November

7, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 51

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier - questions about the

contradictory words and deeds of his administration. I refer to the Premier's

frequent `fairness and balance' rhetoric, the Premier's campaign slogan oft

repeated, of presiding over a government with fairness and balance.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's government has maintained the

Public Service Commission, which was created by the PCs back in the 1970s. The

Premier's government is providing for $3 million for the Public Service

Commission this year. The Premier's government budget document describes the

Public Service Commission as existing to provide for the staffing of positions

in government departments in accordance with the merit principle. I would like

to ask the Premier why, contrary to those words, the deeds have involved

circumventing the Public Service Commission, taking the smoke and mirrors

approach named by the Minister of Finance, and hiring people for government

departments on a temporary basis. How does the Premier square the deeds with the

words?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

of the Opposition is talking about. I don't think she is sure herself. That is

probably why the question was as vague as it is. The government is committed to

the principle of fairness and balance. We have applied it consistently ever

since we have been in office, and we intend to continue to apply it.

Now, I know the former government didn't have much

familiarity with it, so perhaps they have some difficulty with the concept, but

we intend to continue to apply that principle, and there is nothing that anybody

has been doing, or the government has been doing, that I know, that has in any

way circumvented the Public Service Commission in any manner. I know that was an

approach that was frequently used in the past, but we have abandoned that a long

time ago, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the

Premier.

I will agree that Tom Hickman probably feels that this

government has been fair and balanced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS VERGE: There are people in the Province who agree with

the Premier, I will grant him that.

I would like to ask the Premier how he intends to apply his

principle of fairness and balance in the hiring for the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, of additional staff to take over the responsibilities

for overseeing the Cabot 500 Anniversary, which the corporation were handling

until the government axed the corporation last week. How will the Premier ensure

fairness and balance in hiring the additional staff for the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will let the minister give the detail

but let me just address the principle of the matter. The minister announced the

government's decision with respect to the corporation. Now, I think one thing is

probably pretty clear, it is highly unlikely that the staff of the department

can assume all of those responsibilities, do as good a job as needs to be done

without having some of the people that are already involved, in all probability,

transfer over to the department or perhaps even find somebody new, if new and

special talent is required. I don't know, I haven't considered that, but my

guess would be that it is most probable that the department would seek the

temporary help of some of the people who are there but we don't need the full

staff that are there. I think that is probably where the minister is, but the

minister is in a better position to elaborate than I am.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary for the

Premier.

The minister told us yesterday that he is not going to use

the Public Service Commission to pick the additional staff for his department.

Now, I would like to ask the Premier: Who is in charge, or who should be in

charge? I know the Premier is increasingly unwilling and unable to impose his

espoused high ethical standards. We saw that in his treatment of the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, but I would like to ask the Premier: How can he

allow the minister to hand-pick staff to carry out the remaining Cabot

Corporation planning and overseeing? How can the Premier have this hiring and

this selection of people for plum government jobs to be done other than through

the Public Service Commission which has the express purpose of enforcing the

merit principle?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the minister

say he was going to hand-pick anybody. I do know that the time frame is a

limited time frame. We will not need people continuing on a long term public

service basis and I don't want the minister hiring people on a long term public

service basis if they are unnecessary. Too much of that has been done in the

past, we need to correct it. Now, I will let the minister tell the House exactly

what he proposes to do, because I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

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

appreciate the opportunity to address the issue further.

It was clear yesterday that the representation of the matter

by the Leader of the Opposition was that myself, as the minister, and the

government would hand-pick some Liberals, I think was the phrase she used. At

this point in time, I am preparing a presentation back to Cabinet as to the

additional staffing component that will be needed in the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation to make sure that we move ahead as quickly as possible

with a successful celebration in 1997.

As I have indicated in the media, Mr. Speaker, it is expected

that some of those staff will be current staff members of the corporation who

will be offered continuing employment.

An interesting note, Mr. Speaker, once we even take that

position, those members who would be offered continuing employment were not

selected through a public service competition because they were hired by an

independent Crown corporation, that wasn't even a Crown corporation at the time

of hiring, Mr. Speaker, and they went through a hiring mechanism that was not

the Public Service Commission and in the expediency of time, and a mind to get

this back on track as quickly as we can, which I understood, Mr. Speaker, the

Leader of the Opposition was encouraging us to do yesterday, and that myself

being the bluff that I am, that she suggests I am, and don't know what I am

doing anyway so we will flubber our way through this as best we can, but, Mr.

Speaker, what we want to do is, make sure that we as quickly as possible bring

the necessary staff component into the department.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, knows

that if we were to run a public service competition it would normally take

anywhere from six to eight weeks to run some ads. do some interviews and get

some people and she would agree I am sure, that we don't have the time to wait

at this critical juncture that she described yesterday, to go through a public

service competition. We will announce who the people are, we will select them

through a process, they will have Cabinet approval and, Mr. Speaker, we will

carry on and do a good job in 1997.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier, is he allowing his minister to hire staff

for a year or two for short-term periods for the Cabot anniversary by a

principle other than a merit principle? Is the Premier suggesting that the merit

principle only applies to long-term employment, not short-term employment and is

the Premier willing to allow his minister to circumvent the Public Service

Commission for the hiring for these plum jobs, even if they only last for

another two years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

The merit principle is applied throughout, unlike the

situation with which they were familiar in the past. The merit principle will

apply throughout and there is no authorization to the minister and no

inclination on the minister's part as nearly as I can determine to hire other

than on the basis of merit and what's necessary to meet the objectives of

government in terms of the 1997 proposal.

The characterization of it is that of the Leader's alone and

not the minister or the government.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question for the Premier about the Cabot Corporation. The

Cabot Corporation which his government established which had directors he and

his Cabinet colleagues appointed, how much will the government have to spend to

wind down the Corporation? How much will it cost the government in penalties for

contracts and leases that were abandoned, and in severance pay and other

benefits for employees who have been let go? If the Premier can't provide this

information - his minister couldn't provide it yesterday -, is it really true

the Cabinet didn't know the consequences when it made the decision to axe the

Corporation?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose after being

chastised in that way I should get up and admit that yes, it is true, we have no

idea what we are doing. I think that is what the Leader of the Opposition wants

us to admit on every issue.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition

just read a question again from yesterday's Hansard. It is the exact same

question she asked yesterday. I've indicated that we are expecting a week from

today, actually, to be in a position to give the details of that particular

information, and that we will be taking a proposal to the Cabinet at the first

opportunity to lay out the plan for the future. We will make available to the

public of Newfoundland and Labrador the details of those kinds of issues in

terms of severance, contracts that either have to be continued, should be

continued, or will be terminated because we make an assessment that there is no

longer a need to move ahead.

I'm pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition is

taking the position that all of them on that side of the House wish us well in

making sure that 1997 is a tremendous, rousing success for the Province.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm tempted to carry

on with that. Cabot Corporation is indeed an interesting topic. Very interesting

indeed when we saw the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board just last week

table a special warrant, that funds were so needed on an emergency basis

government had to issue a special warrant just a couple of months ago for a

corporation that it has now cancelled. Interesting indeed!

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board told us a couple

of days ago he had a $60 million problem now with the Budget for the end of this

year. He finally confirmed that after much prodding from ourselves. He told us

that he is going to try to find that by the end of the fiscal year without taxes

or additional borrowing by identifying immediate savings. I'm interested in just

how the minister proposes to do that. Sixty million dollars a year is $180

million on an annualized basis. That is a significant percentage of our overall

budget. Would the minister tell us how he is proposing to do that?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've asked the

departments of government to present to Treasury Board by November 15 their

suggestions as to how we might find the money this year. Those savings will go

forward into next year.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, obviously a large percentage of

the provincial Budget that has any flexibility in it at all would be in the wage

and benefit side. Would the minister tell us if he has any proposals in that

regard and further, has he had any meetings with representatives of the various

government unions to bounce certain ideas of them, Mr. Speaker?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the first part, yes, wages form approximately 50

per cent of our gross provincial Budget. In most departments it is between 60

and 80 per cent because much of the remaining 50 per cent is spent on capital

and other works in the Province. Secondly, I did have a meeting with the unions

this morning. I did not bounce any ideas off them. I told them the general state

of the Province and I asked them for suggestions.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us if

he has suggested to the unions any general wage rollbacks such as we saw a

couple of years ago, or dipping into pension plans of unions as a way of trying

to find short-term gains, short-term savings, I suppose, to solve this problem,

and has he considered, with the unions, the long-term implications of that? Is

he suggesting short-term solutions here or is he looking at the long-term?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in answer to the first part, no I did not suggest

either rollbacks or pension options. I told the unions that no decisions had

been made in anyway whatsoever with respect to what measures might be taken by

government. I did indicate to them, and it is our plan to make decisions that

will have a long-term impact rather than just sort of trying to deal with it

piecemeal this year.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier. Last Tuesday this House

passed an amendment to Term 17 to amend the Constitution through educational

reform. Since that resolution has now been passed to the federal government has

the Premier had any indication from the Prime Minister - I am sure they have had

discussions over the last week or so, any indication as to when we might expect

the Parliament of Canada to deal with this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have not spoken with the Prime Minister

in the last few days for fairly obvious reasons; he has been pretty

substantially occupied with the Quebec referendum and the fallout of that

referendum and where we go from there. Then in the last few days Prime Minister

Rabin of Israel was assassinated, he was off to the funeral and he is continuing

on another visit.

The process has started, however, as the Clerk of the House,

I believe, has followed the normal procedure and forwarded the resolution to, I

believe, the Clerk of the Privy Council which is the process that is followed,

and I will be speaking with both the Prime Minister and Mr. Tobin and others to

see that the process is started in Ottawa as quickly as is convenient.

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

supplementary.

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

supplementary related to that. Has the Premier or the government given any

further consideration to introducing a new Schools Act now in this fall sitting

of the House? Everyone is concerned about reform getting off the ground and

going quickly; I am just wondering if government has further considered

introducing the new Schools Act to the House so that it is dealt with before we

recess for Christmas and the much needed reform we can get on with.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can only tell the House that up to this

moment, at least, Cabinet has not approved it. I do know that a substantial

amount of work has been done in preparation of it, and I assume work is still

ongoing on it, but it has not yet come to Cabinet for approval.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the Premier,

Mr. Speaker.

There are reports circulating throughout the Province, and I

guess they must be emanating from the Department of Education - maybe it is a

question that the Minister of Education and Training might want to answer - that

government is considering appointing school boards instead of having duly

elected school boards. I do not know if that is to deal with getting things done

in the interim, or as an interim measure, but there is that concern out and

about the Province from some region. I think it has come from recent meetings

that have been held within the city, actually, with people from around the

Province, but it has been brought to my attention. I am wondering if the Premier

or the Minister of Education and Training can react to that in any way, if there

is any foundation to it or if it is totally unfounded, because the rumour is out

and about that government is considering appointing school boards outright, even

if it is for the interim.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we have not given any thought to

that. The intent is that all school boards will be elected, 100 per cent

elected, and that is the way we plan to go. Now the hon. member knows that

traditionally, over the last number of years, school board elections were held

on the same day as the municipal elections were held, and that was to keep cost

down, so if we have to put those boards in place six months before a municipal

election the hon. member's suggestion might well be taken under consideration:

it might be a way to deal with an interim. We have not given any consideration

to that, but I certainly will take the suggestion under advisement; it might be

a good one.

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

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

for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Last week in this Assembly I presented a petition from

residents of Little Bay Islands and Long Island in my district with regard to a

shortening up of their ferry service. One boat serving two islands during this

week, and the other boat serving the two islands next week, as I understand it,

or for the greater part of each week.

This is not going down well with the locals. I read a

petition into the record of the House the other day. The minister didn't rise to

address the petition. I would like to ask the minister what is going on with

regard to the moves of lessening the ferry service over the next two weeks, and

is there a more long-term plan if this particular thing works a certain way to

implement one boat serving two islands come the spring?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows

full well the answer to that question. He also sent out misleading information

to the people of this district saying that government may be considering in the

future using a one boat system in Little Bay - Long Island, and he knows that is

wrong. The people of Little Bay Islands and Long Island know that is wrong.

What is happening here is a very simple process. In last

year's budgetary decisions it was decided that each employee would take a day

and a half leave from work without pay. What we are doing in the case of Little

Bay Islands and Long Island is we are now putting a one-boat system for a

two-week period to complement or to take care of the one day and a half that

each individual on that boat is supposed to take in lieu of the budgetary

decision. That is all that is happening. There are no further plans. The hon.

member knows full well, but he is trying to mislead and misinform the people of

his district.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is

for the Minister of Social Services. Yesterday in the House the minister stated

that there was to be a meeting with the representatives of the Vera Perlin

Society with herself and the Premier yesterday afternoon. Would she care to

update the House on the meeting and results of the meeting, please?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. I'm dealing with

the executive of the Vera Perlin Society and I will continue to deal with them.

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

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

for the Minister of Health. People today are finding it much more difficult to

get admitted to hospital even though there is a distinct need for a medical

service. We hear of people waiting for up to two days on stretchers in emergency

departments. A recent example is the seventy-five year old man from Green's

Harbour who suffered at home for two days with a broken jaw even though the

diagnosis was already made. In light of the sharp reductions in acute care beds,

is the minister directing hospital boards, or are boards acting on their own in

setting higher standards for hospital admission?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, the

government is not directing boards to adjust standards, nor are the boards, to

my knowledge, adjusting standards on their own. The standards that are used, the

criteria that are in place, the protocols that are in place to effect admissions

to hospitals from emergency departments or from direct referrals from

physicians, are basically the same criteria and standards that have been in

place for a long time. They continue to be working fairly well.

I have to say to the hon. member that any time you have

unfortunately about 15,000 people a day seeing doctors on an individual basis,

either in their clinics or in their hospitals or in some other setting - we have

about 15,000 people every day seeing a physician for some reason or other -

unfortunately, but I have to admit, there are times when misdiagnoses or

inappropriate treatments or actions take place. They are very few. The number

that are brought to my attention, I can count them in any given week on one

hand.

If and when they occur we address them promptly, we address

them with the utmost of seriousness. We take their concerns immediately and have

them addressed and responded to by the hospital board, as well as by government.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spoke with a lady

a few days ago who has undergone two major operations in the past. This lady

lives about a three-hour drive outside St. John's. On October 24 she was

referred by her doctor to a St. John's hospital for admission because she was

experiencing excruciating pain. Her family doctor called a medical specialist at

the hospital and he was told that the only condition she would be admitted under

were if she had a brain tumour, a brain haemorrhage or if she were dying. Now,

that woman, within several hours, had to be brought by ambulance to the

emergency department, she was at that emergency department and then she was sent

home and that woman still has not seen a medical specialist. Now, does the

minister think this is normal standards for admission and will he appoint an

independent commission to investigate the admission practices of hospitals in

this Province?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it would be fair, appropriate or

in the best interest of health care in the Province for the people of the

Province to be responding to such a generalized assertion with respect to what

is happening in the health care system. Let me say to the hon. member, that if

he has information or if his constituents or anybody else in the Province has

information which indicates that inappropriate service is being rendered through

the system, I would implore them to bring it to my attention and I will be the

first to ensure that it is addressed promptly and in a fashion that will address

the concern. We are not giving direction to health care providers in the system

to do anything differently from what has been done for many years, and that is

to provide the most efficient level of service at the most appropriate point of

delivery within the most reasonable fiscal realities that we have. Health care

is going forward on that basis, and if there are instances where things are not

operating as they should be, please bring them to our attention and I can assure

you that this government will address the need, address the situation and

respond in an appropriate fashion.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This woman did call your office and spoke with a person. I

have the name of the person she spoke with, if you need that, outside the House.

She was asked, I am not sure by this individual in your office, but she was told

to write a letter which she is going to follow up in writing with a letter. Now,

I have an indication of what it is like in an emergency department. I worked

there for several months under the conditions and I know what admission

standards were established at that time.

Now, when there are hundreds of people - and the minister has

repeatedly said, a number of acute care beds in this Province don't indicate the

health of the people in this Province. Now, I say to the minister, when there

are hundreds of people in this Province now being denied and having to wait for

surgery for many months, and when there are people out there in dire need and in

pain, hospital beds are an indicator of the health of people in this Province, I

say to the minister. I ask the minister, why is he continuing to close hospital

beds in this Province when the waiting lists are getting longer for surgery and

there are people out there having to undergo intolerable suffering?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member

generalizes and refuses to acknowledge the fact. He says that the waiting lists

in the Province are getting longer and longer. A couple of weeks ago, the

Premier tabled in the House the July report of the Fraser Institute that

indicated that on average in Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - which indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we

have on average the second

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: It is interesting that the hon. the

members on the other side of the House don't want to hear the truth and don't

want to hear the facts. Well, let me attempt again to give them the information.

The July report of the Fraser Institute of Canada indicated

that we have the second shortest waiting list in Canada, not the longest, not

the second longest, the third or the fourth or the fifth or the sixth or the

seventh or eighth or ninth longest. We have the second shortest of the eleven

jurisdictions that were polled. The description that the hon. member attempts to

give of the health care system is not, in fact, the real situation. There may be

times when service is not at the appropriate level, if there is, let us know and

we will look into it, but on balance, our health care system is working well and

we have a commitment to ensure that it works even better in the future, in the

interest of the people of the Province.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you. My question today is for the

Premier and it concerns the matter of a casino for Argentia. While the people in

the Placentia region were not properly canvassed to find out the pros and cons

of such a casino, I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, strictly for the record,

why a government that does not support a small 10,000 foot casino in Argentia,

is quite willing to accept money from video, lottery machines that are situated

everywhere in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government made a policy

decision, I guess probably about two years ago, that we would not rely on

gambling revenue and introduce and promote more and more gambling particularly

by the establishment of casinos in this Province as a source of tax revenue.

Now, that's a policy decision, so it's a decision against introducing more and

more gambling into the society in order to produce government revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: It may well be that that's the right thing

to do, too, to eliminate them from the existing establishments. The member may

well have a good point.

Members will also recall that the government stopped

advertising within the Province. We saw the general advertising that was being

done by Atlantic Lottery promoting lifestyle advertising. If you want to have a

big holiday down South or you want to buy a new car or a trailer or a boat or

something else, buy lottery tickets, and we think it is wrong to promote that so

we stopped it, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of policy, our objective is to reduce,

not increase the level of gambling in the Province and that's the basis for the

policy.

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

supplementary.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have one more question for the Premier and that is a

supplementary to a question I asked last spring, regarding a trade enhancement

zone for Argentia.

In our area, coupled with unemployment and TAGS, unemployment

runs around 73 per cent. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier has gotten

any further with his talks with the Federal Government regarding a trade

enhancement zone for the Port of Argentia, because, Mr. Speaker, the Americans

introduced such trade enhancement zones in their country in 1934, Canada brought

it in once - one reading in 1936, and hasn't touched it since. And I am curious

to find out how the Premier and his government are negotiating with the feds

over a trade enhancement zone, particularly for Argentia.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have had numerous

meetings, numerous representations. The Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology has been at it on a near constant basis; I have met with the Minister

of Finance, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I have spoken to the

Prime Minister about it, but there is an absolute blank wall, mind-set in the

federal public service against it and

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The member can say `aw-w-w' if he wants

to. I just tell him what the reality is. That doesn't alter the concrete

mind-set of the federal public service on the issue. It doesn't alter the

concrete mind-set of the public service in Ottawa on the issue. I want the House

to know, Mr. Speaker, that we have made every effort within our power to cause

it to happen and the efforts are still being made. We suggested to them that

Argentia is the logical place in Newfoundland and Labrador to set it up. We have

put forward Argentia as the clear place to do it and a good and sound reason for

doing it.

Now, there are other places in the Province that would like

to have it, too, but I would note for the hon. member's attention, that we have

tried to achieve it for Argentia.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report

of the Public Accounts Committee for the fiscal year ended 31 March, 1993. In so

doing, I want to thank the members of the Committee, and particularly the former

deputy chairperson, or vice-chairperson, who is now the Deputy Chairman of

Committees, as well as the staff of the Table and our legislative assistant of

the Resource Policy Committee, and all of the witnesses, the Hansard staff and

the audio people in the House of Assembly, and all of the people who appeared as

witnesses from the various boards and agencies that were examined by the

committee this year.

I have discussed this with Your Honour, and Your Honour has

indicated you might give me leave to read some of the recommendations. I don't

know if the House is interested in hearing that, if there would be agreement.

Normally, Committee reports are simply tabled, but there are some interesting

recommendations and if there is agreement, I will read just a few of them.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will quickly go

through the various items.

The first one is the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital. The

Committee recommends that the board discontinue immediately the payment of some

salary supplements as directed by the minister, draw up and implement management

policy guidelines as soon as possible, and ensure that the relationship between

the board and management is clearly set out in the board's bylaws, and that the

board comply strictly with provisions of the Public Tender Act and ensure that

inventory is properly documented and controlled.

The second one examined was the Pentecostal Assemblies Board

of Education. The Committee recommends that the board seek an opinion on the

legality of entering into contracts which are renewable indefinitely, and that

the board and the Department of Education review the school transportation

systems with a view to drawing up a common policy and common guidelines for the

Province; that the board complete the process of producing an inventory of

capital assets; that the board seek an opinion on the legality of paying salary

supplements, and that the board and the department formulate a policy on the

payments. The Committee further recommends that the Department of Education, in

collaboration with the school boards in the Province and the Auditor General,

formulate and implement a common policy and manual to govern financial

management and operational planning.

Central Newfoundland health care boards - the Committee

recommends that the board draw up a strategic plan -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - and monitor regularly and recover on a

timely basis receivables due -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice, on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am interested as any member

in hearing what is in these reports, but I would suggest, with respect, this is

not the time to do it. The time to present a report is to present a report, and

then we can debate it at the appropriate time in the rules of the House, but

really, we are not going to go on listening at great lengths to the hon.

gentleman summarizing his own report. The report is tabled and speaks for

itself, I suggest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. member asked leave and leave

was granted. The Chair asked if the member had leave, and -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, leave to present, not leave to

go on reading at interminable length, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair had a request from the hon. member if he could

briefly introduce some of the recommendations, if he would have leave, and leave

was granted by members on both sides.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That the board draw up a strategic plan within a reasonable

period of time; that the board monitor regularly and recover on a timely basis,

receivables due from positions; adhere strictly to all provisions of the Public

Tender Act when acquiring goods and services; continue to implement ministerial

directives relative to salary supplements of personnel as staffing changes

occur; ensure that personnel responsible for purchasing include all relevant

information on purchase orders, and that a note be affixed to the auditor's

report to indicate that the final settlement done by the department may alter

the final position of the board.

Grants to hospitals and other institutions: The Committee

recommends that the department indicate in their annual report whether they have

been successful in meeting their stated goals and objectives; consider changing

the policy governing approvals for capital expenditures where it is impractical

to document the approval at the time of the purchase, and communicate to

hospital boards the importance of preparing final settlements on a timely basis,

and work with boards to eliminate the backlog; continue to perform audits on

physicians to monitor referral and consultation frequently for abuse, and use

any means necessary to educate practitioners and the general public to use the

system only when necessary, and that government consider amending the

legislation to require the department to table an annual report in the House of

Assembly. We found, Mr. Speaker, that some departments are not tabling annual

reports.

On the topic of grants to school boards, the Committee

recommends: that the department follow the directive of the Minute of Council

from 1992 requiring them to submit quarterly financial reports; that the

department and the boards work with the office of the Auditor General -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To establish a

format for interim financial reports and for the annual reports from

superintendents to boards; that government take the necessary legislative steps

to require that the department submit an annual report to the House of Assembly

on the performance of its educational institutions; that the department work

with the DECs to establish guidelines to ensure there is a proper control over

assets and consistency in the implementation of changes when school boards are

combined or dissolved; and that government review pupil transportation policy in

order to find ways of effecting savings and ensure that pupils -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we gave leave to give a brief

statement. This is abusing not only the patience of the House but the privileges

of the House. Those of us on this side withdraw it, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave withdrawn.

The hon. members have withdrawn their leave so the hon.

member doesn't have leave to continue.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is abuse of

privileges.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: When a chairman of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: - committee asks leave from the House and is

given leave by all members of the House - just because the House Leader was too

busy talking to his friend behind him at the time he gets sooky now and wants to

go home crying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Take your ball and go home out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further reports?

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

table the report of the Social Services Legislative Review Committee. The Social

Services Legislative Review Committee reviewed and approved for passage through

the remaining stages in the House of Assembly without amendment Bill No. 33, An

Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) no leave!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend for Grand

Bank, the only leave he needs is permission to go and he has it.

I table, as required by statute, the financial statements of

the Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission for the year ending March 31 1995,

together with the report of the Auditor General thereon. I will forego the

pleasure of reading the entire thing to the House. There are twenty-five copies

here if any member would like to have one.

Notices of Motion

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

Treasury Board.

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

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on

Supply to consider certain resolutions for the granting of supplementary supply

to Her Majesty.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note that the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has left the House. Otherwise I

would be somewhat afraid to stand and present this petition from 147 residents

of Little Bay Islands.

The prayer of the petition is: We the undersigned petition

the hon. House of Assembly to reconsider upcoming changes to the ferry

schedule

affecting Little Bay Islands and Long Island during the next two weeks. The

revised

schedule will cause severe negative impact on our communities including

the following: deleted morning trips, unable to return on the first day of the

revised schedule, and delayed morning departures. More important, and to the

point that the minister made earlier, we have experienced the negative affects

of a combined service in the past and are not prepared to consider them as a

part of government future plans. We feel this is only a temporary measure for

the government's hidden agenda to cut services to outport areas.

When I asked the minister a question in Question Period a few

moments ago he indicated that somehow I had misled the people on Long Island and

Little Bay Islands with regard to their ferry service. That somehow I had put in

their minds the devious notion that this particular government might, in due

course, have longer term plans to shorten up the ferry service with regard to

those two islands as it did as a budgetary measure a couple of years ago in this

House, as it did to its chagrin, to much fuss and bother on the public airwaves,

and to the people of the islands concerned, and fuss and bother to the

minister's department.

Those are the express concerns of my constituents, express

concerns that I've now put before this House twice in a petition. I haven't made

it up. Those are the people being highly suspicious of the Wells Administration

based on what the Wells Administration had done before. I make no apologies to

the hon. minister for placing my people's concerns before this hon. House. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I received a call

from one of the local news media this morning from the hon. member's district.

That news media had just received a fax from the hon. member stating very

clearly, I believe for the second time to his constituents on Long Island and

Little Bay Islands, telling the people, or trying to lead the people into

believing that government is now considering operating a one ferry system on

Long Island, and the manner in which he stated that left no doubt in their minds

that maybe that is what would be happening in next year's budgetary decisions.

The member knows full well that he never phoned my department, nor did he ask me

the question by telephone, by letter, or in this House of Assembly, and if he

would have asked the question he would have gotten the answer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a temper and I do not know

what is causing it, probably excessive eating at lunchtime, or whatever the

cause, but if I could take just one second to clue up. In answer to the hon.

member's question the answer is very simple; we are not considering

implementing, at this time, a one ferry system. What is going to happen in 1996,

1997, 1998, or 1999, time will tell. Right now it is the result of a budgetary

decision made last year and when the two weeks are up the boat ferry system will

be put back in operation.

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members want to give leave to go

back?

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman wants to enlighten us

I would be prepared to go back.

Alright, Mr. Speaker, he is speaking next on the order I am

about to call which is "An Act Respecting The Revision And Consolidation Of

Subordinate Legislation, " which is Order 11. If there is anybody in the House

who can relate that to the ferry service in Green Bay district it is my friend

for Burin - Placentia West. If anybody could it is him. I believe he adjourned

the debate last night, and like we were twelve or fourteen hours ago he will be

on his feet talking and we will all be here avidly listening.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I did not adjourn the debate last

night, I tell the Government House Leader, but I can understand the Government

House Leader being confused between day and night because of the long hours he

had to work over the weekend writing letters.

MS VERGE: What letters?

MR. TOBIN: The letter for Bud.

Mr. Speaker, as I speak to this bill that the Premier

introduced, I say for the benefit of the Premier today, because he was not here

when I spoke yesterday evening, I think it is a good piece of legislation. I

think it is important that we clear up the mess and the backlog that people have

to go through in terms of getting Crown land and other government services.

PREMIER WELLS: Built up over fifty years.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I suggested to him that

he do it. I only hope that the Premier's handling of this will sort of cause him

to handle other situations the same way. Now, today, it was out of character, I

think, for him to blame the federal public servants for nothing being done for

Argentia. Now, the Premier knows he should not say that. A few years ago there

was no such thing as the federal public servants throwing up blocks, it was

always Mr. Crosbie. Mr. Crosbie will not do this; Mr. Crosbie will not do that.

MS VERGE: He seems to have a concrete mind-set.

MR. TOBIN: I do not think the Premier should be getting

on with that foolishness. He should stand up in the House and call the federal

government to task. They have not done it. It is not a mind-set by the federal

public servants. It is that the federal government is not acting on behalf of

your requests.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is the word. That is right. There you go.

Fire the public servants if they are not going to listen to their masters.

AN HON. MEMBER: I ask the hon. member to keep going.

MR. TOBIN: I will, Mr. Speaker. I know you must have a

very important commitment or you would stay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good piece of

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Carried.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, that's another issue. I say to my

colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, that is another issue. Talking about

government, talking about eliminating the bureaucracy within government, Mr.

Speaker, you cannot eliminate the bureaucracy within government as long as you

have ministers who refuse to answer their mail. As long as the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation refuses to answer the letters from the Member

for Green Bay, you can bring in all the sunset legislation you wish, but when

the Member for Green Bay writes the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, he should be entitled to a response to his letter and we heard

today, the Member for Green Bay -

MR. EFFORD: That's my decision, if I answer the letter or

not.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, doesn't that say it all

about the arrogance displayed by this government.

MR. EFFORD: If Gaddafi writes a letter, that doesn't say

I have to answer it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yes, you should answer it.

MR. EFFORD: You have already said (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He can't dictate the answer, but the least you

owe the people of Green Bay is a response to a letter from their representative

in the House. That's what you owe them.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) answer my phone calls.

MR. TOBIN: Your phone calls -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They can change all the regulations they

like with an attitude like that, it isn't going to make any difference.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a different tune from the

day he (inaudible) phoned Len Simms and asked him for his home phone number.

What we have to say here is about this piece of legislation.

MR. EFFORD: What did you say?

MR. TOBIN: What did I just say?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is in Hansard. Why, what did I

say?

Why is the member so paranoid, Mr. Speaker? Who made

reference to this member there? Who made reference to this member there, Mr.

Speaker, in anything I said, other than the fact that he wouldn't answer mail?

He was on his way up there when I spoke about something and he brought up like a

horse, Mr. Speaker, with the britches hauled tight, came back and asked: What

did you say? Why is the member concerned over what I said about someone talking

to Len Simms?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I never mentioned your name when I spoke about

someone asking Len Simms for his home phone number, never mentioned the member's

name, Mr. Speaker. Paranoia has set in for some reason. If the member is going

out, nobody mentioned his name, why was he so concerned? It could be my

colleague there or anywhere else, nobody mentioned his name, but he brought up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: His time is up, sit him down (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, my time is not up. I don't know why he

came back and asked: What are you saying? I could be talking about the Member

for Fogo.

MR. EFFORD: You said, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. TOBIN: I didn't say, the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

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

I remind the hon. member that he is now debating second

reading of a bill, and I don't see the relevance of the conversation that is

going on here.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I got carried away there when the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation almost broke his leg trying to

stop to come back to find out what I was talking about.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) carried away in a pickle jar.

MR. TOBIN: You are in a pickle - there are a lot of jars,

Mr. Speaker, and a lot of pickles over there, dill ones, dull ones.

There are 2,358 sets of regulations, and I think, Mr.

Speaker, somewhere along the line, I touched them. I support this piece of

legislation; I commend the government for bringing it in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: I hope, Mr. Speaker - yes, I do. That's how I

feel about it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you read them all? Did you see the

regulations?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I (inaudible) have seen -

Pardon?

MR. EFFORD: Praise us all!

MR. TOBIN: No, I won't praise you up, according to what I

heard this morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Did you hear that? He is telling you to

sit down -

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - sit down, you fool, sit down.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, if

there is anyone qualified in this House to talk about someone making a fool of

himself, it is the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. All you have to

do is talk about regulations. Talk about regulations, Mr. Speaker - he appointed

the Cabot 500 Committee and then fired them and doesn't know how much it is

going to cost to buy out their contracts. Maybe what's needed is for the Auditor

General to get in there and determine what happened. Maybe that's what is needed

to find out about the trips, find out about what was taken, find out about

accountability, Mr. Speaker, find out about credibility, find out about the

challenge of responsibility, that's what is needed for the 500 Cabot Committee

and the minister responsible. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that it will be the

Cabot Committee who will be fired if there is justice done. The Premier would

send that minister straight through the door, not only take his Cabinet post.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

can try to throw up all the static he likes for his brother-in-law, but that

won't work with me. I listened to CBC the other morning when they talked about

the structure in the employees, their relations. Well, now you have the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations doing exactly the same thing. See how it

works? Throw up static for the brother-in-law when he is questioned, that is

what happens. Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about either of them, I tell him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking about caring, when I watched the television news

last night and saw that family from Bear Cove having to leave this Province, Mr.

Speaker, to seek employment and saw the stress that this family was placed

under, the first question I asked was: How must the MHA for this district feel?

I thought it was the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, and then I said, there

is no feeling, but I found out since that it is the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology, the man responsible for maintaining jobs in this Province. I

would say that I really believe that the Minister of ITT, Mr. Speaker, has

feeling for this situation, has an understanding for this situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think and

sincerely hope that that type of concern that the Minister of ITT expressed when

I spoke to him earlier today would rub off on other ministers. I sincerely hope

that the regulations that are being eliminated, thrown away, will not continue

to bog down the bureaucracy in this Province as we have seen with Crown lands in

the last situation.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources is another

department where there is a congestion of regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I am not saying anything about the minister. I

am saying, in that department, it doesn't matter who is minister or who works

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I am not saying the minister should

resign. As a matter of fact, I think he should try to help straighten it up and

I hope he had input into these regulations. They are ministers, Mr. Speaker, if

we ever get to the bottom of that 500 Cabot Celebration I think there is a

minister's head on the line. Probably the Auditor General is the way to get to

it and the Public Accounts Committee deal with it. But, in conclusion, I support

the piece of legislation and I sincerely hope that it works and that the

government will not continue to have it held up.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this

particular piece of legislation. While we, on this side, I think, generally

support the amendment and the elimination of a lot of unnecessary regulations -

I will tell you a story about that in a moment - I do, however, have some

concern. What we are doing here is wiping the slate clean, and I have some

concern. At this point in time, we don't know what will replace it. We don't

know what regulations, what amended regulations, what new rules will be put in

place prior to March 31, I think it is now, it's being changed. So it is sort

of, Mr. Speaker, a blank cheque. We are eliminating or we are tearing down the

walls of the Penitentiary and saying we will decide who we are going to put back

in - that is what it's like. So I do have some concern, Mr. Speaker, that we

could be into an area of non-regulation in some cases, and some cases were

grossly over-regulated, but I do have serious concern that we are being asked to

give blanket approval to eliminate everything without know what is going to be

put in place.

I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will

agree with me that we have to have some concern under

section 4.(3) that some of

the rules of the divorce courts are being left in place. Those are ones that I

think the minister will agree need to be looked at very, very carefully, and

some of our other colleagues here will agree as well. That is one that I would

love to have on the floor of the House and have an opportunity to say something

about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) amend the act.

MR. WINDSOR: Amend the act; that is one we should

eliminate altogether.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues want me to relate to you a story.

The Minister of Tourism is here, and I hope he will take a few minutes to listen

to the story that I am about to relate. It relates to his own district, in fact,

to a little business that I established this summer, and I want to use it as an

example because it is such a simple thing that my partner and I did this summer,

and yet what we had to go through in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you. The Minister of Tourism was not

available at the time of our official opening, but the Minister of Health was

good enough to come along with the Member for Lewisporte and participate and

speak at the opening. We were delighted and honoured to have him, and I

appreciate his coming, so he knows what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much private conversation going on. I ask hon.

members, if it is necessary to hold meetings that they do so outside.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell you what we did. My partner and I took a family

home, my wife's family home, which is 150 years old, on a remote community,

Exploits Island, which was resettled in 1965; there is only one couple that

lives there now permanently - and Exploits Island, for those who have not had

the pleasure of visiting, is probably one of the most beautiful parts of this

Province, absolutely beautiful. When you step off the boat on Exploits Island

you step back 150 years in history; that is what it feels like. The house that

we have upgraded and turned into a hospitality home was the oldest house there,

and by far the largest house - it was the merchant's house - built by an

ancestor of mine, in fact, and bought by my wife's grandfather in 1944.

We had heard so much about the tourism industry being the

opportunity for development in rural Newfoundland, and I have agreed time and

time again in this House with that concept - I agree entirely; there are so many

opportunities - and here is what I considered to be the classic opportunity, to

take a heritage home, not yet officially classified but it will no doubt be very

shortly as a heritage home by the Heritage Society, to take a heritage home and

first of all protect it and maintain it, because an old home such as that will

deteriorate unless considerable funds are expended and considerable effort gone

into maintaining it. Obviously when you are using it simply as a summer

residence, as it had been since 1963 or 1962, it generally starts to go down

hill over a period of time unless some care is paid to it.

So we decided to take that fully in sync with the Province's

stated objective of developing tourism in rural Newfoundland, on an island where

absolutely no commercial activity of any kind takes place other than the

fishery. There is no other business there, no permanent settlers there except

for one couple, a gentleman who is a fisherman and his spouse. So we decided to

take that home, renovate it, and turn it into a hospitality home, no major

changes, no major additions, basically renovated it. We put in place a whole new

septic tank and sewage system. We had to have a water supply. We bought a

generator so that we had electrical power for the various facilities in the

house.

The major renovations comprised of taking one of the smaller

bedrooms and making two bathrooms out of that so we complied with the minimum

regulations of one bathroom for each two rooms, which gave us only four guest

bedrooms, two bathrooms, two staff rooms for ourselves, and another third

washroom for ourselves, which included laundry facilities, a washer and dryer;

that was renovated. The kitchen was renovated to comply with the Department of

Health regulations, to add two more sinks because you have to have three

stainless steel sinks, and we put in a dishwasher and a microwave and additional

cupboard space, and things of that nature. Other than that, all that was done to

the building was painting and decorating, restoration, putting it back exactly

as it was built more than 150 years ago. We changed nothing. Now it seems to me

that is the kind of a project that we would love to have 500 of them ongoing

today, right now. The classic, perfect, small tourist establishment providing

accommodation for eight to ten guests, that is all. You are not talking a big

operation. Not wanting to change the island.

I must confess that I think some of the - they are not

permanent residents, but some of the summer residents of the island, because

there is a considerable number of homes there that are frequented in the

summertime - some of the residents, many of whom originated from Exploits, were

a little concerned that we might be going to destroy the island, commercialize

it and ruin it. I have to say now, Mr. Speaker, I think I can say without any

fear of contradiction, that we have the full support of the people on that

island, and they have been very gracious to us, very helpful.

Anyway. What do you do to establish a little tourism

facility, a little business, such as this? The first thing, obviously, you have

to be incorporated. You go through the legal process of having yourself

incorporated and registered, using a lawyer and being registered with the

superintendent of companies. Then you put your financial plan together. That is

your responsibility of course. Without having a business plan and a proper

financial plan you would be ill-advised to proceed in any kind of a venture. You

try to put together funding.

As the minister knows - certainly the Minister of industry,

Trade and Technology knows - no operation such as this in rural Newfoundland,

particularly one which is clearly seasonal in this case, because you can't get

to Exploits Island except summertime by boat, and in the dead of winter by

snowmobile, unless you fly in by helicopter. Not a lot of tourists are flying

around in helicopters these days. Not even Cabinet ministers. I can't even say

that because I don't think ministers have helicopters available to them too much

these days.

It is very much a seasonal operation. No operation that

requires any amount of capital investment at all is going to be successful

unless there is some support from government. That is precisely why government

programs are in place. Not to give somebody something for nothing, but simply to

make it viable. Let me say, and I can document this, that this is not a

money-making venture for us. It is a labour of love. My partner and I - he lives

in Ontario and is simply a silent partner, the ownership of the building

basically resided with him. Not a money-making venture. It is a labour of love.

If we break even on it and we are able to maintain the house, and upgrade it

quite considerably, actually - it is a far superior building than it was four

months ago - but if we are able to do that, we will be happy. We aren't going to

get rich. We can't even take a salary out of it. Certainly didn't this year, and

it is very unlikely that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) place to retire.

MR. WINDSOR: A place to retire, but it isn't going to

provide any support. If you have other means of support yourself, yes, but as it

is now it will not be.

Our objective, our second phase, is to put back the third

storey which was removed in 1963 or 1964, I think. There was a third storey on

it originally and grandfather decided they weren't using it, the roof was

leaking, and they had a total of eleven bedrooms and didn't need all that many.

They eliminated the third floor and put a peak roof on it. Our objective would

be to put that third floor back on. That will give us four more rooms all with

private bath - eight rooms then would be marginally profitable. It certainly

would be self-sustaining.

Mr. Speaker, not a bad project I think, in all humility. I

say it is a nice little project, one that I would have encouraged if I were the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, or Minister of Development, would

have encouraged any Newfoundlander or Labradorian to undertake and would have

wanted to support it fully.

The next step then is to put financing in place. We

approached ACOA and we approached Enterprise Newfoundland. I must say, ACOA was

very helpful and did provide a significant amount of financing in the end

analysis. What you have to go through, in order to get funding from ACOA - and

we complied fully with every request in detail. It seemed every time you

submitted what they asked for then there was something else asked for, and you

seemed to be dealing with somebody else who had a different view of what was

required. We had some difficulties there. We went through about a six- or

seven-month period of trying to get final approval. Finally, when we were at the

point where final approval should have been given, we were told that maybe we

should now do a market study. Now, they had had this for eight or ten months, at

this point in time, and had been asked continuously, `What else do you need?' -

`Nothing, this is perfect. You have done a great job and it is a great

presentation. It is clear, it is concise, and we support the concept.' The

bureaucracy worked on it, and worked on it. What they do with it, I don't know,

but it seems that on the last day the answers come forward - We think we should

do a market study.

Now, I don't have a problem with doing a market study, except

what do you study? There is only one other operation similar to it on the Island

which is at Woody Island, and which is an excellent facility. I have been there

and I know hon. members opposite have been there. A good friend of mine, in

fact, has that and he provides a very, very, good package; I would recommend it

to anyone. That is the only one. Now, his success was tremendous.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think he had a market study done.

MR. WINDSOR: He didn't have a market study done? I am not

aware of whether he did or not. The minister says he probably didn't. What do

you study when you are doing something for the first time? I had for my figures

an occupancy ratio of 40 per cent during the week and 60 per cent on weekends

for the first year - not unreasonable. My friend on Woody Island enjoyed 100 per

cent on weekends and 60 per cent during the week his first year, and he has

sixteen rooms. We were putting in four, so we felt our numbers were probably

quite conservative and, in fact, experience has shown that they were quite

conservative. Had we been open all year and done any amount of marketing at all

those numbers would have been conservative.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) get ENL.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I say to the minister, I went to ENL

and I found out after approaching people here that there was an officer in

Lewisporte, a fine young man by the name of Rob Kinden whom I had never met. I

was directed to go see him and I said: perfect. I went in to see him and I have

to say without any fear of contradiction that he was one of the finest public

servants I have ever met, capable, competent, interested, and very helpful.

Absolutely superb - I couldn't have asked for any better service. He gave me

everything I needed and was very helpful, and I moved it through the process.

Then I got a letter back saying: Here is what we need from you. Now, if I were

retired, I might have time to fill out all that - unbelievable the requests. The

one that concerned me most -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I had given them everything that one would

normally think they would need.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same stuff as ACOA.

MR. WINDSOR: The same stuff, absolutely, the same

proposal. Spit another copy out of the computer, that's all. The one that really

bothered me, and here is the one that's interesting, they wanted a complete

personal financial history from both my partner and me; Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador wanted a complete net worth statement, basically, from us.

Now, with ACOA, if you are a private individual applying,

then you have to submit a net worth statement. If you are a company, then it is

the company's books that you are concerned about, not the individual. Why would

you incorporate? I went through the same problem with one of the oil companies

in getting an account set up to supply propane, later on in the year, and they

said, but you are looking at a fair value here and your company doesn't have any

record, so we need personal guarantees. I said: `My dear, if I were prepared to

give you personal guarantees, I wouldn't have incorporated. Do you want my

business or don't you, because the guy down the street is looking for it,' and

eventually, they gave it to me.

Why would you incorporate if you are going to give personal

guarantees? Why would you incorporate if you are going to have to give net worth

statements of the individuals involved? The rules of ACOA are one or the other,

so naturally we gave the opening balances for the company. They don't require

net worth statements if you are incorporated, but Enterprise Newfoundland

requires both, and I said: `I'm sorry,' somewhat a little personally, but I was

not about to give my personal finances to some public servants in the Provincial

Government. Being on the Opposition side of the House, perhaps, I was a little

reticent.

Having gone through a fair bit of time and effort to get

through it, and they were most anxious to help, I went to Fraser Lush in Gander,

who was most helpful - you couldn't ask for better. I have no problem with the

staff or anything they did; they were superb -until I got with this thing: We

need a net worth statement. I just got my back up and I said: I'm sorry. I went

down to the bank of Nova Scotia in Lewisporte. I walked out of Rod Kinden's

office and I walked into the Bank of Nova Scotia in Lewisporte, and twenty

minutes later I walked out with the same amount of money at 2 per cent better

interest rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) favour.

MR. WINDSOR: Two per cent better interest rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where you should have gone first.

MR. WINDSOR: Where I should have gone first. So what do

we need Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

wants to knock off some money? Eliminate ENL, eliminate the Economic Recovery

Commission today, and he will find a lot of money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: That is the fact. I got a 2 per cent better

interest rate. The advantage with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador is

supposed to be - particularly with a seasonal operation - that they will vary

your repayment schedule. They will give you forgiveness of principle for the

first year so you are just paying interest, and then, if you are a seasonal

operation you can pay only when you are doing business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) flexible (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And they are flexible when companies are

having a bit of trouble. I got the same terms with the Bank of Nova Scotia. I

haven't paid any principle. I'm paying only interest. Not only that, ACOA only

pays after the fact, so you've got to spend your money before you get your money

back from ACOA, so you must have the money in place - and I don't have a lot of

money in my pocket, and neither does my partner. I walked into the Bank of Nova

Scotia and asked: Will you give us $20,000 bridge financing so that we can put

claim after claim in to ACOA as we do the job? No problem, it is in place.

I went in two weeks ago and said: We spent a little bit more

than we thought. If I give you back all of your bridge financing, I can't pay

the trade creditors. There are a few outstanding. I want to carry half of it

over. No sweat. What's going to happen in Quebec? was his question. Superb! Bank

of Nova Scotia in Lewisporte. Great co-operation, great business sense, and very

supportive of the project.

Now, we go through all of the approval process. I'm way ahead

of myself.

MR. FUREY: Just back up to ACOA. Did they require

(inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: No. They eventually realized that the

tourism season is about to begin, you see. We had wanted to start in the fall,

but they had let it go so long that they finally said - they sent me a letter of

approval in principle saying: And the work must begin by March 15. I promptly

called them back and asked: Now, how do you propose I'm going to get there

between December and March, when the bay is half-frozen up, not solid enough to

support a snowmobile or a truck? Later on in the year you can drive out on a

truck or a snowmobile, but absolutely impossible to get out there - no concept

whatsoever of the time of year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Snowmobile with me on it? Almost as bad as

one with the hon. minister on it, I must say.

So our project got delayed. It was finally toward the spring

that they wanted the market study done. It was going to take a number of weeks

to do it, which meant instead of starting in the middle of May, which is when we

had hoped to get down, it would be the first of July before we could start

construction. We are looking at six to eight weeks of construction, which means

we would open, Mr. Speaker, just about when the tourist season was ending. You

see? So they finally backed away on that.

Anyway, once we got over those hurdles, ACOA were very good,

have been very co-operative since, and their payment has been superb. They have

not given us any difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to look at the things that you would

need to do this kind of a little operation. First of all, you have to deal with

the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. They want a complete set of

plans for what you are going to do. I had to draw a plan showing painting and

decorating and wallpapering, and a couple of minor revisions that I have already

mentioned. No problem - I had that done in my original submission, anyway. You

submit that to Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Then they tell you that you have

to then be referred to a number of other groups.

I had to go the Departments of Health and Environment to see

about any sewage problems. We had to get a health inspector to come to the

island. My boat burns about $120 gas going out to the island and back, but I had

to take this health inspector out one day. A fine young man, again from -

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. WINDSOR: A fine young man, the health inspector, to

do an inspection.

MR. EFFORD: A man?

MR. WINDSOR: A man, yes. I didn't think it was right for

him to swim out, so I took him out in boat. The hon. gentleman I would let swim

out, and give him wrong directions and let him go on by the island, and let the

Irish have him, but the health inspector was a very capable individual. The

health inspector came out and, of course, there was a list of things that he

wanted. Again, no problem with him - none whatsoever.

The coast guard had to be contacted, because I was probably

going to build a wharf, and there is going to be a sewage outfall here and, of

course, I had to have coast guard approval for the boat, because if I am

carrying paying passengers on the boat, then I have to be a licensed tour boat.

Now, be careful not to buy too big a boat, because if you buy a boat that is

bigger than five tons it is going to cost you about $5,000 in equipment to

outfit that boat. It may be a boat that has been sailing for twenty years on the

ocean but, because you are going to carry paying tourists, now you must have all

kinds of smoke detectors, gas detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, inflatable

life-rafts which cost $3,600 each or something, a whole list of things. I can't

name the whole list because I have managed to find out, buy a boat less than

five tons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Public servants, I suspect.

I can't fault - a lot of these things make sense. I

eventually got down to, make sure you buy a boat that is less than five tons. So

I bought a twenty-seven foot fibreglass boat which came in around 4.2 tons is

the way that you -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It won't carry some of the garbage that

comes out of the hon. minister's mouth, but it is just as well that sank anyway.

So now, all I am required is to have at least one life

preserver for every person on the boat - it makes sense - but you have to have

the coast guard approved ones, which are $85 each, so $800 worth of life-jackets

later, you have that. And you must have ropes and anchors and fire extinguishers

and horns and alarms and lifebuoys, and all of these things that one really

should have on a boat anyway, and I do not have any complaint with it, but you

have to go through that process; so that's the coast guard.

Now, the Department of Health had to have a look at the

sewage system, the septic tank, the disposal into the harbour, whether you are

going to be able to go out into the harbour or not. Now, the fact that the City

of St. John's, 150,000 people dump all of their sewage straight into St. John's

harbour, that is a problem. One little hospitality home on Exploits Island in

the middle of the Atlantic is hardly going to pollute anybody; nevertheless, I

don't have a problem with what they eventually asked me to do, which was put in

a septic tank and let the outfall go straight to the harbour, because you cannot

put a disposal field on an island that is composed primarily of rock anyway.

Now, I dealt with the Department of Tourism. I eventually got

approval to proceed to the next stages and so forth and, of course, I had to

have approval from the Fire Commissioner because I have to be careful of what I

am doing there. Here was one that really concerned me, because if I was going to

have to put in smoke detectors and sprinkler systems and fire alarms and all the

rest of it, you would destroy an older house. I had good co-operation from the

Fire Commissioner's office. They understood what we were doing. They said: No,

no, our regulations will deal with all of that. They told me what they wanted,

and I have given them everything that they have needed. Of course, I had to have

an inspection by the Fire Chief. Well, there is no Fire Chief. Of course, the

Department of Tourism wanted a copy of the Fire Chief's inspection and a letter

from the municipality, a permit from the municipality. Of course, being on a

remote location neither was applicable.

Then you have to go through Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador for your inspection. The Department of Tourism doesn't do inspections.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, it is through Hospitality Newfoundland

and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: A separate entity.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but it is operated through Hospitality

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is where your contact is. You find the

Department of Tourism doesn't do inspections anymore, so you have to have

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador do it. Where the Department of Tourism

would have inspected this previously, now it costs you $181 to have this rating

agency come down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You want to clarify it? I would be delighted

to let the minister speak.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he is getting a bit tired there.

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

and Culture.

MR. GRIMES: I understand, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

leave to provide a bit of information. I know the member was getting a bit tired

and wanted to get a drink as well, so I will give him a little break there.

The relationship between the inspection that he is referring

to, at this point in time, and I mention that because the very bill that the

hon. member is debating, the regulatory reform, there are some suggestions that

some of the regulations with respect to tourism establishments, which the hon.

member is using as a very good example in his address, are being slated for

possible removal at the end of this calendar year.

There is a difference, Mr. Speaker, between the tourism

establishment regulations and an inspection done by the Department of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture, which gives you a license and entitles you to operate a

tourist establishment. The grading council is separate. It does a rating, paid

for by the operator, to make sure that they get a star in the Canada Grading

Council, so that they can then be included in the Travel Guide - two separate

issues, and I would hope that the hon. member wouldn't try to run them together.

They are two, distinct separate issues. One is a license to

operate whether you are graded or not; the other, is to get a grade assigned to

your establishment so it can be included in the Travel Guide.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't disagree with anything the minister is saying but let

me say to him that, I was told by the Department of Tourism, Recreation and

Culture: We don't need to do an inspection - which they didn't, that this

grading agency, so whomever, will come out to do the inspection and do the

rating, and I am proud to say that I have a two-and-a-half star rating which is

not bad. Holiday Inns is three; whoever Holiday Inns is going to be is another

story. So that isn't bad, two-and-a-half stars, one of the highest hospitality

home ratings in the Province, and we are very pleased with that.

But it cost me, Mr. Speaker, $181, plus I had to bring that

person out to the island, another trip, two trips, one to get him, one to get

him back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

MR. FUREY: This is still the `health' person?

MR. WINDSOR: No, this is the rating person.

MR. FUREY: Whom?

MR. WINDSOR: The tourist rating - it had to be rated. I

just went through this with the minister here and the minister clarified it. The

Department of Tourism, Recreation and Culture doesn't do any inspection on the

facility; this rating agency does the inspection, it is all included in the one,

and you have to have that rating to get your - so we got our two-and-a-half star

rating, but I had to pay -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hospitality.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I said Hospitality Newfoundland, and

the minister got up on a point of order and told me no, it is not Hospitality

Newfoundland, it is a separate thing.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It was given to Hospitality Newfoundland but

it is a separate Canadian co-op group, rating agency, Canada Select, is the term

I was trying to remember exactly; Canada Select, but it goes through Hospitality

Newfoundland rather than the Department. So a gentleman came out to do the

inspection and he did a very thorough inspection and was quite helpful,

actually, and made some good suggestions.

Now, we had to have health inspections because not only from

the point of view of operating the hospitality home but we are also a

restaurant, we are a dining room as well, so we had to have a food service

license. Now, you should see my wall in my dining room.

MR. SULLIVAN: `Neil', is there a liquor license, too?

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes, I am coming to that.

I had to have a food service license. I was told I didn't

need a license from the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, that it

would come automatically; once the rating agency was finished doing the rating,

then the tourist license would come out in a month's time.

Now, I had to get the health inspector back again, to do the

final inspection for a food service, because I can't provide food service unless

I meet all of their requirements, which we did; they had told us what we wanted

and we went through that process, we put all that in place and we had another

health inspector come out again then. This is another trip in and another trip

out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have to pay for all this?

MR. WINDSOR: No, I don't have to pay the health

inspector; I did for the rating agency, $181.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have to pay his way out to the

island?

MR. WINDSOR: I had to go and get them, they have no other

way to get out and as I said, it cost me about $120 each return trip from

Lewisporte to Exploits, a little bit better now, I have it cut down a bit. So

each time, I had to go and get them and then I had to bring them back again -

the money is adding up. So the health inspector came out, did an inspection, no

problem, he was quite happy with everything we had done.

Now, the Fire Commissioner, of course, is not going to come

out from St. John's to do an inspection. The local Fire Chief always does the

inspections for the Fire Commissioner because there is no Fire Chief. I could

appoint myself Fire Chief - I offered to do that but the Fire Commissioner

wouldn't accept that. So I had to get the Fire Chief from Lewisporte, which is

the closest municipality, to come out, and he didn't quite know how to deal with

this, but anyway, he was good enough to come out. He came out and did an

inspection, no problem. He sent in his report and everything was perfect for

him. He wanted two fire extinguishers and we had four, no problem - everything

we had met. He sent in the report to the Fire Commissioner and the Fire

Commissioner was sending it back. I called them up, no sweat, it is all agreed,

it has been processed, it has been signed, it is in the mail, it has to go out.

Now, the Fire Chief has to sign it once he gets it. The Fire Commissioner sends

it back to the Fire Chief. This is your capacity card. You have to have this

card that is the ugliest thing you have ever seen. It is about that wide and

about that high in red and white letters, it says, `Fire Commissioner's Office

capacity.' It is all written on with a big black marker then, not typed, written

on with a black marker how many persons you can have in your restaurant at any

one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you getting depressed at this point

in time?

MR. WINDSOR: I am having a good day now but there is one

better to come. Well, anyway, that is going to come now, it is all approved and

I got my rating. I got my health license, the health inspector came and filled

out a license for me right there and gave me this slip of paper.

Now, I go through the Liquor Corporation, Mr. Speaker,

because I wanted to have a licensed dining room. I am not opening up a Stanley

Steamer or the Sundance Saloon. I simply want a licensed dining room, beer,

wine, liquor with the meal, that's it. No service to outside guests - I am not

opening a pub. Hospitality or tourist home license, it is classified, which

means you can serve your guests in your dining room or in their rooms and you

can serve outside guests in the dining room. I think that's it, but you can't

walk in off the street and have a beer. I have to sell you a bowl of soup or a

bag of peanuts or something to eat if you want to buy a beer. Well, we don't

want that anyway. That would destroy the concept of the business of the

hospitality home, the ancient heritage home, and we didn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, we had requests from islanders, from

people on the island saying, `I suppose we would be able to drop up and have a

beer on Sunday.' I said: `Boy, you can drop up because you always did and I will

give you a beer but I can't sell you one. I will give you a beer from my own

stock, but I can't sell you one unless you come into the dining room and eat or

you are a guest here, you see,' and that is fine. I don't want to have eight or

ten residents of the island sitting around drinking beer in the afternoon when

you have paying guests who are trying to enjoy a quiet holiday.

So the liquor inspector had to come out. Now, he was on

vacation so I had to go to Gander to get another fellow to come out and he

couldn't make it that day, couldn't come until the next weekend. I half forget

it all now, but it went on for about three weeks anyway, and then he said,

`Well, do you have such and such a thing?' I said, `No.' He said, `Well, boy,

you must have that before I come out.' I said,`Okay.' It might take me another

couple of weeks, but I said, `I don't care. I don't care if I ever sell any

liquor. That is only a service to guests anyway.'

I eventually got it in place and I called the guy again, and

he said, `No, I am not dealing with it now. The guy is back from Grand Falls.

You have to get him out there.' So I made arrangements for him to come out on a

Saturday morning. He was good enough to do it on a Saturday for me. So I went in

and brought him out. Now, this is the good part -

AN HON. MEMBER: From Grand Falls?

MR. WINDSOR: He came in from Grand Falls but he came to

Little Burnt Bay and I picked him up at Little Burnt Bay. So he came in and sat

down in my dining room and he looked on the wall at some of the permits that are

on the wall there now. They are all displayed in the dining room. `Now,' he

asked, `Where is your capacity card from the Fire Commissioner?' I said, `Well,

I don't have the card yet - as far as I know, it is in Lewisporte. It is mailed

from the Fire Commissioner's office. The Fire Chief has to sign it. But the Fire

Chief works on the Northern Ranger and he is gone to Labrador for two weeks on

the boat. He is not going to be back for two weeks, but I do have here the

letter from the Fire Chief to the Fire Commissioner recommending twenty-two

persons and a letter back from the Fire Commissioner to the Fire Chief approving

twenty-two persons, and the card is in the mail. They told me that I need this

big card. `I can't even talk to you,' he said, `I must have that card. I must

have a number off that card. I can't even talk to you. I will have to come back

again.' I said, `Well, Skipper, you are going to have to swim back up this

morning and you are going to have to swim back the next time, because I'll be

darned, I'm not taking you back. You mean this piece of paper is not good enough

for you? `No, I must have a number. Where is your tourist license?' I said, `I

don't have a tourist license. I have a rating; here is my letter, my

two-and-a-half star rating, here it is on the wall and a two-and-a-half star

sign on the front door, Canada Select, recommended accommodation.' `I have to

have a number off that.' `You have to have a number off that?' `Yes.' Then he

wanted something else, another number anyway, a third one. I can't remember

which one it was now. But Health! The health certificate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: This is sitting in the dining room on the

island.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't he check all that crap before

he went over there?

MR. WINDSOR: Right. Now he asked: `Where is your health

licence?' I said: `Here it is. I have the letter that the health inspector

signed, the form, signed it all out, authorized to operate.' `Not good enough.

You have to have the card on the wall.' I said: `For the love of god, old man,

what do you have for cards anyway?' He said: `Boy, I have to have those three

numbers.' I said: `Well, if you have a telephone, call them! Get the numbers

yourself!' I went through, up and down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: I understand I have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he has leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him time to explain why they didn't

do what we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I couldn't agree more. We had started the

process. A lot of regulations had been eliminated - not enough, but it takes

time. That is another issue.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, eventually, he finally realized that

this is getting serious here and he went about his business. I think about ten

days later I got the permit. That was about four days after the Minister of

Health was out to do the official opening, I would say. Not that it mattered.

Now, after all of that fuss, I sold $40 worth of liquor for the summer. I mean,

that's what you're talking about. Those are the kinds of things you go through.

I'm sure there are a thousand things more that I wanted to

say but I don't have time to - if I had all of my documentation from my office I

could go through a lot more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there any wonder why (inaudible)?

MR. WINDSOR: It is a wonder why a business starts at all

in this Province. That is why I support fully the principle of what we are doing

here. These things are not unfamiliar to me. Half of them were departments that

I was a minister of at one point in time. I'm dealing with public servants I

have known for the twenty years that I've been here, in many cases. How an

individual with a medium education, without any experience in dealing with

government, or without any experience in business, could ever get a project off

the ground, even one as simple as what I was doing, converting an older home to

a hospitality home, you wouldn't - I said to him at one point in time: Boy, I

bet you if I put a twin of the Radisson Plaza up I wouldn't have had this much

trouble.

It is absolutely - I mean, this is true, and we have said it

many times in getting funding from government: if you want $20 million you will

probably get it in two or three weeks. It will go through Cabinet because it is

going to create 100 jobs. Rush it through Treasury Board, get it into Cabinet as

quickly as you can, Resource Policy, Social Policy, Planning and Priorities,

whoever has to see it. It will come through, red flag on it. The money will be

approved, $20 million, with very little financial analysis, in many cases,

except what these people are bringing in. Because these are big corporations

with a huge business plan. Not so easy to analyze, is it, without a lot of

background and study, unless you had a consultant who was knowledgeable in that

field. It would be very difficult for our staff to do a real analysis on it. You

can have a cursory examination of it. But if you want a few thousand dollars to

do some little thing in rural Newfoundland, then you go through `hell and high

water', Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Did the Department of Environment give you

(inaudible) or did they bother you at all?

MR. WINDSOR: No, the department - I just had to go to

them to be told: We don't need to be consulted on it; this is small enough that

the Department of Health can deal with it. I didn't have any problem with the

Department of Environment, unless I was getting into something bigger.

There is what you go through, Mr. Speaker, just to try to

establish a small tourism industry. It is almost a hobby more than anything

else. But how an individual who had a serious plan to start up a business in

this Province would ever get through all of the red tape, god only knows. And I

didn't have a municipality to deal with. That was the problem; nobody knew quite

how to deal with it, because there was no municipality involved.

It is an interesting story, and I'm sure there are a million

more like it. I encourage the government to proceed with this legislation,

although I have great concern that it is a blank cheque. We don't know what it

is going to be replaced with. You are eliminating all the regulations except the

ones that you either re-enact or replace. We do not know which ones will be

re-enacted and it is an unusual thing to ask. Obviously, before March 31 the

ones that are going to be re-enacted will be re-enacted.

Mr. Speaker, it is not so much the elimination of the

regulations that is required, it is the consolidation to some degree.

MS VERGE: Cabinet can do it anyway.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, sure, Cabinet can do it anyway, but it

is the consolidation that really needs to be done and government is moving

towards service centres. Now, the service centres, I think, have some good

aspects and they have some not so good aspects. At least you can now go to a

service centre and perhaps have one inspector deal with all of it, but I doubt

that you are ever going to get to the stage where that one inspector can handle

every aspect of the inspection that has to be done. I just do not think it will

happen, and I am not sure that the economies are there, but that is another

story and I will not get into that.

I thank hon. gentlemen for leave.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The elimination of regulation is certainly something we

should be supporting, and I certainly appreciate what the Member for Mount Pearl

has experienced in his attempt to set up a small business, and I am sure that

many other people are faced with similar problems when they are in the same

situation.

I remember a few years ago when we tried to eliminate some

fees and licenses in various departments of government, when we approached every

single government department and said: is there a fee here, or a license that

you do not really need to have? Attempting to eliminate little fees and licenses

which kept public servants preoccupied was like drawing teeth from a hen. There

is almost an impossibility to do that, and after a year or so of work we were

able to extract 150 fees and licenses. Similarly, I believe, we are confronted

with a problem here as well. We do need to have these regulations eliminated and

re-enacted, and this is one bill I certainly support with great enthusiasm.

As a matter of fact I was almost ready to propose an

amendment. I will not propose an amendment, but I really think this is something

we should do regularly and not just once in the history of Newfoundland. We

should do it perhaps every ten years. Just as we redraw the electoral boundaries

every ten years so we should probably re-enact or eliminate all the regulations

every ten years and decide which ones we want to put back in again. It is a

process that should be ongoing and provision should be made to continue it. I am

going to ask the Government House Leader if he would consider, I am not going to

move an amendment, but to make this process an ongoing thing, something that

happens on a regular basis, perhaps once every ten years or so.

Members have been speaking largely about problems that

businesses have in getting established, and the problems you have in dealing

with a variety of government departments. This is the main thrust of this bill,

but I would like to extend it a bit further and indicate that there are many

other regulations which do not affect businesses but which effect human beings

in this Province which also need to be looked at. I would like to look at,

first, some of the problems that people have with respect to housing, and the

regulations that are in place.

We have in the Department of Justice a Division of Landlord

Tenant Relations and that division has a primary responsibility of seeing to it

that landlords and tenants do what they are suppose to do. That is the private

landlords and their tenants. I am sure most members realize what is going on,

and I am going to raise a few problems that tenants have with landlords. Let us

take the case of somebody who wants to move from one apartment to the other for

some good reason, and wants his damage deposit back, and the landlord says: I am

not going to give you your damage deposit back. This happens very, very

frequently. Now how does that tenant get his damage deposit back? He may go to

the Division of Landlord/Tenants Relations, and they say: Yes, boy, you have the

right to get your damage deposit back unless you have done some damage. But the

procedure is very cumbersome, as some hon. members know. What you have to do is

go down to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and pay $50. Then you have to take

a paper and serve it on your landlord, and if you are a bit scared of your

landlord you can hire somebody to deliver it, to serve it. Then you bring it

back to the Supreme Court, after you have certified that it was delivered, and

the Supreme Court refers it back to the landlord/tenants board. Then you, as a

tenant, have to appear before the landlord/tenants board and make your case,

just for the simple matter of getting your damage deposit back.

Now this has to be the most cumbersome procedure that mankind

could possibly invent. It is almost as cumbersome as the procedure that the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl described in getting a little tourist home going, but

there is a difference. The Member for Mount Pearl was able to handle his problem

because he understood things, but you have some poor son of a gun who is on

social assistance intimidated, frightened; he is not going to go down to the

Supreme Court Registrar with $50 - he does not have it in the first place - so

justice is, in effect, denied this person, and that happens time and time and

time again despite all of the good efforts of the people who work in

Landlord/Tenants Relations. It is not an easy procedure, and in my view it

should be changed. This is a series of regulations that have to be changed to

make it simpler, so that some civil servant can say to the landlord: Look, pay

him his money... and that is the end of it. Then let the landlord go to court if

he doesn't like what the civil servant has done, something of that procedure.

I am going to talk about my constituents rather than my own

personal thing here today. I got a call from a constituent the other day. He did

it by talking to somebody else because he did not have a phone. So I went and

visited him in his little place, and his bedsitting room was no wider than these

two desks, and no longer than from here to the wall, about 7 x 10 maybe. This

was a room that he was paying for. He had a couch that he was sleeping on. He

had a few nails driven in the wall to hang his clothes on, and I said: How do

you cook? Well, I have a hot plate. I cook on a hot plate. Very good; and where

do you wash your dishes? Oh, he said, I have to go out in the bathroom and wash

in the sink where the guys shave. Now that is a true story. I said: Nobody can

treat you like that, man; let's do something about it. Oh, no, he says, I am

afraid. I can't do anything about that. I can't appeal to the city; they might

throw me out. The landlord might throw me out. He begged me not to do anything

about it or to kick up a fuss. And, of course, I respected him. The only fuss I

am kicking up is when I am making the point here. There should be some way for

that person to be protected so that he would not be afraid.

I got another call from a fellow downtown, and he was cold.

He phoned me and said he was cold, so I went down and he had a little larger

place than the other fellow, but not much larger, and it was a nice place as far

as the kitchen and the bathroom was concerned. It met all of the requirements in

my view, but it was cold. The landlord had pulled the heater out of his place

because he was not able to pay his rent. He was behind in his rent for a few

weeks, and the landlord said: Well, I will pull the heater out. That was illegal

as well. You have to give him a month's notice and then he goes if he does not

pay his rent. So I said: Look, let me go down and let me make a complaint to the

city, because you are not allowed to cut off the heat. That is one of the things

a landlord cannot do, cut off the heat. No, he says, don't do it. I said: Why?

What is your problem? Again, it was fear of the landlord. He said: well look, I

am not paying very much here. My rent is very low here. He had a particular

problem why he could not pay that month but his rent was so low that he felt

that if he were thrown out of that he would have to pay much higher somewhere

else but he had no protection about his heat, no protection.

I know a man last winter who got so desperate with his

landlord that he pulled the heaters out of one of those electric stoves and put

a little heater in each of the rooms made from the burner on the top of the

stove. Of course, it is a very dangerous thing for a person to do but people do

desperate things when they are in the middle of the winter and cannot be heated.

Now the point of my making these things is that there have to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much does social services pay a

single person now?

DR. KITCHEN: Well it varies, if you can make the case and

you are of age you might get $602 or $601 I think it is.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: You could get very little money, yes. Well I

am not sure about the maximum because there are lots of exceptions to that. Yes,

it varies from place to place whether you are boarding or whatever it is but I

am talking about the regulations that should be in place to protect people of

that nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: No, this has nothing to do with the

Department of Social Services, what I am talking about. It has little to do with

the Department of Social Services, it has to do with the Landlord

Tenant/Relations Act. The Residential Tenancies Act and how it should be

amended, there should be some teeth in the relationship between landlords and

tenants. Now I am not saying that the tenants are always right because sometimes

landlords take a rough break too but that is one thing that I believe, not only

should the regulations be thrown out but new ones should be re-enacted.

The hon. Member for St. John's East mentioned Social

Services. I will give you a few examples about that too, just while we are

talking about it. One of the problems that has always bothered me is people who

have those low paying jobs. In this city, a lot of the new jobs that are created

here are in the fast food joints. Everybody is setting up a fast food joint,

different ones - wherever you go anywhere in Canada or in the United States you

will see the same fast food joints as you do here in St. John's, dozens of them.

Now if you have a job in one of those fast food joints you

are probably getting the minimum wage and you are not getting forty or fifty

hours a week either. So really the money that you are hauling in is less

probably then you would get if you were on social services and so what Social

Services does quite properly is give you a top-up. If some month your earnings

are below what you would get on social services they top you up to what you

would get if you were on social services. That makes some sense but it does

create problems for a person whose income is unreliable because you have to go

down to Social Services. You bring in your cheque stubs and then they make a

calculation, so much for transportation, they subtract this and it is quite a

complicated procedure. Then when it is all over the social worker says: well we

will give you ninety dollars this month. Come back with your stubs next month

and you may not be entitled to anything or we may have given you ninety dollars

last month and we forgot the fact you had a boarder so you have to pay that

back. We forgot to take it off. So the person says: To heck with it, I am

quitting work and I am staying on social assistance. At least I will know that

my income is steady and constant. Now that is true. That is not something that

happens once in awhile.

I know a lot of people who would dearly love to work and

don't want to be on social assistance but they also need security of income.

Whatever their income they want it to be constant so they can make some sort of

a plan to do things with. The problem is not with social services alone, it is

with all those jobs that are around which take advantage of people who are on

social assistance and who have low incomes because of the top-up procedure. I

have a feeling that we need more regulations, higher minimum wage or something

like that, to do something about it so it is not just enough to eliminate the

rules, they have to be looked at. Perhaps what we should do is enable people to

earn more money rather than less, is another point.

The other problem I find with rules and regulations has to do

with broken families. If a man and a woman and their family are living together

on social assistance, they get X dollars. If the man and the woman have a row

and split apart and he gets an apartment, he gets his cash and she gets the

children and gets her amount and the total now is more than it was before, even

if you take away the amount for the apartment, the total is more than it was

before, so this encourages people to do things that they wouldn't normally want

to do; it encourages them and it happens from time to time, it happens fairly

frequently.

Let us take the case of the family which has a young woman,

who has a boyfriend, who gets pregnant, I mean the girl gets pregnant. Now then,

if she stays with her mother and father the amount of social assistance that

family gets is a certain amount. If she decides that she is going to go off by

herself and set up her own house with her baby, then there will be more money

coming into that extended family than ever before, but in my view, there should

be no gain there, if the girl wants to stay home, money should be provided

almost as much or just about as much as if she split apart and sets up her own

place unless she really wants to do that so the encouragement again is to break

up the families.

Now I don't know if that is the object of anybody but it is

the effect of the rules and regulations that are in place; it is the effect, it

is the effect and we can go on and on about that as much as we like. There are

many things that have to be told, that could be told by a careful analysis, so

what I am thinking is that, not only must the rules and regulations with respect

to businesses be looked at very carefully, I also believe that the rules and

regulations with respect to the way human beings are treated by various

government departments, whether it is Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - and I

haven't gotten into that at all yet, I don't think I will today - I just wanted

to make a few remarks to extend this bill not just to encourage businesses but

to make life a little more appropriate for many people.

So, Mr. Speaker, what I am proposing, what I am suggesting is

that, this procedure of revising the regulations, be done, not just once in the

history of Newfoundland as we are doing it now, but that it be done almost on a

decennial basis, that it be done on a regular basis and I would certainly had

hoped that this might be added to the bill; I don't know if it can, Mr. House

Leader, whether we can put in a provision here that this will happen on a

decennial basis or every twenty years or something, where all the rules are

pitched out and we start figuring out which one we need to retain, and it should

be broader than just the rules and regulations that encourage businesses to be

established. That's very important, very, very important but it also should be

looked at with respect to the rules and regulations that we apply to human

beings whether it be housing or social assistance or justice or whatever.

With these remarks I conclude, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As other members have said, Mr. Speaker, this particular

piece of legislation is a very, very important piece of legislation and I would

agree that it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come

to the House in a long, long time. However, I am a bit sceptical myself that it

is going to do anything in cutting down on the frustrations that are out there

today by people in this Province when it comes to starting up a business or

carrying on a business.

It is not only the starting up of a business in this Province

or anything else and it is not only business. It has to do with Crown land

applications, it has to do with building permits, it has to do with putting in a

culvert. If you have a piece of land or a building block or anything else, it

has to do with a whole gambit of regulations across the board in every

department in government, and I say to members opposite, especially Cabinet

ministers, because all through this, it relates to the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council and so on, what would happen after the subordinate legislation is

finished, after December 31, and the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council on "re-enactment of subordinate legislation under

section 4, the same

power as that conferred by the Act on the minister, board, commission or other

body as if the power to make the subordinate legislation had been conferred by

the Act on the Lieutenant-Governor in Council," and so on throughout this,

through certain clauses, throughout certain references to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council in pretty well every clause there.

I say to members opposite that the intent no doubt is a good

one, if we could only be assured that this was going to be carried out with the

intention of members opposite that they got in trying to help small businesses

and help cut down on the permits that the people have to deal with in the

Province.

One of the questions I have to ask is that I believe it was

in last spring's sitting of the House that - maybe the Minister of Justice can -

I can't recall exactly. Was there a ministerial statement made on it or was

there legislation with regards to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs setting up offices, different areas. Like for instance, Corner -

MR. ROBERTS: No legislation, but government service

centres (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. The government service centres. Some

moves were made on that after, because I had talked to some different civil

servants that -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: If that is up and running, that was

supposed to cut down on some of the frustrations of some of the -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) one-stop shopping (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, exactly, one-stop shopping. Because I

think they took some people out of, for instance, Crown lands, forestry,

Municipal Affairs, different government departments, and sort of put them in

this one-stop shopping office to deal with those - like the problems, for

instance -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) user-friendly.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right. You go in to one office

and you get your permit for -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I at the time said it was a good move, and

I hadn't heard any comments otherwise so far. Out there today it is just

terrible. If they are going to take someone from Crown lands, if you are going

to take someone from the Department of Health, if you are going to take someone

from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, development and

control, Works, Services and Transportation, and put them all in the one office

and the person goes in there, or a council sends their recommendations to this

particular one-stop shopping area or office or whatever to be dealt with, and it

is dealt with prudently, fast and efficiently, then sobeit. It is a benefit to

everybody.

Is that going to happen? What I'm after seeing it in the past

few weeks, an application comes into a council for a building permit. The

council has to send a recommendation off to the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation. They have to send one off to development and control if it

is in the vicinity of a protected highway. Anywhere I think within 300, 350 feet

of a protected highway development and control has jurisdiction. It goes to the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, it goes to the Department of

Health, it goes to the Department of Environment, just for a building permit.

That is in any municipality around the Province. The only different would be is

if you are in a municipality that doesn't have a protected highway. Then you

would get out of the one with development and control. You would be out of that

one. That is the only other one. Everything else you have to go by.

Then all those departments have to come and do an inspection.

The Department of Health has to do an inspection for instance on the soil.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) that is one thing we are doing

with the one-stop shopping is to, in so far as is possible, with one inspector

doing a number of inspections.

MR. WOODFORD: Doing the Department of Health one, and

probably the Department of Environment one.

MR. ROBERTS: In so far as is possible.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is understandable, if it is

something like that. But if it is for a building permit or, for instance, for

someone from forestry to check on if you have the proper location for your

building permit or -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: And the proper square footage for your

building lot if you are in a community where there is no water and sewer and you

have a septic tank system, those 15,000, 20,000 square feet, the different

regulations that have to be followed, it is pretty easy for someone with, we

will say for argument's sake, the Department of Health fellow to come and make

that assessment.

The applications that I am talking about, they all go to

separate departments. Can you imagine the paperwork that has to all come back

again to the same council, for argument sake - I am not even talking about a

business - and then that goes out again. Someone wants to know: well, where is

this location and that location? We have to test this and test that. It is just

so frustrating it is not even funny.

I had another example the other day for Crown Lands. A young

fellow started to do renovations on his home. He went to Crown Lands and all of

a sudden found out - it was in a community and the Department of

Transportation's right-of-way seemed like it was a little bit closer and the

surveyor, when he put in his location certificate for the mortgage and so on,

and he did his location certificate for the house and whatever else was on it,

they did not accept it. Crown Lands said there was a piece of property there

that belonged to the Department of Transportation. Now, that took three months,

and only for he did call me, I must say, and a couple of phone calls to the

department, and fi