: We have a

serious problem. We have to take action now. Serious action, a serious problem,

because we are back where we said we would be three years ago; we are back on

track now. We tried to fool the Province into thinking that we could balance the

Budget this year. Now we have to admit that we can't do that; we are back to

where we thought we were.

Now, all of sudden, being back on track at about a $60

million deficit this year is a major problem, such that they are threatening to

lay off thousands of public employees, and cut all kinds of programs and

services to the people of this Province. Why, all of a sudden, are we faced with

such a problem? It seems like every year, around the middle of November, the

Premier has to come out with doom and gloom and totally destroy the retail

sector for the balance of the Christmas season.

I am getting calls from around the Province where they are

already seeing the impact of this, this negative impact, the uncertainty that

has been caused by the Premier and the Minister of Finance saying, `We have a

serious problem and we are going to look at it, and we are going to have a

statement toward the end of the month.' I suspect, some time late next week we

will have the Minister of Finance out with, if not a mini-Budget, the next thing

to it.

In the meantime, thousands of public servants have said,

`Oops, put a zipper on the wallet and the cheque book. We can't take any

chances. We don't know if we will be working next week, or if our salaries will

be cut back by 10 per cent or 15 per cent'. So it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

When you say that we have a problem and we are considering doing something, you

soon find out that people respond, and when they stop spending, government stops

bringing in retail sales tax, and then they do have a problem; they have a

bigger problem then. So it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The same is true now with what is happening here with

municipalities, in gross cutbacks, in municipal assistance, in every program

that was in place when this government came to power. I think I can say without

exception, every program of assistance to municipalities has been reduced.

Clearly, this government is downloading onto the backs of municipalities, and

many municipalities in this Province are not going to be able to handle it.

Every small municipality in this Province is barely surviving today. There are

only a handful of the larger municipalities that have the industrial and the

commercial and residential tax base that allows them to be self-sufficient, and

a few that maybe don't have such a great base but they have satisfied themselves

with a much lower level of services.

Here is what needs to be done, Mr. Speaker. It is not

reducing the assistance to municipalities, but encouraging them to be more

self-sufficient, to be more efficient, to accept perhaps a lower level of

service, to say to the engineering community - my engineering communities - I

have said many times, as I said to them in Gander in, when would it have been,

about 1984 or 1985, I think, when I spoke to the annual meeting of the

Association of Professional Engineers in Gander; I said: We are responsible for

putting on the backs of municipalities a debt load that they neither needed nor

can they support, because we are designing Cadillac systems for them, Cadillac

water and sewer systems that they can't afford and they honestly don't need. And

I say that as a professional engineer, and I have said it to the engineers. It

has not stopped them, because they get 6 per cent of whatever they can manage to

spend, so the more they spend, the more luxurious, the more Cadillac system they

can put in, the more money they get for it. I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What do I recommend? I recommend the

department taking better controls and ensuring that only the quality of system,

the class, or the level of service that is required is put in place. Don't fund

it. You control the purse strings. You have engineers on staff who know the

difference.

In the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs alone,

I can show you hundreds of examples, two communities side by side - I won't name

any, but I could, and I am sure the hon. the Member for Terra Nova has them in

his district; two communities side by side, one is incorporated, Cadillac water

and sewer system, six-inch water lines, eight-inch sewer lines, the works. Okay?

The community down the road, five miles or less, not incorporated, perhaps a

local service district, gets a system put in by water services division of the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Three- or four-inch plastic

water line, probably serviced by wells instead of some great dam system three or

four miles back in the country, a great intake system with chlorination and

treatment plants and pump systems and pressure-reducing valves and everything

else on it. The cost is probably one-fifth.

The consumer, the home-owner, Mr. Chairman, he has water

coming into his house. He has a sewage system. He probably doesn't even need a

sewage system. You see, in most of our rural municipalities we have a pollution

problem because we are polluting our own wells with our own septic tanks. If we

had properly installed septic tanks and if we had a portable water system so

that we didn't have to depend on wells - because in many parts of rural

Newfoundland the soil conditions are such that they really don't provide

adequate wells. It is rock and bog. So the sole septic system doesn't work. But

if we had a properly designed system and had portable water provided, either

from artesian wells at a central point with small chlorination systems attached

to them for protective purposes, we could provide adequate service at one-fifth

the cost or less.

I was involved in a sewage treatment system when we first

changed government and I did some private consulting. The town of Gander. The

whole sewage system in the town of Gander, everything is treated by a sewage

treatment plant that we installed at one-quarter of the cost of a conventional

system. Not only is it adequate, it is more than adequate. I've seen us put

sewage treatment plants in rural municipalities, complicated plants based on

complicated technology that requires special skills to operate, and the

municipality neither has the money nor the skills to operate these plants. I can

show you one now. I can show you numbers of -

AN HON. MEMBER: The same thing with water supplies.

MR. WINDSOR: The same thing with water supplies. They put

in these great water supplies and treatment systems; they don't know how to

operate them. They couldn't afford to have technical staff that have the

qualifications to operate them. I can show you one now out in Sunnyside, Come by

Chance, right across from Bull Arm. There was a sewage treatment plant there

that was installed - there is a nice little fence around it; it is right by the

side of the road, you can down and see it - and there is a bypass around it, as

you will with any plant of course, so that you can do repairs and change it and

clean it and replace parts and so forth, so the bypass - and the day it was

installed the bypass line was opened up. There has never been anything go

through the treatment plant. There is grass growing over it. It is a perfectly

good treatment plant. If you want one for another municipality go take it out

and bring it up. It has never been used.

So we are saddling municipalities with a debt burden that

they neither need nor can they afford. Now we've gone the final step, the death

blow, the breach of faith, in removing the kind of financial support that these

municipalities had when they agreed to accept that debt burden on behalf of

their taxpayers. They have no choice. They have to go back to the taxpayers and

say: We have to increase the taxes that you have to pay.

Don't forget, in the interim period, in many rural

municipalities the population has decreased, the tax base has decreased, the tax

room has decreased. Alright? They just don't have the room any more, the

ability, to raise the kinds of funding they need to operate these facilities.

Business have closed down, people have moved away, people are unemployed and

absolutely not able to pay. More people are receiving social assistance or

unemployment insurance or workers' compensation, whatever, some sort of social

support, and are not able to pay their taxes. How does a municipality then

support this kind of a debt?

The answer is they are not going to be able to do it. But one

way or the other it is going to come back to the Province. Because the people

will not be able to pay additional funds, will not be able to pay additional

taxes that will allow the municipalities to support this debt. The municipality

will have to do one of two things. It will either have to go to government and

say: Government, you will have to pay for it, or they are going to have to shut

down the systems altogether. Then we are back where we started. Municipalities

with people, with residents, who do not have water and sewer services.

We are heading, Mr. Chairman, on a slippery slope. A very

serious one that is going to result in the destruction of many municipal systems

in this Province. They either will not be operating or otherwise will not be

properly maintained and in good time will self-destruct, in good time may not be

safe systems, may not be safe from the point of view of disposing of sewage

properly, may not be safe from the point of view of ensuring potable water

coming through the taps in people's homes. So it is a very serious problem, Mr.

Chairman.

These loans - I can beat up on the minister all day for the

distribution of those loans for the municipalities they are in. I glanced down

through them and I saw very few that were in districts that are represented by

members on this side of the House, very few, just a couple. There are not very

many. So we could question that but that is not going to change anything, Mr.

Chairman.

My real concern here is the breach of faith that this

government has shown the municipalities in removing from them what they had

every right, under the act, to anticipate, will be a level of assistance that

will allow them to continue to pay for and to operate these systems, Mr.

Chairman. This government will rue the day that they have made some of these

decisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to add to the comments of my colleague from the

district of Mount Pearl and to agree with the comments that he has made relative

to the breach of faith that many municipalities are experiencing today and which

they have been experiencing for some time but in the last seven days they have

become very painfully aware of the difficulties that they face in trying to

provide basic municipal services to their taxpayers. These people, Mr. Chairman,

who serve on these councils and throughout this Province, they do so out of a

concern for their fellow man. A concern that they want to have the kinds of

services that they deem appropriate in 1995. Services they can offer their

families and services that they want to have their children enjoy in the broader

community, recreational facilities, the basic water and sewer, sensible roads

and access to the fire protection services.

Mr. Chairman, they would like to be able to drive over roads

that are not full of potholes. They would like to be assured that when it snows

this winter that their streets are going to be cleared the next morning, that

they are not going to be endangering their lives by simply trying to get the

children to school, to get to work and to get home from work.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we would agree that these loans which are

guaranteed a year are appropriate. We are not disagreeing with these loans. One

of my colleagues said that there is a preponderance of them in districts where

we have sitting members on the government side and I have not gone through them.

I would take his word for that but that is not to say that there are not needs

in all those communities. Mr. Chairman, what happens is that we have had so many

cases where communities have made applications for infrastructure funding. I

have been talking for some days about the funding that was given to the Terra

Nova Park Lodge, $600,000 worth of funding. Unfortunately, when we give that

kind of money to private industry it means that $600,000 worth of funding was

not given to some community. We have to ask ourselves, is it appropriate for us

to put that kind of funding for a private luxury golf course and then by doing,

we deny funding to some community where the children have to probably do without

the proper sewer facilities? They have to experience water that is probably

turned down by the Department of Health.

Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the residents in a little

community near Clarenville called Harcourt where they have twenty families who

have to drive 2 kilometres to get drinking water every single day. The water is

so bad that this little community is unable to offer basic services. The people

who live there cannot get a sensible shower, so what I am saying is that by

putting money into Terra Nova Park Lodge we have said `no' to some other small

community. If we ask ourselves, is that a reasonable approach? The answer is it

isn't.

Then we have communities like Fox Cove - Mortier. In 1991

this government said to the people in Fox Cove - Mortier, you should have a town

council, and they said: Well, what will a town council do for us? The word was:

Well, if you have a town council you will be able to get a water and sewer

system in your community. So the people in Fox Cove, 120 families of them,

formed themselves into a town council. They made application to the ministry,

and they were incorporated and a new council was elected.

Then they applied to the minister and they were given

approval to do Phase 1 of their water and sewer project. That amounted to a loan

of $442,000. That paid for an intake from a local pond, coming down a roadway to

the beginning of the community, and at that point the engineers put in a

hydrant. Now we have, in this community today, people who still have no water

flowing into their homes. In fact, four years later, four years in which this

community has had the answer back: No, we are not going to give you any more

money. Phase 1 was completed, the water line went from the local pond, down the

road to the beginning of the community, and then they put a fire hydrant there

and they just sealed it off, and these people are asked to pay $47,000 a year on

that particular service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor planning.

MR. HODDER: Now, we say, where is the planning? Where is

the engineering study? Where is the commitment? Where is the minister when you

are asking people to pay $350 poll tax per person over eighteen years of age,

providing they are not making under $6,500 per year, every year, to pay for a

water line which comes from a pond to a hydrant. How many people are hooked up

to the water line? Zero, not one single resident has water flowing into their

home, not one. That was 1991. Did the situation improve in 1992? No, they were

refused. They were told: No, we do not have any money for you to do Phase II,

which was, of course, to bring the water into the individual homes. We go to

1993, 1994, and 1995, and we have three more of: We are sorry. No, thank you, we

cannot do anything for you. We cannot go to Phase II.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did they spend on Phase 1?

MR. HODDER: On Phase 1 they spent $442,000, and they are

amortized over $47,250-something per year ever since then.

How many people in Fox Cove had wells that worked last

summer? Well, there are 120 homes in Fox Cove - Mortier. Ninety of these homes

had wells last summer that were dry, not a drop of water in them. These people

had to get in their cars, drive to another part of Burin, drive to Port au Bras,

drive to Marystown, visit friends, so they could get water to be able to provide

their essential home needs. Now, we say, does that make any sense? It doesn't

make any sense at all. Not one speck of sense is made in doing that. So we say

to the government: Where is the good faith in dealing with the people of Fox

Cove - Mortier? There isn't any good faith. There isn't any at all.

Where is the expectation that they will be able to improve

their condition? We have no indication that these people will be treated any

differently in '96 than they were treated in '92, '93, '94 and '95. Now, Mr.

Chairman, that is blatantly not appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, then we come to what's happening in

Newfoundland and Labrador today, and I am reminded, and I have a quote here and

it is from Charles Dickens' A Tale Of Two Cities , and it is a quote that

describes what's happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and it says: It

was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the season of light, it

was the season of darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of

despair. We had everything before us and we had nothing before us.

Mr. Chairman, for many municipalities, this winter is a

season of despair. It is a season when hope has been lost by so many communities

in this Province because, Mr. Chairman, these people, I don't know where they

are going to get the money to be able to pay their bills this winter.

Mr. Chairman, I have talked to communities in the past week;

to mayors and to councillors who said to me: what are we going to do when we

have to tell the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that we can't

pay for the snow-clearing costs that we have to pay to the department, will the

department still come and plough our roads?

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. HODDER: And the minister gives the answer and he

says: no, we won't do it. We won't do it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, some of these communities have to make

pretty tough decisions. They have to make hard-nosed choices. When you are

facing 90 per cent unemployment you don't have the choice of going out and

saying: let's up the taxes. I mean, what is the difference if people are now

taxed at seven mils and they can't pay the taxes? What is the purpose or what is

the use of putting the tax rates up to ten mils, or twelve mils, if they can't

pay seven mils, they can't pay their poll tax, how are they going to go and then

be able to pay a higher rate? All you have done is, you have increased your

level of indebtedness, your bad debts go up but your actual revenue doesn't

change hardly at all, if at all.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have to ask ourselves: what are the

consequences of downloading on the municipal level of government? In the past

week, we have heard from the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Municipalities. Every single day there has been an

article in the

local press, in the print media and in the electronic media talking about the

effects on our municipalities. I have talked to members on the government side

who say to me, that they find it equally as frustrating as we do on this side,

and I believe them.

Mr. Chairman, it isn't a good time to be involved in

municipal government in this Province, and when you go out in a small community

with no commercial or industrial tax base, where the only source of revenue is

from the residential component, and, when you have such a limited and fragile

tax base, and then when the minister comes out and says: we are going to chop

you by 22 per cent, it is no wonder that municipalities are going to throw up

their arms and say: why are we seeking to be elected to this office, what is it

that we can do within reason and many are saying: I didn't get elected to do

this kind of job, therefore many of them are considering throwing in the towel.

I have had mayors who said to me they are coming to a meeting

on Saturday at Holiday Inn in St. John's and they are bringing the keys of their

town halls to the minister. Mr. Chairman, I can only say I don't think we can

encourage that. We have to watch you know, that kind of decision making, and I

say to all hon. members that this is not merely watching the municipalities and

their frustration; it is also tearing apart the very fabric of our communities.

It is certainly a case of where raising the mil rates is unrealistic in

situations where incomes are inadequate to bear the additional taxation

responsibilities. We recognize, or I recognize, that government faces a very

difficult problem, but we have to ask ourselves if it is fair that we visit the

additional need to save dollars on the very poorest communities in our Province.

We say to the ministers who are asking, what are the alternatives, to look at it

in terms of, is it fair to pass the additional tax burden onto the people who

have the least ability to be able to pay, the smaller communities?

I just want to again say that the last few days have not been

very happy for the many council members of this Province. I have not seen one

who said they did not want to share some of the responsibility for the burden

that has to be borne. Mr. Chairman, what they are saying though is that taking

$4.1 million -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Would the hon. member take his seat for a moment, please?

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It being Thursday and it being 4:00 o'clock

I would like to read the questions for what we have come to know as the Late

Show. Question number one from the Member for Waterford - Kenmount: I am

dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs concerning my question with regards to cuts to municipal

operating grants. Question number two from the Member for Placentia: I am

dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation concerning my question on winding down Cabot 500 Corporation.

Question number three from the Member for Ferryland: I am dissatisfied with the

answer provided by the Minister of Health concerning my question on house rental

for the CEO of the Labrador health board.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we are trying to address is a breach of good faith. The

mayors and the communities that we are talking about are facing very difficult

choices. We are going to see recreation facilities close, we are going to see

more potholes in streets, we are going to, in addition to the struggles we have

with our economy relative to the fishery, construction, forestry, and

agriculture, we are going to see now layoffs occurring at the municipal level.

An

article in today's paper from the City of Mount Pearl

talks about the fact that there will be layoffs occurring within the City of

Mount Pearl, and there will be layoffs occurring probably within other

municipalities. These are hard issues that have to be faced by all of us, but in

the case of municipalities we are talking about a threat to essential services.

There is not much fat that can be chopped at the municipal level. Most

communities offer bare bone services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation is saying it is not 22 per cent of their budget.

No, it isn't. It is 22 per cent of their municipal operating grant.

Unfortunately, however, the bulk of that occurs in the first three months, and

that is when municipalities have their highest expenditure levels. Because for

many of them who are at core services that is when their cost of heating their

buildings is higher, that is when snow clearing is the highest, that is when you

have your water main breaks. I've been through it; I know what it is like to run

a municipality in the winter months in the Newfoundland climate. It certainly is

when you are going to have the most unpredictable expenses.

Therefore I say to the minister, who is asking questions or

making comments across the way, that this is the difficulty that they face. It

is the time when it is occurring, that is part of it. It is trying to save that

$4.1 million in that first quarter, and that is part of the frustration that is

felt by the municipalities.

These are some of the issues. I know that all members are

well aware of them. We don't have any objection to the securing of these loans.

They are part of the business of running a province. We only want to ask that

the government, in giving these loan approvals, they assure that they don't

change the methodology of repayment at short notice and that we don't end up

with situations where municipalities are asked to share a disproportionate part

of the burden, and that the changing of the rules in mid-stream is certainly not

fair. It is what is causing the great numbers of municipalities great

frustrations in the last several days and particularly in the last week.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was provoked, I guess that is

the best way of saying it, today again to get to my feet. When I look at the

state of this Province and when I sit down and I have to sit here for hour after

hour and listen to hon. members opposite make statements about how we are down

loading on the municipalities, how it is not a good time to be in government in

municipal affairs, how it is a breach of good faith.

Now I ask the question. Who caused all of these negative

things to happen? Who caused the good time not to be in government? Who caused a

breach of good faith? What caused this government to be making the hard

decisions? All I can say is I have to answer each one of those questions. But

what I don't understand is how such an intelligent man or an MHA or a member of

the Opposition party opposite could stand to his or her feet for so long and be

so critical, and have all the answers, yet not give one answer or one

recommendation on what they would do if they were in government today.

I know the reason for that. It is a very simple answer. They

would do nothing different today than they did for the seventeen years when they

were in government and they almost bankrupted this Province. Very close to total

bankruptcy. Had the good people of this great Province not had the good common

sense to put us in power they would have been bankrupted. Give them another few

short days and they would have bankrupted. No matter how you look at it, we've

got a major financial problem.

I guess I will have to repeat it once again because I know

they don't understand what they did. They are guilty of putting us in such a

financial mess but they are innocent as far as coming to know and to realize how

they did it. They were that wrong and that backward in doing what they did, they

don't even realize that they did it. So that is the real truth of it. How can

anybody be in power, in a government, and have a $7 billion debt and not know

that they have to pay it back and not know that they have to pay interest on it

and not know that that source of interest has to come from the taxpayers of the

Province? It is hard to believe. It is absolutely unbelievable that a group of

people could be elected to run the Province and put us so far in debt and have

no understanding whatsoever.

In the middle of all of that, what should they do, after

putting us $7 billion in debt, they developed this magnificent cucumber farm and

if that was not enough then they tried to develop a pickle factory. Now on top

of that, before they built the pickle factory they got almost all the wives of

the ministers of the day to develop some recipes. To make pickles out of

cucumbers and a few things mixed into it to put in a jar to turn the economy

around in this Province and they are pointing fingers at the people across this

House and saying that we don't know how to manage a government? That we don't

know how to manage the provincial debt? That we don't know how to put some

common sense into the thinking of the operation of this government that we can

get it back on its feet for future generations?

Now we are not selfish people, Mr. Chairman, we understand

that sometimes you need to do something out of the ordinary but you would hope

out of the ordinary it would be for the best interest of the Province. Let me

tell you what is out of the ordinary for the former crowd opposite, let me read

it, out of the ordinary, with the best interest of the people of this Province

in mind, they developed this, Bev's favourite dip; one Newfoundland cucumber,

one package of Uncle Dan's original southern salad dressing mix, one cup of

mayonnaise, milk. Mix Uncle Dan's mayonnaise and milk until you get the

consistency you like. Slice and arrange cucumbers on the plate and put your dip

dish in the middle. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is not something I am making up.

That is a fact, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. the Member

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the relevancy of

what that particular cucumber factory has to do with the intent of Bill 14 and I

will ask you to rule accordingly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. The hon. member

is just looking for further clarification and the hon. minister has agreed to

tie it in -

MR. EFFORD: I will tie it in, Mr. Chairman, I will tie it

in. I will bring it all together because what I started out was to talk about

the debt of this Province. In answer to the statements that the hon. Member from

Waterford - Kenmount made that we were downloading on the municipalities of this

Province our responsibility, that we were not acting in good faith, that we were

not making decisions in the best interest of this Province. I had to point out

to hon. members opposite what type of decisions were made over there. Now my

hon. colleague from Eagle River made some points the other day and I should,

just for the sake of argument, bring some of those out just to refer to but I

had to make you understand that for seventeen years this is what we had to

listen to. This is the reason why we have a $7 billion debt. This is the reason

why we pay in excess of $500 million a year out in interest.

This is the reason why we have to pass along the

responsibility of trying to get the financial situation straigh