June 5,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 51

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, before we start business

today, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this week

marks the 150th Anniversary of the arrival of the Sisters of Mercy in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

They came to this Province at the request of Bishop Fleming,

at the time, only some ten years or so after they were founded in Ireland in

1831. In response to his request, three Sisters came out in the spring of 1842.

Over the years, with great struggle and great effort, they increased their

numbers and now they constitute some twenty-two separate communities in this

Province. They have, over the years, played a major role and made a terrific

contribution to education, health, nursing and hospitals both, and to the sick

and the poor, generally, where they concentrated their efforts.

Mercy School on Military Road was opened in 1843, the year

after they arrived. Very shortly, some fifty years after they got established,

they moved outside St. John's and to the West Coast, establishing a convent at

Sandy Point. At that time, Sandy Point was essentially the largest community, I

suppose, off the Avalon Peninsula. They expanded and grew, and finally built the

Mother House at Littledale and, over the years, took on major efforts, such as

St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, which they have run successfully, and through that

means have made a major contribution. They also undertook, in more recent times,

St. Patrick's Mercy Home.

I am sure that not only all members of the House, but that

all people in the Province, would wish me to express congratulations on

achieving this remarkable anniversary, but, more particularly, to express the

sincere appreciation of all of the people of the Province for the terrific

contribution that has been made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We would like to be

associated, of course, with the remarks of the Premier. It is well known in this

Province I guess, and has been for many years, that these women, for 150 years,

now, in Newfoundland and Labrador, have worked strenuously and been committed

and dedicated in all the areas that the Premier has mentioned - health care, in

particular, that we are familiar with, and education. But they have become, in

recent years, more and more involved, I guess, in social services and community

development, community activities.

We can relate clearly to the individuals that some of us know

personally, without getting into names, but I think of Sister Elizabeth Davis

down at St. Clare's, whom many of us on both sides of the House have met. I

remember fondly, Sister Lorraine Michael, who was actively involved in the

community development area.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I was in Ireland one time a

few years back and I happened to have occasion to visit the Southern part of

Ireland, the Wexford - Waterford area and, while there, I visited the home of

the bishop, the Roman Catholic bishop. It happened to be the same house where

the Sisters used to stay, sometimes for weeks, waiting for the ships to come to

take them over to Newfoundland. That was the connection and that was why I made

the visit, of course.

We all know the fine work they have done. So I want to be

associated - and I speak on behalf of our party - I want to be associated with

the words of the Premier and we wish them a happy Anniversary, 150 years in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we hope they are around for many, many years to

come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Minister of

Finance, I want to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the

Speaker's Gallery today, of the Ambassador of South Africa to Canada, His

Excellency Andre Kilian. He is accompanied by the Second Secretary from the

Embassy, Mr. Andre Nel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would also like to bring to the attention

of hon. members, since we are into this, the presence in the galleries of two

groups of students from Twillingate district. First, there are thirty-three

students from Newville Elementary School in New World Island, accompanied by

their teacher, Ms. Margie Green, and another group of twenty-eight students from

the Inter Island Academy at Summerford, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Bruce

Bowers, Ms. Mabel Rideout, Mr. Alvin Quinlan and Ms. Roxanne Rideout.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

0 0 0

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this is not a statement as much

as one of those -

MR. SPEAKER: We are into that shady area that is not yet

called anything, so we will allow to revert.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon.

members of a very important event in St. John's this weekend and perhaps an

appropriate conclusion to National Awareness Week, namely, the formal opening of

the $1 million extension to the HUB on Merrymeeting Road in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: The opening will take place on Sunday from

2:00 to 5:00 p.m. at the Hub building, 21 Merrymeeting Road.

As members may be aware, the HUB is one of the finest

organizations in this Province. An organization run by people with various

disabilities, it provides jobs, recreation and counselling to disabled people.

It has a first class commercial printing shop, makes and sells trophies, sells

and repairs wheelchairs, operates a first-class transportation system for

disabled people, and has a library on disabilities.

The HUB, this weekend, would especially like to thank all

hon. members for improving the budget that provided the means to build this

great new extension. So, on behalf of the Director, Dave Scott and the

President, Jean Hogan, and such other key HUB workers as Debbie Prim, Norma

Grey, Ron Brennan and Bill Murphy and all those at the HUB, I am inviting

everyone to drop in on Sunday afternoon from 2:00 to 5:00 and see how the money

has been spent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want

to thank the minister for his invitation, but the HUB, themselves, have sent out

an invitation to all of us. The minister has no right to invite us. We have

already been invited by members of the HUB.

It certainly is a good project, Mr. Speaker. I just note, I

talked to the manager of the HUB only a couple of weeks ago, I guess, and they

are pretty discouraged up there about the amount of work they are getting from

the Government of the Province of Newfoundland to try to keep their operation

going, Mr. Speaker. They are not at all satisfied with the work that the

government is allowing them to do. A lot of the simple printing work for this

Province is being done in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Here, we have a very

competent facility being built and paid for by the taxpayers of the Province,

Mr. Speaker, and they can't get enough work from this government to keep going.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I have used the HUB for

all printing services I have had since the 1979 election. I find them to be very

competent with excellent services. I recommend them to all members of the House

of Assembly for any printing they might want to have done in the upcoming

election within the next year. Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I notice, in introductions, that

we have a distinguished visitor to the gallery who shouldn't go unnoticed

whether you love him or hate him, one of Canada's most distinguished authors,

Mr. Charles Lynch, just happened to be sitting in the gallery, but more

importantly he is here today to speak at a luncheon to help the CNIB in a major

fundraising effort, their annual visions luncheon, and that is the most

important activity that I want to draw attention to and urge hon. members, if

they can, including the Premier, to attend the luncheon at 12:30 to aid CNIB

most importantly, but perhaps as an aside, to listen to Rick Mercer and Charles

Lynch have a few words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

The Premier is no doubt aware that library boards in the

Province are having problems with funding. I wonder is he aware that there are

libraries in the Province that are closing permanently without warning in a

fairly arbitrary manner, in communities that have supported these libraries for

years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not aware that any are closing

permanently but I will ask the minister responsible to check it for me and let

me know. I went back and looked at the record, Mr. Speaker, and I read the

quotation from the same gentleman who has been making the same comments now,

only they were made in 1987 and 1988 and he was making the same comments at the

time that the libraries were underfunded.

I agree that the libraries are underfunded, but so is

everything else in this Province underfunded because we do not have adequate

revenue to meet the needs. The libraries are underfunded but relatively

speaking, they are funded to the maximum extent that the government can do so.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the libraries that are closing,

one of them is in the Premier's home town of Stephenville Crossing in the

district of St. George's and open since 1967, and in my district in the town of

Port au Port East. These are the only two, Mr. Speaker, that were closed in the

Province and what I am asking the Premier is: would he step in to provide a

shortfall in funding which is, Mr. Speaker, only $17,000, I know it is a lot of

money but it is not a lot of money when you consider the education of children

and literacy in this Province? Failing to do that, since the decision still has

to be ratified - the decision has been made in the western region - it still has

to be ratified by the Libraries Board. Would the government consider intervening

on behalf of those libraries to try to save them?

These are community resources that do not require much

funding. They have been developed by the communities, and paid for by them, in

most part.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the funding has been provided

by the government. In fact, this year it was increased. The funding to The

Public Libraries Board was increased in a year when most other areas of

government were decreased.

Now the government cannot allow The Western Regional

Libraries Board, The Provincial Libraries Board, or whoever, to determine the

Budget of this Province by staging these kinds of things and saying it only

costs x dollars to keep this one library open; would the government do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I speak advisedly, and I go back, and

I ask hon. members to go back, to when they had responsibility for government,

and I will get the newspaper clippings of the same individual making the same

statements at the same time.

I am just pointing out the reality of it, and the money

provided for The Public Libraries Board was increased this year. The Public

Libraries Board has the responsibility to determine how it is spent, and if they

choose to do it that way the government cannot force them to do otherwise; but

we would encourage them to try and operate their system in such a way as to keep

all those libraries open. If they cannot, the government has to understand that

they are running it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is advising

the Premier, but over the past three years The Libraries Board budget has been

decreased, decreased, decreased.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: That is not so -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: - and any board member in any region of the

five regions of this Province will know the difference.

Does the Premier not understand that the increase in the cost

of living over the past three years, and next year, that this is only the tip of

the iceberg, that other regions will be doing the same thing, and that we are

losing some of our precious community resources? Does he not agree that this is

a backward step that keeps rural areas down, and keeps the disadvantaged areas

of the Province down forever? Does he not consider this to be a shame in a

Province with the high illiteracy rate that we have?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the members can grandstand

all they want. The truth and the facts are the facts. They are open for all to

see. I will make sure that the people of the Province are made fully aware of

the facts so that the hon. member cannot misrepresent the situation. In fact,

the Libraries Board has been provided with the funds that they were provided

with last year. In fact, there was a modest increase to allow for additional

purchase of books.

AN HON. MEMBER: Computerization.

PREMIER WELLS: Computerization. I am sorry! To allow for

computerization of the services this year. That was their choice. They could

choose to do it or not.

Now, I am glad the hon. member mentioned literacy because we

have the highest illiteracy rate in Canada or, if you want it the other way, the

lowest literacy rate in Canada. But I want hon. members to also know that in the

three years we have been here we have multiplied governmental expenditure by

five times compared to what the former government was putting in. So let's look

at this whole picture in reality and recognize that what the hon. member is

doing is just a little bit of political grandstanding.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. I want to ask

the minister: Is there any consideration being given by his department to a

complete moratorium on our fishery? I am talking about a complete shutdown.

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

MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration is being

given to that suggestion, bearing in mind, of course, that it is a very serious

matter. We are looking at the state of the fishery and getting the best advice

possible from scientists and others. It might well be that there will come a

time when there will have to be a moratorium put on the fishery for a while.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I want to ask the minister, as well: Has any

of this advice come from his Fishery Industry Advisory Committee? Is this where

this advice has come from, for a complete moratorium?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we have an advisory committee.

It is something that I appointed shortly after becoming minister. They meet on a

regular basis and, of course, they monitor what is happening in the fishing

industry. They met, in fact, one day last week and I am still waiting on a

report from that meeting. I understand there is a letter now in the process of

being put together to me. I don't know what is going to be in the letter but I

think they are going to be talking about maybe the possibility of some kind of a

moratorium. I am not sure they are going to be coming right out and recommending

it be put in place, but they have given a lot of thought and had discussion as

to the state of the fishery and maybe the possibility, at some point in time, of

putting a moratorium on it.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the

minister know if there has been any cost analysis done on what this moratorium

would cost, I suppose, both levels of government?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has

been a cost figure put on it. I have heard it said that maybe the fishing

industry, the loss of it, would cost the Province probably around $700 million

from all sectors. But again, that is not official. I expect they are as well

looking at the cost of that kind of action. What it would cost the federal

government and, I suppose, the Province and the industry.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier tabled

without comment, I understand, or very little comment, the report of the Steele

inquiry in the House. Later at media briefings I understand he said that Cabinet

would decide if any further action should be taken into the comments of Judge

Steele.

Having had a chance to flick through this, given some of the

findings that are contained in this particular report, I wonder if the Premier

agrees that it would be more appropriate to immediately turn this report and the

comments of Judge Steele over to the Department of Justice immediately, as

opposed to Cabinet making the decision as to what should happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader noted that the

report was tabled without comment. It was not intended to have been tabled

without comment. If he will read Hansard - I know he was not here yesterday - he

will see that the report was tabled yesterday as a result of a question by the

hon. Member for Humber East. I explained that I had intended to make a statement

this morning but I tabled it right away. So I had no problem doing that.

I may say that the Department of Justice is looking at it,

and they will determine whether or not there have been any breaches of any

provincial statutes or any legislation, and what if any action should be taken

as a result of it. But the Cabinet is also looking at it, to determine from a

governmental administration point of view, what if any further action is

necessary. Whether or not the Department of Justice determines that there is any

breaches of any provincial statutes that should be pursued, that is for the

Department to decide.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I understand, by the way, just as

an aside, that copies of that report were in the hands of other people from

outside the House of Assembly in advance. Maybe that is why is was tabled rather

quickly yesterday, I don't know. I hear that.

Anyway, let me ask him this. If you read through the report

it becomes rather obvious in the report that Mr. Justice Steele did not believe

the sworn testimony of Mr. Butler, who is still an employee in the public

service, as I understand it, nor that of Mr. Ambrose Stoyles, who I believe is

still involved with the Appeals Board as Chairman, perhaps still Chair. In

addition to that, we also know that the Public Service Commission, from their

earlier inquiry, did not believe the testimony either of those same individuals.

That was an independent, I guess, investigation. They basically came to the same

conclusion.

I ask again: doesn't the Premier believe that it is more

appropriate for the Department of Justice or the police or somebody of that

nature to make a determination about what is essentially a charge of perjury, as

opposed to Cabinet? I mean, is he saying that Cabinet will make the decisions as

to what happens?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I find it difficult to believe what I am

hearing, Mr. Speaker, but let me try and deal with the several matters. The

first -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

The question has been asked to the Premier and I assume that

members want to hear the answer from the Premier.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The first comment that was made was that

they understood that copies of the report were made available to members outside

of the House of Assembly first, and he thought that this was somehow improper.

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if anybody else did. The government did not. I

made a copy of it available to the hon. Member for Port de Grave for obvious

reasons. He is a member of the House of Assembly as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't. I don't know whether he did or

not. But I certainly made it available to him. I would not be at all surprised

if he consulted his lawyer. I would consider that to be quite appropriate in all

of the circumstances. So I have no quarrel with that. So I don't know what the

hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply by that reference. In terms of

whether or not there should be any charges - he mentioned perjury - I don't know

that there is any basis but that is not for me to decide. I don't know that

there is any basis for the laying of any charges of perjury but the Director of

Public Prosecutions or the police can take a look at that. There is nothing that

in any manner inhibits them. I am quite sure they would if they feel it is

necessary. But for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in the House of

Assembly and make that suggestion, under the circumstances, is irresponsible. It

is an interference with the administration of justice, and he ought to know

better.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize because I should have

known better, because the Premier is the fountain of all wisdom in legal matters

in this House, and all other matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: If I want to ask a question, I will ask a

question, and I ask the Premier this: What does it mean to him if the judge who

did the inquiry doesn't believe the sworn testimony of Mr. Butler and Mr.

Stoyles, and if the Public Service Commission, which did an independent inquiry

earlier, doesn't believe the sworn testimony of those two individuals? What

would he call that? Wouldn't that be perjury?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member ought

to know that judges every day of the week in the Supreme Court, in the

Provincial Court, express their view that they find more credible the evidence

of one witness over another, or they don't accept the evidence of one witness,

that they reject it. This is done every day of the week. It happens on a routine

basis in court. To now name individuals and to suggest they should be charged

with perjury, is irresponsible of the Leader of the Opposition. It is

irresponsible to abuse the privileges that he has as a member of this House. If

he were to go outside this House and say that, he could well be held responsible

for libel, and he ought to act responsibly and bear in mind that we have a

first-rate system of administration of criminal justice in this Province, and

let it operate on a proper basis without interference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't need any lectures from

this Premier. I can tell him that. I don't need any lectures from him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: It is his own commission that made the

allegations and are talking about what is essentially a charge of perjury. I

asked him simply the question, to begin with - and he has now carefully tried a

direct deflection away from it, by suggesting that somehow I am making some

allegations. That is too silly to talk about.

Let me ask him another question then. See how silly this is.

One of the central questions in this particular inquiry was how Mr. Butler

obtained the questions for the public service job competition that we talked

about, which he then passed on to Mr. Stoyles. Now, the judge says in the report

that he couldn't find the answer to the question but, in the circumstances, it

is hard to imagine that Mr. Butler acted alone. Further to that, he also

concludes that the source of the questions was from within the Department of

Social Services.

Now I want to ask the Premier this: Is he concerned at all

that some other person or persons, then employed by the Department of Social

Services, may have participated with Mr. Butler and Mr. Stoyles in this

particular matter and will he now ask the Department of Justice to immediately

investigate and take whatever action is appropriate to determine who that person

or those persons might be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not intending to give

the Leader of the Opposition lessons, however desperately in need he may be. I

just want to protect the interests of innocent citizens in this Province from

abuse by members of the House. What the Leader of the Opposition is doing, in

his comments with respect to perjury, is an abuse of his position in this House.

The judge said nothing about perjury in the report. That is solely the

responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition and he must have full and total

political and other responsibility for what he has done.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the government -

MR. TOBIN: Let the king speak, boys. Let the king speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked for order and I ask members, please, to follow

the rules of the House.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: You would almost think the way they look

up they are performing for somebody in the gallery. Maybe they want to be

written about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I sincerely hope Mr. Lynch will oblige

them and write about the circus he is watching occur. I certainly hope he will

do that. I am speaking to the House, Mr. Speaker, in the fond hope that the

gallery will hear.

Mr. Speaker, the government put in place a Royal Commission,

gave a judicial commission to Mr. Justice Steele, Mr. Justice Steele hired legal

assistants, hired a former policeman as an investigator, hired whatever staff he

needed and conducted a full enquiry and provided a full report. It is there for

all to see. It is not what the Leader of the Opposition is representing it to be

and people should read it for themselves and not take the

interpretation of the

Leader of the Opposition. The report is available for everybody to see. The

government is satisfied that Mr. Justice Steele did a thorough job and no

further investigation need be pursued, but, Mr. Speaker, I would hope, and

express the wish, that the police department or the Director of Public

Prosecutions, whoever has responsibility for it, will take the report and look

at it, and if any action ought to be taken that they will take it. That is their

duty, it is their normal responsibility to do it. I do not have to tell them on

a daily basis what their responsibility is.

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

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

questions related to another matter, constitutional matters. I want him to tell

the House, if he would, how many ministers, MHAs, officials, consultants,

assistants, or whatever, have been travelling with the Minister of Justice on

his constitutional trips all across the country - Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto,

or wherever - for the last several months? How many people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will try to count them up.

The minister has been there, Mr. Way, who is the Cabinet Secretariat for

Intergovernmental Affairs was there, and Mr. Hawco, whenever there were any

discussions relating to aboriginal matters, he was there as he is the Director

of Aboriginal Policy, the Member for Pleasantville went to two, if not three,

the Member for Humber West went to at least two of them, I am not sure, because

of their particular capability and interest in constitutional matters.

These discussions have been going on now for some eight weeks

steadily and the minister - I know from personal experience having had to do it

myself, the minister needs a great deal of assistance to ensure that the

interests of the Province are adequately protected in the detailed and extensive

discussions that take place during these meetings. I will have to get the formal

list of anybody else who was there. Barbara Knight may have been there and, I

believe, Phonse Faour was also there. What hon. members have to realize is that

not only is there the meeting of ministers going on but there are four working

groups of officials and groups going on at the same time, so there is a constant

array of meetings going on on different aspects of the constitutional proposals

and that assistance is clearly needed.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier be prepared to

table the expenses incurred by all those individuals in the House of Assembly

early next week, including staff, MHAs, ministers, whoever, so that we can see

what the total cost is for each of those meetings that have been held over the

last number of months this calendar year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we will table all

of the expenditures. I do not know when we will table it. We will have to gather

it in. I doubt very much if the bills are in yet for last week and the week

before, and perhaps the week before that, but as soon as they are in we will

table the bills, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: One final question, Mr Speaker. The people of

this Province were told back in January, I guess it was, or February at least,

that Ed Roberts was being brought into Cabinet because he knows more about the

Constitution than all the other members on the other side and the Liberal Party.

None of them were capable of filling the position, so I want to ask the Premier

this: in this time of restraint when government is cutting back as he just

lectured us on earlier in Question Period, can he tell us what specific reason

there was for wasting money sending the Member for Pleasantville, and the Member

for Humber West, who happened to have an interest in the matter, on all of these

constitutional meetings? Can he tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden the

Opposition has gotten very self righteous about ministers travelling and

political travelling expenses. I will table all the expenses, of course, Mr.

Speaker. But the extent of these Constitutional discussions demands that this

level of help be available. We have a very modest - specifically the Member for

Humber West and the Member for Pleasantville are very well informed on

Constitutional matters. Anybody who has listened to the Member for Pleasantville

will know that he put every member on that side of the House to shame in terms

of the depth and understanding of the Constitutional discussions. Every last one

of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very

pleased to have his assistance.

When we talk about expenditures, we saw here in the House

yesterday as I tabled the details of the expenditure of my own office and travel

expenses, and, Mr. Speaker, it was less than one third of what the former

Premier expended in his last year in office. As well, Mr. Speaker, members

should bear in mind that those also included the expenditures as Minister

responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs. In the former government that was

separate, over and above. So it was probably six or seven times for the same

amount of work expended by the former government. I will compare the travel and

expenditures for these meetings of this government with anything the former

government has done at any time. I expect you will find them to be less than

half by comparison.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. Yesterday in

Question Period the Premier confirmed that for the past couple of years of

constitutional reform efforts he has engaged the central Canadian lawyer, Neil

Finklestein. Everyone knows that the Premier for a year or so, the critical

Meech Lake year, employed as his personal constitutional legal advisor, Deborah

Coyne, another central Canadian lawyer. The government just hired a Saskatchewan

lawyer as director of constitutional law in the Department of Justice, a name

the Premier omitted from the list he just gave. Why is it that the Premier is

using constitutional lawyers from other parts of Canada? Now he may not listen

to advice from anyone, but why is it that he is continually retaining and

engaging, and employing lawyers from other parts of Canada instead of lawyers

who live and have a personal stake in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't become too

xenophobic in this Province. They are all Canadians. Every last one of them is a

Canadian, and we are all Canadians. When we hire and invite proposals, people

apply, and people applied from all over Canada including Newfoundland. When Mr.

Tyler was hired, he was hired from Saskatchewan because he was the best

qualified, who could provide us with the best advice, had the best background in

aboriginal matters, a matter that this government is greatly involved with at

the moment, and it is urgent that we have -

MR. SPEAKER: It is most difficult to control Question

Period under the best of circumstances, and there are a couple of sideshows

going on making it very difficult for the Chair to listen to the answer. So I

ask hon. members, please, to try to refrain from the banter across the House

adding to the overall noise in the House.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: You see, Mr. Speaker, they ask the

questions and then they don't want the truth. They want to hide it, so they

cover up with all this noise.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tyler was also at these meetings

because of his constitutional knowledge and expertise. It is important that we

have that available in order to protect Newfoundland's interest and we will

continue to do so. In terms of Mr. Finklestein, he is a practising lawyer. We

hired his advice because I tell you, Mr. Speaker, without offence to any of the

lawyers practising in Newfoundland, including the hon. member who asked the

question, there is nobody in this Province who has that kind of basic knowledge

and skill and capability and we hired what we need.

Now, I recall that the former government hired a law firm in

Calgary called Bennett, Jones, to whom, in the end, hundreds of thousands of

dollars were paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, millions.

PREMIER WELLS: Millions in legal fees were paid. Now,

they did that because they thought it was essential for a particular project, to

have a particular expertise. I don't quarrel with that where it is necessary,

where it is essential, but let's not get self-righteous and, in particular,

let's not get xenophobic about it in this House and say nobody who wasn't born

in Newfoundland can ever work here or be given a job here or be hired by the

government to do anything.

We give priorities where it is entirely appropriate but we

are not blindly prejudiced against Canadians from other provinces. Other

provinces hire all kinds of Newfoundlanders; they are working in every province

of Canada. In Ontario and Alberta, there are tens of thousands of them working

and I am very pleased they have the opportunity to do so. I am not prepared to

operate this government in the kind of xenophobic manner that the hon. member

would suggest.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know there are thousands of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians working in other provinces. The Premier got elected on a platform

of promising to bring home every mother's son.

Mr. Speaker, over two years ago, the Premier and his Cabinet

received the report of the Arts Policy Committee, the Newfoundland and Labrador

Arts Policy Committee, chaired by Dr. Patrick O'Flaherty. What is the

government's response to that report and has the Premier even read the document?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There has been a fair amount of work done

in the area. I think there is an ERDA agreement about to be signed with the

federal government, where the Province and the federal government are taking

responsibility jointly, to provide the funding to carry on, I believe, a

significant number of the recommendations that are in that report. Is that

signed yet or -

MR. FUREY: Not yet, in the next two weeks.

PREMIER WELLS: Sometime in the next couple of weeks or so

that will be signed. So, work is being done, progress is being made; we don't

just get reports done and then put them on the shelf. It is being carried out.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Department Of Health Act", carried. (Bill No. 38).

On motion, Bill No. 38 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 1.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

Shall this heading carry?

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Executive Council Estimates.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, good heavens! I am surprised

that the Minister of Development is not on his feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Waiting for some more information, I would

think so. We waited three weeks for nothing. What is he expecting to get this

morning that he didn't get in three weeks? He brought us in a list of projects

three weeks ago that pretty much described most of the loans given out by

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. We waited three weeks for information, and

what's in here could have been put together in twenty minutes by a competent

clerk in the minister's office - by the minister himself, in twenty minutes. All

he needed was the record of the documentation gone to the board meetings. There

is very little information here that couldn't have been taken off the list that

the minister gave us two weeks ago. It is incredible, in fact.

My first question to the minister is: Why has it taken so

long? Does the minister want to answer that? I will yield for the minister.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I guess the difference between

this government and the former government is that when we are asked questions,

we answer the questions. Sometimes, it take a little time, in this case,

two-and-a-half weeks, to compile the information from the various regions. But I

can recall - and my hon. colleague from the Strait of Belle Isle will confirm

this - many, many times putting questions on the Order Paper that sat on the

Order Paper for weeks, months, and then died on the Order Paper.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Order Paper is a provision, under the

rules, whereby -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Name one.

MR. FUREY: I will name one, no problem. One? I will name

a dozen. Hang in there.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just one.

MR. FUREY: One - the expenses for all former ministers

during the Windsor - Buchans by-election -

MR. DECKER: Still waiting.

MR. FUREY: - executive assistants' travel and minister's

travel, purposes for travel, and cost for that entire travel during that three

week by-election. We never got an answer from one single minister.

Now, let's compare the new government. Where were the

ministers during the by-election in Baie Verte - White Bay? Every single

minister answered within fourteen days, where they were, how much they spent,

who was with them, and the purpose of their visit. How is that for a comparison?

That is a pretty straight up comparison of what was going on.

The difference is that this government doesn't cover up. We

have nothing to hide. We are not ashamed of what we do and we lay it on the

Table for the whole Province to see.

Now, Mr. Chairman, do you want another example? Time after

time, the Opposition asked for questions on Sprung. Did we get any answers? No.

Did we put them on the Order Paper? Yes, time and time again. Then they closed

the Legislature. They shut down any opportunity for any member of the Opposition

to ask in the people's Legislature for a year. So we went to the media and we

asked questions on Sprung. Were there any market studies done? What was the

analysis that was done? Did your senior bureaucrats give you various

recommendations not to proceed on it? On and on. Do you want more examples, or

is that enough? We would ask about hospitals. We would put questions on the

Order Paper.

So don't give me a hard time because it took me two weeks to

give you truthful, honest answers on 420 companies, when the hon. member,

himself, knows when he sat in that Cabinet it was the most closed Cabinet in the

history of this Province. The media, themselves, used to have to pay, under the

Freedom of Information, to squeeze out information, and even then it was

incomplete information.

So what we have laid upon the Table are 420-odd loans for

these companies. We put down how much the loans were for. We put down under

which program they were accessed. We put down reasons why there may have been

reduced interest rates. We put all of that on the Table of the House for the

people. And, Mr. Chairman, let me let them in on a secret. Under the Enterprise

Corporation Act, we don't have to do that. We could hide behind the exemption of

Freedom of Information. We didn't do that. Other agencies perhaps, like ACOA,

could take a great lesson from this minister and this government on being

truthful and laying their cards on the table.

Now, it is easy for the hon. member to get up flippantly and

smack me over the head about chicken and chips or ribs and chips, or about a

garage at L'Anse-au-Clair that otherwise would have been closed down. We

maintained and protected those three - that's easy pickings. That is a vulture

mentality. It is a schizophrenic mentality. Because it tells me that you're

damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. If you don't do anything,

you're damned: Look at that government, it's a do-nothing government. If you do

something and you're honest about it and lay it on the table, out come the

vultures, the wings spread and the beaks sharpened, and they start picking

apart.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Crows!

MR. DECKER: Crows is a better word.

MR. FUREY: No, I am being kind. Vultures, they're a

prettier bird. The vultures. They pick apart amongst the 400 companies the ten

or twenty or thirty-odd companies that you asked for that I provided you

information for. That is easy to do. That is lightweight intellectual stuff to

do, easy pickings, vulture mentality. But what about the hundreds of companies

that were provided in that list that were good sound proposals?

Now, the hon. member - and I happen to believe that he is,

without question, the most intelligent mind over there, the best mind on that

side.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not saying much, though.

MR. FUREY: No, but make no mistake about it, I give him

full marks on that. He has the best mind over there. He should be their leader.

If they had any intelligence on that side they would have him sitting in the

leader's chair doing the job, because he is the best mind on the Opposition. And

I know he has to attack me and the government. I accept that, that is all part

of it. But I thank him, because I did hear him recognise that there were

hundreds of good loans and good companies helped, etc.

But if I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to even rise above my own

principles and go into NLDC, the former corporation, and lay upon the Table some

of the loans - be a vulture myself, hand-pick the loans that they did -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sprung.

MR. FUREY: No, forget Sprung. There are some juicy ones

under the old corporation that I will not get into. But if I wanted to be a

vulture, if I wanted to apply that mentality, I could lay upon the Table some

very frightening things that happened under the old corporation.

But let me make something perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman - and

I think the hon. member will believe me when I say this: every single loan,

every single one, is done by an independent board in the regions. Many of them

the bureaucrats, the former minister, himself, hired, I am sure. But they are

independent from us and we asked our members not to interfere with the process.

I can honestly report to the House that there has been very little by way of

interference. Now, I am not saying that members shouldn't make representation.

Sure they should. Of course they should. It is a good thing to do. The Member

for Humber Valley has made representation on behalf of some of his

businesspeople, in fact, directly to me. I have made representation myself to

the Enterprise Corporation to make sure people are being treated fairly. That is

what we ask, Mr. Chairman, that they be treated fairly.

We set up this corporation and the head office has many

vice-presidents and people who sit independently on that board. We do not, Mr.

Chairman - I do not as minister, reach into that board and say: Approve these

projects. I don't do that. I don't have the competence or expertise to do that,

Mr. Chairman. I readily admit that.

Do I question some of their projects in the aftermath? Yes, I

do. Are we perfect? No, we are not. Was NLDC perfect? No, Mr. Chairman, it was

not perfect. Is the Enterprise Corporation perfect? No, Mr. Chairman, it is not.

But if we want to play the game, Mr. Chairman, of hovering over the 400 loans

and swooping down, vulture-like, and picking out those that look odd and tearing

the hell out of them, without any regard to the companies themselves, I think

that is unfortunate. I really, truly do.

I could have hidden under the Freedom of Information Act and

said: We are exempt. And we are exempt. I laid upon the Table every bit of

conceivable information I could without affecting the banking position of these

companies or their competitive position. That is fair enough, I think.

Having said that Mr. Chairman, I told the hon. member that

there are a whole range of programs under Enterprise Newfoundland. Yes, we have

widened the parameters to include every single person in the Province who has a

good business idea, including the hon. member. The hon. member mentioned

yesterday about competition. I don't like seeing loans given where there is a

direct competition. I asked the Enterprise Corporation in the regions to be very

careful of that, to judge them all on their own merits. Have they failed in some

circumstances? I suppose they have. We can't start from the premise of

perfection. We are not perfect.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have all my notes with me here this

morning, but I can tell you that the total approvals were 425. Four hundred and

twenty-five little companies were helped. What do we get? Criticism. We float

out into the economy some $26 million and what do we get for that? Criticism. It

leveraged out a mirrored amount through ACOA and other agencies. So you can say

that our money helped trigger out other money, almost double. So $50 million,

let's call it an even $50 million, flowed out into the economy, because we

decided to help little businesspeople, mostly in rural Newfoundland but, to some

extent, in urban Newfoundland as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FUREY: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I asked him just to do for me a

quick calculation by district. It works out this way: Seven projects were in the

Baie Verte - White Bay - when I say projects I mean businesspeople were helped

in these areas - for $946,000; Bay of Islands, $107,000; Bellevue, $184,000 -

this is April 1 to March 31 - Bonavista North, $158,000; Bonavista South,

$112,000; Burgeo, $538,000; Burin - Placentia West, $113,000; Carbonear,

$60,000; Conception Bay South, $400,000; Eagle River, $855,000 for eighteen

projects for eighteen businesspeople; Exploits, $613,000; Ferryland, $43,000;

Fogo, $42,000; Fortune - Hermitage, $135,000; Gander, $542,000 including our

chicken and ribs franchise which created fifteen jobs which the hon. member

loves to beat around; Grand Bank, two businessmen were helped, $266,000; Grand

Falls, $55,000; Green Bay, $230,000; Harbour Grace, $100,000; Harbour Main,

$309,000; Humber East, seven businesspeople were helped, $200,000; Humber

Valley, twenty-two businesspeople were helped last year by Enterprise

Corporation and we flowed through $1 million

to twenty-two businesspeople in Humber Valley.

And good stuff. The hon. member knows what I am talking

about. He is on top of his game plan. Humber West, six businesspeople, $60,000.

LaPoile had seven businesspeople helped to the tune of $1.7 million. Lewisporte,

fourteen businesspeople were helped, $300,000. Menihek, ten projects in Labrador

West. Ten businesspeople were helped for $600,000. Mount Pearl, fourteen

businesspeople for $2 million, the highest anywhere in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The highest.

MR. FUREY: The highest anywhere in the Province. Fourteen

separate businesspeople were helped to the tune of $2 million in Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he doesn't want it. No, he doesn't

want it to happen.

MR. FUREY: Mount Scio - Bell Island, twelve projects for

$464,000. Naskaupi - and you talk about helping Labrador - nineteen

businesspeople to the tune of $500,000 flowed last year. Placentia, eight

businesspeople, $800,000. Port au Port, $46,000 for two small businesses. Port

de Grave, six businesspeople, $1 million. St. Barbe, the minister's district,

$386,000 for nineteen businesses. Most of them very small loans for sawmillers

and stuff. I am even $1.7 million below the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

I am just proving that the system works. It is not political.

It is not full of patronage. It is not government directing people where to put

money. It is fairness and balance, Mr. Chairman. Fairness and balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying is that,

you know, you can get up and you can vulture-like peck at the projects,

vulture-like peck at the businesses. Now let me tell you about the policy, and I

will send this over to the hon. member. It even has some pictures in it, so he

might understand it a little clearer. There are all kinds of pictures in it.

This tells you, and it is hot off the press. It is Enterprise

Newfoundland's Guide to Business and Economic Development, hot off the press,

and it lays out all the programs that the government has under this corporation.

And I should tell members that 90 per cent - listen to this statistic - of all

our activity last year in Enterprise Newfoundland, 90 per cent was people coming

in and seeking advice, information, and helping them cut through the

bureaucratic red tape of all levels of government.

Just think about that, 90 per cent. Nine out of ten people

who came in our door were not looking for money. One out of ten who came in

through the door was looking for some financial help. The rest were looking for

advice. Amazing isn't it when you think about it, because you would think it

would be just the opposite, people coming in looking for money. But a lot of

people were coming in to help speed up permits, help with some market access

studies, help with some business plan development. On and on it goes.

So when we reflect the 420 odd companies that were helped,

Mr. Chairman, we turned down thousands. I am not ashamed to say to the House

that we have turned down thousands. Many of them did not make sense. Many of

them were even outside the realm of what Enterprise does, which is high risk

money, high risk lending. We are a high risk lender, Mr. Chairman. But you can

imagine some of the projects that came in. I have examples from my own district.

Talk about off the wall ideas - my good Lord. But I mean the point is we are

prepared to listen to everybody, every single idea and adjudicate it and deal

with it on its own merit.

So, Mr. Chairman, look at what we do. Under business and

community support we have company development. We encourage the craft industry,

direct equity in the telefilm industry. The hon. member would be interested in

that one. You wouldn't believe how much money we have plowed back under various

programs through the federal agencies, Telefilm Canada and otherwise, by putting

up a minuscule 10 per cent of the total capital cost of the industry of a

particular film.

I saw one - I don't know if the hon. member saw it - "No

Apologies", has anybody seen that? It was based loosely on the mines of Bell

Island. It was directed by Ken Pittman, a very good valuable director, and a

great artist in this Province who is going places. I think we put up something

like $100,000 and it spun out $700,000 or $800,000. It is just amazing. And put

fifty or sixty people to work during the thing for a period of three to six

months - I forget what it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was it?

MR. FUREY: It was a film that we helped called "No

Apologies", a major film.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: It was slated for Buchans. They changed the

venue after and they based it loosely on a diseased miner who became infected in

the mines of Bell Island. It was called, "No Apologies." It is about a family

that comes home to see the father die and all the intricate things that are

involved in that, with environmental messages and a whole range of things. The

point is that it triggered out a significant amount of money to allow that to go

and our investment initially was very small.

Community Economic Development, Rural Development Agreement,

Labrador Agreements, technology support, industrial research, business resource

centre, the access centres, the ACOA enterprise network, and our funding

services are only one quarter of what this whole corporation does. Under the

funding services we have the equity participation, venture capital, direct

equity. Under the enterprise loans, the small enterprise loan, the young

enterprise service, the special sawmill assistance, and conventional loans.

We are not perfect, nobody starts from the premise that we

are perfect, so the hon. member can rise in his place and start from the premise

of total imperfection, but, boy, being imperfect we have done pretty well in our

first full year of operation. Four hundred and twenty-five companies have been

helped, some 1300 new jobs were created, some 3000 jobs were protected and

maintained and that is not bad, Mr. Chairman, that is a pretty good track

record. Now, there is no question that we will have to write-off some of this

capital. Some of it is very high risk capital, make no mistake about it, but we

do everything in our power to give them quick, efficient service, to look at

each project individually, and to judge them on their merits, based upon the

expert's advice that we can get. We are not perfect, Mr. Chairman, but we are

trying our best.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister so far has not

approached the question at all. The minister went on for about twenty-five

minutes and said absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered

the questions. He was totally irrelevant for the first ten minutes of his

remarks, totally irrelevant, talking about history. If I want to go back and

talk about vulture mentality. I can go back and talk about all the good things

the former administration did and the fact that this administration chose to do

an inquiry into the Sprung affair. Is that any different than what the minister

is trying to talk about now? Absolutely nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are tying to fill in ten minutes with

that.

MR. WINDSOR: I do not intend to fill in ten minutes. I do

not intend to waste any more of the time of the House with this kind of banter

back and forth. I want to get to the issues here. I am not talking about the 400

good projects. The minister said it took three weeks to get the information on

400 projects and then he said, well, you only asked for a dozen or two, and that

is all we asked for. Why does it take three weeks?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman can get up again in ten

minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Minister of Development on a point

of order.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is straying from

his topic and provoking me while I am on my feet. Let us be clear about this, I

simply said that when we as a government are asked for information we provide it

at the quickest possible moment. It took me two and a half weeks, but he has the

information. The public of the Province has the information. Maybe the former

minister can tell us why when we asked questions over there we never got

information? He talks about the Sprung inquiry. That was the people of the

Province clamouring to know what happened. We could not get information or

answers. Maybe the hon. member could tell us why so many of the hundreds of

questions we put on the Order Paper died on the Order Paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. minister is abusing the rules of

the House now. He wants to make a speech under the guise of a point of order and

his point is not a valid one. I can go back and talk about information that was

given by the former administration. I can ask the minister why it took five

months to produce this list? It is nothing more than a menu out of a computer

print. I can produce that in forty-five seconds on my computer at home. The

minister cannot tell me that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador did not have

that tabulated and it took them five months to get that list, and then it took

another three months to pick out a dozen or so and to do not much more than to

take the information that is on this list and put it almost in letter form with

very, very little additional information. It is absolutely incredible. I do not

want to waste our time on that, Mr. Chairman. I want the minister to address the

question. Why are we putting equity into restaurants?

I want to know what is the policy of government today. Is it

the policy of government to put equity into restaurants? That is a clear,

simple, straightforward question. I do not want to waste all day, all the time

of the House, talking about who answers questions and who doesn't. I could argue

that with the minister all day and all night. That won't accomplish anything.

Let's stick to the facts.

Of these twenty-five or thirty loans here, equity injection,

as the case may be, let's talk about some of these. Why are some people coming

into Enterprise Newfoundland and asking for assistance and being told: this kind

of venture does not qualify? Yet we see here that exactly the same type of

ventures are being funded. Why are there two policies in this Province? That is

the question I want the minister to address.

There are hundreds of people who have been turned away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes. Because they were told, Mr. Chairman,

this type of business does not qualify. But now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: By Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. By

the staff at Enterprise Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, I can get details if you want details. I

can bring in people who had business plans submitted and were told: don't waste

your time. After they were led to believe that they might get some funding. That

after they prepared a business plan for a little venture -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am not confusing it with ACOA at all. I

know quite well the difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, I am not confusing it with ACOA at all.

I am talking about Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No, ACOA is not perfect. But we are here

discussing the minister's estimates, not the federal estimates, not ACOA's

estimates. The minister cannot hide underneath that.

The minister has done a very nice job, Mr. Chairman, of

talking for twenty-five minutes and he said absolutely nothing about the issue.

He is skirting the issue. It will not go away just because the minister tries to

hide away from it and stick his head in the sand. We want the answers. Why is

this restaurant given equity injection? Why does this Province, why do

taxpayers, have to own part of a restaurant? Why do we not own part of every

restaurant? Why are we funding one restaurant to the disadvantage of another?

Why are funding one lounge? Why are we funding a chicken and rib operation? Why

are we funding a video store to the detriment of other video stores?

Why are we putting equity into a computer company? One

hundred thousand dollars, I believe it is, into one computer company in St.

John's. Tell me what economic benefit it is to this Province that we have

injected that equity into that computer company. Tell me why if that computer

company did not go out of business, why other computer companies, the hundred of

them in St. John's, would not pick up that business, wouldn't love to pick it

up?

Why did we put $100,000 or $75,000 equity into Generator

Exchange a year ago and lose it? Are you telling me that other companies can't

and didn't pick up the work that Generator Exchange was doing? Of course they

did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: See. Mr. Chairman? The minister can't hide

behind that sort of thing. Alright? We can talk about NLDC if you want to. But

we are talking about Enterprise Newfoundland. We are talking about these loans.

It will not go away by the minister trying to distract the attention of the

House to other issues. Let the minister stick strictly to what we are talking

about here. These loans.

The minister is here to answer in these estimates for

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. He can stand up all he wants and wave his

arms and say: Enterprise Newfoundland is separate, we do not interfere with it.

He cannot distance himself from that. He is the minister. The minister is

ultimately responsible. That is another debate as to whether ministers should

personally be ultimately responsible, and should have to resign because somebody

eight steps down the ladder does something wrong. I have a problem with all of

that.

Nevertheless, the minister is the chief executive of the

Department of Development and therefore is responsible for Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador. He must answer. His role here in the House, the

reason we are here this morning doing the estimates, is so that the minister can

answer to the people through this House. That is all I am asking him to do. Tell

us what is the policy.

Is the minister saying that these thirty or forty were

mistakes? Fine. Let him stand up and admit there were thirty or forty mistakes

made. Let him say that. Let him tell the people of Newfoundland that we don't

fund beauty salons. These three or four beauty salons were mistakes. Let him

tell the people, we don't fund convenience stores and games arcades, these were

mistakes. Let him tell his colleague for Lewisporte that it was a mistake that

he funded a video shop right across the street from his business; he tells me he

has the biggest video operation in Central Newfoundland and his colleague funds

another one directly across the street from him. Let the minister stand up and

say that was a mistake, but let him not try to hide behind what might have been

done twenty or thirty years ago. Of course,there were mistakes made, and we have

answered for any mistakes that we made; glad to.

We want to know what the policy is. Has the policy changed

now? Are these things eligible? Because I can bring a parade of business people

in to the Bar of this House and they will tell you that they were turned away

and told: 'I am sorry, this retail operation doesn't qualify.' Why is one funded

and another not? That is all we are asking the minister. Answer that! He has a

whole book of information there now. He will go on for three days now and I can

respond for five, no problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: I say you will probably be able to go on

for about thirty.

MR. WINDSOR: I can go on all summer. I have lots of time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh well, I will have another chance, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to hear what the minister is going to say now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to rise in this debate and cast some, I think

information to hon. members opposite on this whole issue and,

Mr. Chairman, I speak from the perspective of Labrador, and

rural Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular. Mr. Chairman, as one who is

familiar with and has tried to assist people in getting into businesses, and

tried to get jobs created on the Coast of Labrador before I got into politics,

and certainly since I got into politics, until Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador was formed, there was not a place where a person who had a good idea,

with a sound business plan, could go to one shop and be able to sit down with

somebody and know that their idea was going to be taken seriously, that the main

objective of that particular shop was to see that a job was secured, that a job

was created, that the community was given the kind of investment that was

absolutely critical in order to keep these long-term, meaningful jobs available

in their communities. That was a void, Mr. Chairman, until 1989, when this

government was elected. Until this minister brought in Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador, there was a complete void there. People who had good ideas, good

business plans, prospective for any number of jobs were told, Go away, we don't

want to talk to you, simply because we have a particular mentality; we have a

particular set of rules, that you do not qualify. We had a program that was

being put out that was supposed to fit every nook and cranny in this Province,

and if it didn't, then you had to be banned, you had to be banished from the

office, you were not allowed to go in and sit down with anybody to talk about

your idea, to see that there was some kind of meaningful debate, that there was

some kind of meaningful exercise in making that business plan work.

The hon. member mentioned the number in my riding and the

hon. minister points out that some $800,000 was spent on loans, Mr. Chairman.

Again, we are not talking here about the kinds of grant systems that we have in

other parts of the federal government, namely, ACOA and the Fisheries

Alternative Program. There is nothing wrong with these as a matter of principle

either, Mr. Chairman, but we are talking here about loans that are put out to

people where they have to repay and they are being repaid.

You talk about a situation in L'Anse-au-Clair, where we had a

$100,000 loan given to allow somebody to take over a garage. That garage right

now is providing three full-time, meaningful, permanent jobs for the people of

that small community. That little business would have closed down, it would have

been gone, these three jobs would have been gone from that community, that

service would have been gone from that community. Thanks to Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador, thanks to the open-door policy of Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador, thanks to the fresh air that was given to the

entrepreneurs in this Province by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, that

they have been able to go into the branch office in L'Anse-au-Clair, or the

regional office in Goose Bay, knowing that they were not going to be thrown out,

told you are not going to be accepted simply because a policy is in place; a

program has been designed for St. John's or the main centres of this Province,

and you either don't qualify or you are not accepted.

The Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation has been

accepted and renowned, and has become acclaimed by all people in this Province

as the one thing in the business community, for the development of small

business in this Province that they see is completely different from what was

there in previous years. It is accepted in glowing terms.

We have seen the regionalization of these services. We have

seen situations now where the local area can make decisions up to $100,000. The

regional manager can make these kinds of decisions, and they are set up with

consultation to the local people. The local people have an input like they never

had before. This is something that works. This is something that has changed.

They talk about no policy. The policy is clear. The minister

has said it on any number of occasions. The government has announced it any

number of times that anybody in this Province, no matter where you are, or who

you are, you are accepted with your idea; you are welcomed into these offices

with your idea. Your business plan is taken, and it is analyzed and accepted if

you have a good idea that would create jobs, whether it be one, two, twenty, or

a hundred, or if you are to maintain a number of jobs. The hon. member,

yesterday, was very critical of two levels of support for projects in Makkovik,

on the Coast of Labrador. These projects were necessary to see that jobs were

maintained or created, the same as was done with the $800,000 for the projects

throughout Eagle River district.

I am very proud to stand here today and say to the hon.

member opposite that this Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador was our creation.

It was our pride that we put out Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador to the

people of this Province. It was something we wanted to do. Because for years the

people of this Province were saying to government, to the members of this House

before 1989: We can't find anybody who will listen. We can't find anybody who

will take us seriously, no matter what merit there may be in our proposal. We

can't find anybody with local sensitivity. We are being told we will have to

send the application to St. John's where some abstract board is going to make a

decision at some point in the future.

Now, they know that if they have a project, they can go into

that office in Goose Bay, or L'Anse-au-Clair, Cartwright, or Labrador City, and

they will have their idea seriously, accepted and analyzed. Certainly we have

seen, in no uncertain terms, the benefits, that the $26 million has been well

spent, unlike what was tabled yesterday, some $24 million of taxpayers' money

that was spent on the infamous Mount Pearl project, the infamous Sprung project.

So if the Member for Mount Pearl wants to take the time to

really analyze something, to really question something, to really tell the

people of this Province, and give them accounting for good government, he should

look at that $24 million that was wasted over in Mount Pearl, the kind of

lackadaisical attitude that was taken to the big glow in Mount Pearl. As the

Royal Commission pointed out on numerous occasions, the company paid $135,700

for an environmental computer system which was never installed and therefore was

never functional. Those are the kinds of things we saw from that project.

We saw that the ratio for packaging, shipping and customs, at

37 per cent of sales, the ordinary ratio for cost of sales was 6 per cent. But

that didn't matter, because you could go to the trough again. You could go back

time and time again and just put your nose in and dig it up, suck it up,

whatever the public purse wanted to give to that infamous Sprung group that was

there.

There was no accounting. That was the hon. minister who was

in the Cabinet at the time who stood up. It says: There was no government

monitoring to confirm the appropriateness or otherwise of salaries that was over

there at that particular facility. There was no proper and effective monitoring

by government to confirm the appropriateness or otherwise of the reimbursement

to NEL, in the amount of $1,020,000, nor for the invoices paid for the amount of

$54,000 for other charges. It is unbelievable, the type of abuse of public

trust, the type of abuse of the public purse, that took place over there in

Mount Pearl.

According to the accounting for payments to related parties,

NEL paid Mecanico twice for an amount of $22,940. They didn't believe in just

paying them once, they paid them twice in this particular situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can carry on, Mr. Chairman. I am sure

hon. members will give me a chance.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

have a few comments on these particular Estimates, as well. I was listening with

interest to my colleague for Eagle River who, naturally, has some concern with

the number of dollars of taxpayers' money that has been spent in our Province,

at the same time, praising Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador.

Unfortunately, I can't do the same thing. Because if ever you

see political pork barrelling, here is an example. To begin with, let's look at

who is in charge of the various offices, and political connections. The person

in charge of the office in Happy Valley - Goose Bay was the former campaign

manager of the former member. Another individual working in that office is a

person who was defeated in the last election by yours truly. Another person

working in that office is the son of a former member of this Legislature. So

that is three out of three. That just goes to show that -

MR. DUMARESQUE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is again

misleading the House, as he is usually doing. Two of the three employees that he

just talked about were there working for him, when he was the minister in the

previous government! They were hired by the previous government and worked there

for the last number of years. So let's not mislead the House on that kind of

thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, well! Unbelievable!

MR. WARREN: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order, the hon. the Member

for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me say

to my hon. colleague, there was no such thing as Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador! There was no such thing as Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: So I say to my hon. colleague, it was his

government that put Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador in place, and you are

part of it. You don't know what you're talking about! You are stupid, as usual!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)!

MR. WARREN: You are stupid, as usual! Wake up, my friend,

and take off your diapers!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! order, please!

MR. WARREN: Go and take off your diapers!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. the Member for Eagle River

to restrain himself.

I also ask the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains to -

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, it is no trouble to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: - to withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

He called the hon. the Member for Eagle River "stupid." This Chair has ruled

many times that "stupid" is unparliamentary in this House.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will

withdraw that word because I think it is too complimentary for the member. I say

to you, Mr. Chairman, that it is no trouble to strike a nerve with the Member

for Eagle River. Now, would the hon. Member for Eagle River also, if he wants to

get up and say how fair and balanced this government is, explain to this House

why somebody in his district got a project to repair an aircraft, and at the

same time someone else in Labrador gets a letter from the same company saying:

we don't help people with aircrafts. Two applications, one approved and one not.

So I would suggest that the hon. gentleman get up and explain why. That is what

you call fairness and balance, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me mention about the government stores

which comes under the Department of Development. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my

hon. colleague for Mount Scio - Bell Island. Two days ago he had me chastised by

the Speaker. He acted a little bit loud and he didn't know what he was talking

about. Again this morning he is trying to come to the defence of the

defenceless. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the hon. member try to look

after the people on Bell Island, try to look after the people in Mount Scio,

down in Portugal Cove and St. Phillip's. Try to do that, Mr. Chairman, and I

think he will be a better person in this Legislature if he worked for his own

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: That is right.

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Chairman, that is true. I must say,

Mr. Chairman, yes. I have to say this, I give my formal opponent all the credit

in the world. In fact he got three votes more - if he got three votes less he

would have lost the nomination. He would have lost the nomination with three

votes less. So I would say that he put on a great campaign. In fact I have to

say this, Mr. Chairman. He said to me a few days ago, he said: I will tell you

this much, I will not be voting for Ed Roberts in Naskaupi.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. WARREN: The candidate who ran against me. He said: I

am not voting for a parachute candidate coming in here and trying to tell us

what to do. That was from the guy who ran against me for that party.

AN HON. MEMBER: And where do you live?

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Chairman, let me say to my hon.

colleague, I wasn't parachuted into the District of Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, if we talk about a parachute

candidate, I ask the hon. gentleman: where do you live? I would say to my hon.

colleague, does he live in the district he represents. No, of course not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my hon.

colleague opposite that Enterprise Newfoundland in his opinion may be doing a

good job. However I want to say that the Department of Development has an

obligation on the coast of Labrador to operate the stores in an efficient and

prudent manner. I believe since this government took over that we can -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. Member for Eagle

River be quiet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the hon.

gentleman is talking about, but if he is talking about supplies ordered for the

government store - is he saying that the people on the Labrador Coast are not

allowed to have clothing that other people in this Province can have? Is that

was he is saying? Is that what the hon. gentleman is saying, Mr. Chairman?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I would like for the hon.

member to kindly leave his seat, come outside of that door and just repeat what

he said. I will show you, Mr. Chairman, that he will have some consequences to

put up with. I would suggest that you say outside this door what you just said,

and I will tell you who will be the better person. I will tell you because you

are nothing but a sleaze bag.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. WARREN: I will withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. It is too

complimentary for the gentleman.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we are talking about the

operations of this government. When I was minister I did for the people in

Labrador, as a minister, what anyone else should do, and that is to make sure

supplies were delivered to those stores, supplies that the people wanted. We

listened to the people and that is what we will always do. I say to my hon.

colleague that one thing I did not do was when my hon. colleague was employed by

the government and was travelling around at government expense with Liberal

brochures in his pocket at the same time, that was one thing I did not do, Mr.

Speaker. I would say to him, Mr. Chairman, that he was campaigning for two years

at government expense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman

must have been drinking something more than water because of the way he is

acting. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman has been taking something that

is affecting his brain or he has been drinking something more than water.

That is how it appears to me because it is unreal how a young man like that, who

is suppose to have a little bit of intelligence, can be acting like that on a

Friday morning. It must mean he has been doing something other than drinking

water. He can only answer for himself but I can say this much in all fairness to

the hon. member, that he should wake up and -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member speaking previous to myself did

speak about the Royal Commission of Enquiry into Newfoundland's Involvement in

Newfoundland Enviroponics, the Sprung affair. I am looking at this document that

was released yesterday and if you look at the findings based on the terms of

reference in the back there there are some points, I think, that do need to be

noted. I might add that I had some discussions recently with some people in the

banking community who were involved in this affair and it was very interesting

to hear the kinds of efforts they had -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: No, it is the wrong bank actually. That was

only $500,000 and not $20 million. It was $500,000.

Anyway, I do want to point out that through the findings of

this Royal Commission of Enquiry we do note that a thorough evaluation of the

project was not done. It was certainly not unlike the previous government to

make a decision and then adjust the situation of evaluation to suit the decision

they had already made. In other words the tail did wag the dog in this

particular case and it certainly was a case where the potential damage done, I

suppose, financially to the Province was significant, but we might look at it as

a very, very expensive lesson learned by government.

I would say, to give some credit to the Opposition for what

they had done, that we as a government now are behaving much more responsibly

than we might have if this had not occurred. The method of evaluation that is

prescribed and suggested by Mr. Justice O'Regan is one that certainly should be

undertaken with regard to any large project in the Province. If we as a

government are to do any justice to the taxpayers of the Province and the

country who support this Province then we would have to be sure that we do a

thorough evaluation, and without coming to a prejudicial conclusion prior to

doing that evaluation I think that will serve the taxpayers well. The damage

that this did to the business community of the Province was significant. There

was uncertainty because of the failure of the previous government to bring

before the House of Assembly, as required under the statutes, the documentation

required to enforce the guarantees that were utilized in the provisions to the

Newfoundland Enviroponics people, the joint venture between the government and

Newfoundland Enviroponics and whatever the other corporate names involved in

this thing are.

Also, I suppose the consequences to the banks were

significant if, in fact, the bank itself were left without honouring that

agreement the government had chosen, as it possibly had the right to do so, to

not honour the guarantees by virtue of them not having been executed properly.

That was very significant, from a detail perspective, as far as the application

of the statues in the legislation, but also the consequence of how the Province

was perceived through the business community of the country, internationally as

well.

The consequences of that kind of action, I think, would

exemplify the incompetence that had been portrayed. Now I do not mean to suggest

that any member opposite was incompetent, but overall the way in which this

project was undertaken, and approvals provided, it certainly shows how the

politics of this kind of project could certainly usurp the process that we

should follow. We have to do what we can to safeguard that kind of situation

from taking place.

Now what did they do wrong? Well, in the findings you note

that the commitment to purchase and erect the facility for a contract price was

improper, noted Mr. Justice Steele. He said that adequate, proper and due

investigation of the technology and economic viability of the proposal was not

carried out prior to government's commitment to the project. It appears that the

price was excessive, and I certainly hope that this kind of lesson will be

implemented in a formal manner into government's policies in the future, to make

sure that we do not go off and try to approve of a project without the proper

and thorough evaluation.

This comes to some other things which I might note. If you go

to Page 132(

b) whether any acts and regulations of the Province were not

complied with; now what acts and regulations were not complied with, according

to Mr. Justice O'Regan? Well he maintains The Retail Sales Tax Act, as amended,

was not complied with, and that no tax was paid on the fair value of the

tangible personal property.

I remember myself, when I was in business in Corner Brook - I

was in a retail business - having to do just that, paying tax on the capital

purchases that I made for that particular business. Any other person here who

has been in business realizes that this is a necessity for everyone. With

government's involvement in this, it should certainly have assured the people of

the Province that this retail sales tax would be paid in accordance with the

regulations and legislation.

Also I note that the intent of The Loan and Guarantee Act, as

mentioned here, was not complied with. Various loan guarantees by the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of Newfoundland Enviroponics, were not

brought before the House of Assembly as the legislation intended, and as

convention dictated. That was another part of that.

We are getting to the two component parts, I suppose, that

were even more significant; one that The Municipalities Act, as amended, was not

complied with, and that the hydroponic facility was occupied without the

issuance of a proper permit - again smacking of the problems associated with the

tail wagging the dog syndrome, the idea of approving of something prior to its

actually being thoroughly investigated and regulated through the necessary

permits and whatnot.

I might like to stress, and I know it has probably already

been mentioned, but we speak about The Environmental Assessment Act. The

Environmental Assessment Act, 1980, as amended, was not complied with, in that

the Minister of Environment was not notified in writing of the proposed project

as he, at the time, should have been.

Those in the opposition who maintain that we should avoid the

environmental assessment process, maybe it is just by virtue of the convention

that they are used to following. It would appear that their suggestions

regarding another proposed development for the Province being proposed without

this provincial government's financial assistance, maybe that the Environmental

Assessment Act, as mentioned here, I am just trying to draw a conclusion based

on this action here and - well there is a comparison because you are speaking

about the Environmental Assessment Act, and its application with regards to

industrial development, just the key points that were mentioned in the motion

put forward by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains on Wednesday, and if you

look at the specific relationship of industrial developments in the Province, to

the environmental assessment process that in this particular case, this was

denied as a necessity I suppose, by the government of the day, because they were

so heavily involved in the financial operation of this, the greenhouse in

providing loan guarantees.

When things would happen they obviously were aware that there

were environmental consequences of their actions in that, and I say this, that

when the greenhouse went there of course were environmental consequences to the

local area, notably one that did have some financial ramifications for

government, was the effect that it had on the poinsettia grower who was located

nearby, and of course that was an environmental consequence, direct

environmental consequence of the Sprung setup with the lighting and this sort of

thing causing some problems, environmental problems for another business in that

given area, so therefore, the fact that the Environmental Assessment Act was not

used by the government of the day in their evaluation; they said it did not need

to be registered and there was nothing required, again by virtue of the hands-on

I suppose involvement of the government of that day, and again the consequences

show themselves albeit I suppose, they may say insignificant, but there was a

direct financial consequence of that action.

I note in the back of this that the - I am just looking for

the MC, the Minute in Council that paid off the poinsettias, I think it was

$64,000 or something in that order?... yes, grants to Poinsettia growers. Mr.

Chairman, it was certainly a direct financial consequence, so it shows that not

only can there be environmental consequences for not complying with acts of this

Legislature of this Province, but there can be direct financial consequences to

government and therefore the inherent liability that government assumes in not

following its own rules and regulations, may have been avoided if these rules

and regulations were applied and were followed.

This is very important, especially to the visitors here in

the gallery today, that when a government acts beyond what it should, an

opposition of course should bring them into question, should question the way

that they have acted, because a government is only as good as the opposition

which opposes it, and the government of the day is very open to criticism, to

responding to questions whether they are on the Order Paper, whether they are

the general questions that are asked here in Question Period. We are only as

good as they make us, and we are only as good as the expectations of the people

of the Province, and this Legislature of course, being open regularly for the

provision of an opportunity for the opposition to question government, is very

important and the importance of course with the Newfoundland Enviroponics thing

to the people here visiting, is that the Legislature was not opened and again I

certainly feel that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. RAMSAY: - we should see to it that the Legislature is

open for a set period of time every year, Mr. Chairman, and given set dates and

this sort of thing so that we can guarantee that this kind of thing does not

happen again. Thank you.

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

Humber Valley, I would like to welcome to the galleries this morning on behalf

of all hon. members - I think they were welcomed earlier by Mr. Speaker, but I

do not think they were in the House at the time - twenty-eight students from

Inter Island Academy in Summerford, in the district of Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I never had a

chance to read through this but I do not think there is going to be much in it

that I do not already know about. I would like to take a few minutes to comment

on some of the comments made in the last twenty-four hours by some members

opposite, and over the last, I suppose, three and a half to four years.

There is one advantage that we have already, just after three

and a half years. It is that we did something. As far as I am concerned, if you

do not do anything you cannot make any mistakes. You just cannot make any. The

highest level of incompetence is doing nothing. Now if members opposite can get

up and tell me - other than the minister responsible for Enterprise Newfoundland

- what policies and what chances and what has been done in this Province over

the last three and a half years to create new employment, I will sit down. I

will sit down and let them tell me. Some meaningful employment.

Look at the unemployment statistics in this Province today.

Just look at them. They just came out again this morning, 11,000 less people in

the workforce today than there was this time last year, 11,000 out looking. The

social assistance rolls, the worst they have been in twenty years. Look at our

youth. We have some of them in the gallery today. They have a lot to look

forward to, I know. Thirty-six per cent of youth unemployment in this Province,

up 6 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-seven per cent in Ontario.

MR. WOODFORD: Never mind Ontario. You won an election to

govern this Province, not Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: All across Canada (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Why don't you pick up Mr. Finklestein and

put him in Cabinet? Mr. Chairman, back to the hon. gentleman for LaPoile talking

about mistakes pertaining to the Sprung enterprise. No question. Never denied it

before, won't today, and won't tomorrow, deny the fact that that particular

project had a lot of mismanagement. We should have taken more time. No question.

As far as I am concerned, if that was done, that facility would be working today

and we would be producing hydroponic produce for the ret of Canada, the rest of

the world. No question.

Members opposite, I suppose, have been playing political

football with this particular enterprise for some time. Would the member just

look at a couple of pages there and see what happened. Look at the Sprungs'

record. I always said that the Sprungs would not run an outhouse over a river. I

told them the first day after I got in as minister, and I told them - both Dawn

and Phil - a good many times after that. The day that they called me when I was

home in the district, on a Friday at 1:30 p.m., and told me that they were all

walking out at 2:30 p.m., it is a good thing I was not in St. John's because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. Close, but the only thing about it, I

had to do the proper thing and go through the proper channels for the next few

minutes. But my words to the individual on the phone were these. I told him in

no uncertain terms: you go back and take the people who are necessary to close

the place down, walk in, say nothing until you get inside the doors, and then

point your finger and say: get out. They did just that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I'll get to Kenney, Mr. Chairman. They did

just that. If members would look, you talk about an about-face, I know it has

been a political football, I know that things were done wrong. But just look at

what happened in just a short while after the two Dutch people went in there.

Just look at two notes in this, I do not know what page it is on now. Just look

at two notes and see what the Sprungs produced. They produced - the most they

ever produced was 75,000 cucumbers a week. A week. The most.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Hold on now, let me finish. When I usually

speak on a subject I usually try to know what I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: The prices, Mr. Chairman, when the Sprungs

were producing were low. After the Dutch people went in there, just a couple of

days after they drove the Sprungs out along with the other management people,

what were they producing? If you look at the production levels for the Dutch

people in just a few... I think it was six weeks. They went I think from 16,000

up to 85,000. They had 85,000 a week, and it went up to as high as $1.90 in the

marketplace.

The sad thing about it is that we threw out the baby with the

bath water. You can't produce cucumbers, you can't produce anything else in this

Province today, and try to compete on the same level as Ontario or California or

anywhere else when they are producing at that same time. You can't do it. You

have to produce something that is ready for the marketplace and you can get the

top dollar at that given time. They should not be producing cucumbers

year-round, no question.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Ross Traverse?

MR. WOODFORD: Ross Traverse? You want me to tell you

about Ross Traverse? Listen to my interview on CBC this morning, and I will

quote it, and I will say it right here. If you are going to comment on something

make sure they got their facts straight. If some of the officials in the

Department of Agricultural - and they are still there today, sir, under you - do

not know any more about it than I did twenty years ago, there's not much odds

about them. I will tell you that. They are still there today.

AN HON. MEMBER: The report bore them out.

MR. WOODFORD: The report bore them out on what? On what?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Sure, they vindicated Ross Traverse. Who

did the report? Someone who knew more about it than Ross Traverse? Come on. The

rest of Canada did not want to see it here. Why? Because the total greenhouse

production in Canada, Mr. Chairman, was outside this Province. Quebec had 63 per

cent of the total greenhouse production in Canada.

The bottom line on this is that if it had have been handled

right -and I say to members opposite, it is one thing to take a calculated risk,

and it is another to take a foolish risk when it comes to business. But I tell

you, if we are going to do anything in this Province with regard to creating

employment, then gentlemen, you are going to have to at least take a calculated

risk. If you don't, we are going to be at the bottom rung of the ladder for a

long time to come, I can assure you. Those Dutch people who wanted to move that

enterprise, knew what they were doing, but members opposite did not want to have

the satisfaction -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I was enjoying the debate, Mr. Chairman,

and I still am, I must say. I always enjoy the Member for Humber Valley when he

speaks because he normally and always does speak with great sincerity and is one

of the most sincere and hard-working members in the House of Assembly. As a

matter of fact, of course, if he had his way, the Sprung agreement, when it was

put together, would never have been the same as it was. I mean, he would never

have allowed that. He went in after, invited into the Cabinet, and he did a good

job with what he had to deal with. I have great respect for his ability and

always will in whatever he goes at. It was a difficult process he had to deal

with to come in after the mess that was made and clean it up.

You know, the strangest part about this Sprung project - I

was reading through a report last night, and I took it home. When we were in

Opposition, a number of us - the Minister of Forestry would know this - we had

questions about this project. The reason we had a number of questions was

because the government of the day under the former former Premier highlighted it

as one of the projects that was going to blow our minds, if you remember that

phrase, folks, blow our minds. Do you remember that speech?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: It was going to blow our minds. I

remember NTV one night, I got home late and I turned it on. He was on a

half-hour speech somewhere in Newfoundland. 'Blow your mind' - he said he was

going to blow our minds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: So all the people were excited. The

people were excited in this Province because they thought their minds were going

to get blown. They thought there was going to be a revolution. They thought

there was going to be economic restoration and everybody was going to have

employment.

I remember when the Sprung greenhouse was announced, and

then, of course, it started. One of the things the hon. the Member for Torngat

Mountains said after was that we should build fifty-two Sprung greenhouses

around the Province. I don't know if you remember that. Some members opposite

will remember that comment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Now, that would have been fifty-two by

$24 million - that is $1 billion.

The government of the day doesn't want to pursue this thing

much further, but a lot of us, I mean, we had concerns then. The Minister of

Health will remember, we asked questions about the agreement when it was

announced and signed. You know, the math that was used to put this agreement in

place, I say to the Minister of Finance, you would not believe the math! The

math is not the same math I was taught in school.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the Minister of Finance then?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I am not sure. I can't remember. I don't

know, but whoever it was, there was a big Cabinet, anyway. I think there were

twenty-two Cabinet ministers at the time - but the math that was used!

I was reading through this, and I just want to point out a

couple of things that are of interest.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Does it show good accounting?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Real good accounting, yes. I call it PC

math. You see, when the agreement was announced, they formed Newfoundland

Enviroponics Limited. That was formed out of 50 per cent Government of

Newfoundland, you are the taxpayer, and 50 per cent Sprung company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call it equity investment.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Equity investment. Now the Sprung group

of companies put in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is right, they put in $4 million.

They were putting in $4 million. It was set. That is what it says here, $4

million, and the government was putting in the rest. Now, you know it is a 50

per cent shareholder, 50/50. Then we form NEL, which is Newfoundland

Enviroponics Limited. So, once we form NEL, then we give a contract as NEL to

the Sprung group of companies to build a facility for $14.5 million.

So we, ourselves, I'm a Sprung, I gave myself the contract to

build the facility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Exactly. Now, that it where they got the

$4 million. It says here, the Sprung group contributed $4 million to the Sprung

greenhouse project. 'The shareholders' agreement contemplated the Sprung group

contributing the following financing for the project: Shareholder loan at $3.5

million, and a loan guarantee for $500,000. But the $3.5 million of the Sprung

group contribution was a direct set-off against progress payments due to Sprung

by NEL, himself, under the construction agreement.

So he never put anything in it. I'm not sure if he put a cent

in. Not only that, I think he was set up as one of the chairmen, or CEOs, of the

company. He got paid a salary besides that. So that was the math of the day, and

that was the only reason that I, as a member of the House, would have any

questions. That is all. There was no other reason. The technology we would

welcome. Hopefully, it would work, and we would try to see the thing go if it

were a good possibility. I mean, the way it was set up was the problem, that's

all.

As members, we try to hope that economic development is going

to occur and we try to do everything we can, taking a necessary risk. But this

wasn't risk. This was just a very, very bad decision that could be seen by

everybody in the Province, but that just was refused - people were not listened

to. They were not listened to on this subject, and now the taxpayers of the

Province have had to suffer for it, unfortunately. But the question here is - it

is not so much that we are making politics out of it. The fact is, it had to be

investigated. Because it was a scandal, as far as I am concerned, that this

thing went ahead at all - that a company could be given all of this money,

without even the proper documentation and the proper marketing information. An

environmental assessment wasn't even done. It was just: We are going to do it

and that's it, and we are going to blow your mind.

So, we are not on a political witch hunt. The government,

obviously, said: We are not going to go any further. But all I say to the

members opposite, is if you are going to talk about economic development, we are

trying to do some things and this -

MS. VERGE: Like what?

MR. K. AYLWARD: All kinds of things. You would be

surprised.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador,

amongst other things, the Telecentre agreement, amongst other things. But one

thing we are not going to do, I tell the hon. the Member for Humber East, is we

are not going to do this. I am going to guarantee you that. I remember the

Budget of - what was it, 1989, or 1988? - 1988, I think it was, or 1987. You

remember that Budget? - What was the picture on the front? Remember the picture?

Sprung group of companies. So they highlighted this as their economic

development policy.

So all we say, on this side of the House, and members who

were there then when this thing was brought in, it is a sad conclusion to this

affair. Because the math that was used I hope will never be used again, for the

sake of the taxpayers of this Province. I hope this math, that whoever invented

this math for this thing, I wouldn't hope they ever get in a classroom, Mr.

Chairman. I hope they never get in a classroom to teach this stuff, I tell you,

when it comes to math and financing.

DR. KITCHEN: How did they ever get out?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, I don't know. But this has to prove

- and not only that, there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) new math.

MR. K. AYLWARD: A new math. It must be the new math. But

there was MC after MC of more money, even though, guaranteed, it was going down

the drain. It kept going, and it didn't matter, Sir. It didn't matter at all.

So it has come to a conclusion, and we hope it is a lesson

for us all. This government is going to try to undertake to develop the Province

in a way that is organized, in the different regions of the Province. We have a

new economic plan coming forward in a little while, just shortly, which is going

to set out a number of long-term goals. It is going to have an action plan ready

to go. So we are looking forward to seeing some things happen, and they are

going to happen.

But, this thing here, you know, a lot of the members opposite

are accountable because they were involved in this project. As I said, the

Member for Humber Valley did a good job, because when he was there he tried to

come in and put some sense to the whole thing, and I give him credit for that,

and always will. I appreciate his efforts on behalf of the Province when he was

there, when he did that. But, a number of other people who kind of defended this

thing for I don't know how long, it is unfortunate, because the thing was going

nowhere fast. With that kind of math that was used, Mr. Chairman, we would only

hope that this new math will be buried forever, and that the good math and the

proper math will be used from now on in any other economic development project.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if (inaudible). Just

one short question, Mr. Chairman, to the minister responsible for Treasury

Board. If the minister responsible for Treasury Board could listen for just a

second. Under Royal Commission Staff, page 2, under Support Staff, the three

wonder could the minister check and see if that is not Dawn Sprung after getting

married or something?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: See that she didn't sit on the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, it is obvious the hon. members

opposite want to continue this debate on Sprung. For the life of me, I don't

understand why they would want to start a fight on Sprung.

Over the past few days, I have heard members opposite saying:

If you don't try to do anything then you are not going to succeed. They are

talking as if Sprung was the only thing that they failed on, as if Sprung was

the only mistake they made.

I tell hon. members of this House that Sprung was one of the

better things they did when they were in office. Sprung was probably their

leading light, their star of achievement. Just look at what they actually did to

this Province. Just look at what they did to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Just look at the mess they left us there. How many million? One hundred and

sixty million dollars of deficit. Compare that to Sprung. Sprung - I can

understand why they are bragging and taking all the credit for it. Compared to

the mess they left of the Workers' Compensation Board, Sprung was a gem.

What about the pension fund? Do you realise, if we had left

the pension fund in the same mess we received it in, that the people of our

Province, the dedicated civil servants and the dedicated teachers, who gave

years of their lives, paid into a pension fund that the previous administration

allowed to go into the ground. I can see why they want to talk about Sprung,

because compared to what they did with the teachers' pension fund and the civil

service pension fund, compared to the mess in which they left the pension fund,

Sprung, indeed, was a remarkable achievement.

Let's compare Sprung to what they did to the credit rating of

the Province. We are at the bottom of all the provinces in this nation, a legacy

left us by the previous administration. When you compare Sprung to that, they

have every right to want to talk about Sprung, because it was, indeed, the best

thing they ever did when they were in power.

They took a Cabinet which was lean and mean and they put

twenty-three members in the Cabinet. Some of them couldn't use an ordinary

washroom! Some of them had to have brass faucets on their sinks. Some of them

had to tear the whole West Block apart just to install a special bathroom.

Compare all that to Sprung. But now I can see why they want to talk about

Sprung, because Sprung was the best thing they ever did in the full ten years.

While they were in power, they had a railway which was

protected by the Terms of Union of this Province with the Dominion of Canada. We

all know it was losing money. But under the Terms of Union they were losing $15

million a year, I believe it was. The previous administration gave up that term

of union and accepted $800 million for fifteen years, which is less -

AN HON. MEMBER: $400 million.

MR. DECKER: $400 million. - which is less than the

railway would have lost had it stayed in operation, Mr. Chairman. Compare the

mess, the fiasco that they made on the railway and Sprung is indeed a leading

light. Sprung is one of the best things they ever did. Now, Mr. Chairman, I can

understand why they want to talk about Sprung, so let us talk about Sprung.

Mr. Chairman, there are cows in Conception Bay who are having

withdrawal symptoms. Do you realize that Sprung produced so many cucumbers that

the human market for Sprung was saturated; they put out a cookbook and they made

ever Newfoundlander a cucumber addict; they all became addicted to cucumbers but

when we all had turned green after eating those cucumbers, they started dumping

them in Conception Bay and the cows started eating them and the cows got

addicted. I am just wondering, if the fish in Conception Bay turn green we will

know what it is, it is the food chain. It is where the effects of the cucumbers

through the cows, somehow found their way into Conception Bay, Mr. Chairman, so

I ask the hon. Minister of Fisheries to keep checking because those cows are

having withdrawal symptoms, because the little ditty about the cow jumping over

the moon, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if that was brought on because they were

eating those cucumbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Humber

Valley talks about the ability of Sprung to produce -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - more cucumbers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, may I have leave for another

minute?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - because this is the killing punch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair is just calling order, not that the Member's time

is up.

Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Oh, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair called order because I could not hear the hon.

member, not that the hon. member's time is up.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I thought my time

was up.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here is the other one. The hon. Member for

Humber Valley talks about the fact that Sprung could have produced more

cucumbers - God forbid. Now here is what it did. It got the cows addicted to

cucumbers, it got the people addicted to cucumbers, Mr. Chairman, if they had

produced more they would have had the horses and the pigs and every living

animal in this Province addicted to cucumbers.

The hon. member talked about new math. Let me tell him

something about the new math. He said they could have produced more. Now, every

pound they produced they lost $1.65 on it or somewhere in that vicinity, Mr.

Chairman, it is a rough figure. Now, Mr. Chairman, for every 1,000 pounds they

lost $1650.00. If they had produced a million pounds they would have lost

$1,650,000; if they had produced that billion pounds, they would have lost $1.65

billion, Mr. Chairman, think what they could have done to our credit rating on

that one.

Mr. Chairman, it is like the like the people who went up to

Prince Edward Island to bring down some - remember them, they went up to bring

down some potatoes? They had a truck which could carry 700 bags of potatoes.

They paid $2.00 a bag for the potatoes, they brought them down to Newfoundland

and they sold them for $2.00 a bag and they ended losing of course on the deal,

so they tried to figure out what they should have done and of course their

accountant said: here is where you made the mistake; you should have had a

bigger truck. That is what you should have had. Now that is the mentality. The

same accountant who recommended to those two geniuses that they should have

brought down more potatoes and sold them, that is the same accountant, Mr.

Chairman, who advised the previous administration about the economics of the

Sprung Greenhouse. Maybe, they should have listened to the Member for Torngat

Mountains and they should have had one of those cucumber plants in every single

district in this Province, then they could have drove her under, then they could

have drove her under.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many things about this that I

would not want to discuss if I were a member of the opposition today. I would

not want to talk about Kenny Rogers when he made the visit to St. John's. Can

you remember that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DECKER: Could I have leave, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are ready for the question whenever

you are.

MR. TOBIN: We were ready for the question until you got

up and made a complete fool of yourself; but one thing you did demonstrate is

that you were in the cucumber house for awhile. That is one thing you did

demonstrate, because you are the closest thing to a cucumber that I have ever

seen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Health - I am not sure that

his withdrawal symptoms are from eating cucumbers; but I would suspect that if

he is having withdrawal symptoms, he will not have them today. He may have his

withdrawal symptoms tomorrow from something else that can be grown in cucumbers.

In any case, I thought that when the Minister of Health got

up today, as a member of this Cabinet, that he would be more responsible; that

he would talk about the ll,000 less men and women who are working in this

Province today than were working this time last year; that he would talk about

the 3,000 men and women in this Province who are not working today who were

working this time last month; that he would talk about the 36 per cent of our

population between the age of fifteen and twenty-four who are unemployed in this

Province today.

The Minister of Health can talk all he likes about cucumbers

and failures and everything else, but the fact of the matter is that there was

never 11,000 less people unemployed in this Province in one year than there were

since that group came to power. That is what has taken place today, and they are

not finished. They are not finished with gutting the civil servants and everyone

else in this Province.

The Minister of Health talks about withdrawal symptoms. The

Minister of Education is the victim of withdrawal symptoms when people look at

the withdrawal of student assistants in this Province, that he announced over

the last week. That is what has taken place.

Why, in this Province today, are there 11,000 less men and

women working than there were this time last year, if this government has an

economic policy or an economic plan for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What do I say tonight when I speak to a graduating class from Eastern Community

College in Burin? What do I say to them when I have to tell them that there is

36 per cent -

MR. WALSH: Say, 'Smarten up, vote Liberal.'

MR. MATTHEWS: Boy, oh boy, oh boy.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, boy, oh boy, that is being smart. The

best place for you now is out in the chicke