March 9,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 3

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise the House of Assembly that this

morning, on behalf of the government I participated in a truly historic event in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and I believe in Canada for that matter, by receiving

from William Andersen III, President of the Labrador Inuit Association, a

comprehensive land claims proposal on behalf of the Labrador Inuit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The Labrador Inuit have been researching

and preparing their land claim since the early 1970's and they actually

presented a proposal, I believe in 1977. Today's proposal was prepared by the

Inuit of Labrador in response to a process suggested by the Province in late

1991 to accelerate negotiations. The negotiations which began in late 1988 and

were proposed for completion in 1994, were well behind schedule. The accelerated

process proposed by the Province was offered to both the Inuit and the Innu of

Labrador in early 1992. The Labrador Inuit, through its Association the LIA,

accepted the provincial process with some modifications, and agreed to prepare a

comprehensive settlement package, and I received that package today. The

province is expected to respond within four months, a month to sort of elaborate

on the details of the proposals and then three months for the Province to

prepare its response.

Our efforts will be complicated by the fact that the federal

government has withdrawn from the negotiations. The federal government withdrew

because of failure to reach agreement with the Province on the issue of

responsibility for financial compensation. The Province has already agreed that

it will be responsible for those elements of a land claims settlement that are

within its jurisdictional competence to provide, that I might add includes

financial compensation if the negotiations disclosed that the province should

make financial compensation. The federal government has insisted that in

addition to this, the province should commit in advance to provide a fixed

percentage of any financial compensation, this the Province is not prepared to

do. We will continue to work with Ottawa to resolve this impasse, but in the

interim, we will proceed to negotiate with the LIA on matters within provincial

jurisdiction.

To meet our commitment to respond realistically within the

proposed timeframe, the Province has established an Interdepartmental Land

Claims Committee consisting primarily of Assistant Deputy Ministers from each

department of government which will be the coordinating mechanism to carry out

the analysis and develop responses on specific issues. The Aboriginal Affairs

Steering Committee, comprised primarily of Deputy Ministers, will address policy

issues respecting land claims and report to the Planning and Priorities

Committee of Cabinet which has specific responsibility for aboriginal matters.

A detailed work plan has already been established involving

the above committees with the objective of a mid-July target date for completion

of the provincial response. I know we will have divergence of views on some of

the positions put forward by the LIA, but these are honest differences, and I am

confident the resolution of these differences by good faith negotiation will be

made easier by early agreement on many other issues made possible by this

accelerated approach.

The Innu Nation was offered the same accelerated approach and

a response to our 1991 offer was received just two weeks ago. The Innu Nation

has not accepted this approach to negotiate their claim. We are prepared to

proceed with the Innu Nation in the traditional slower approach once they have

ceased the illegal activity of removing hydro meters from the community. When

the Innu Nation has agreed to stop its illegal activity the traditional land

claims process can be re-instated, noting that it has at any time the option to

switch to the new accelerated approach if it so wishes.

I regret that no federal minister, nor any federal

representative, was present at today's formal presentation of the Labrador Inuit

proposal.

While the Province is willing and anxious to move ahead in

the negotiating process as far and as quickly as possible, the Province cannot

address issues within federal jurisdiction. This is the responsibility of the

federal government and I sincerely hope the federal negotiators will soon come

back to the Table.

Government must work hard over the next several months to

respond to the challenge presented by the LIA proposal. There will be a need for

patience and understanding as we attempt to prepare a response that will

realistically consider the interest of not just the Inuit, but all residents of

the Province, particularly the residents of Labrador.

As Mr. Anderson stressed this morning, the process in which

we are engaging must not be combative. It must instead focus on the need for and

wisdom of working together to achieve what we all hope will be in the best

interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

respond to the statement by the Premier and say that I would like to

congratulate, I guess, the LIA on submitting a comprehensive land claims

proposal to government. Indeed, that's a very important step and a very positive

step, I say to the Premier and to all members. It's nice to see that things are

escalating, the speed is picking up on this issue.

I just want to say that it seems there are more and more

committees being appointed by government. I know that committees are essential,

but it makes me wonder just how many committees there must be that are

functioning now or have been appointed by the Premier and his ministers to deal

with issues that are pertinent to all aspects of the Province and in particular

this lands claim issue. I have to say as well to the Premier that we, before and

now, support the government's stance when it comes to the Innu nation. There is

no way that anyone can support carrying on with any meaningful discussions when

someone is involved in illegal activities, so I want once again to reiterate

that, as much as I take exception with some of the things that the Premier and

his government do, I cannot on this one.

As well, the Premier made mention that he regretted that

there was no federal minister or federal representative present. Now, I do not

know, Mr. Speaker, if that was because they were not invited -

AN HON. MEMBER: They were invited.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, well, they were invited but I guess

then that answers the question. They were not there because the Province has

refused I guess to give any indication of financial support, that seems to be

the reason why they were not there. Of course it is the same old story I guess,

the same old story, Mr. Speaker. Again, it is a lovely report, we are making

great progress but when it comes to putting the nuts and bolts of the issue

together, the Province is not willing to do very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address the -

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

asking leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to address the statement of the hon. Premier on this

important issue, and while I welcome that some progress is being made by the

Labrador Inuit Association, and I congratulate them for their efforts in

presenting to the government its position on this most complicated matter, I do

not think that the government can ultimately reach an agreement with the

Labrador Inuit Association without the participation of the Government of

Canada. Constitutionally of course, the responsibility for this rests with the

these negotiations. While these negotiations/discussions may be useful, I think

it would be a mistake for the government to try to reach a separate agreement

with the Labrador Inuit Association, even in its own areas of constitution

responsibility.

This is a long standing problem and difficulty, Mr. Speaker,

since Confederation, abdicated its real responsibility for the aboriginal

peoples of this Province and have tried to avoid their responsibilities

constitutionally and with respect to services being provided. So while I welcome

these discussions, I do not think it would be right for the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to essentially avoid the real question, and let the

cannot agree with the characterization that has been placed upon it by the

Premier and by the Minister of Justice in prejudging what may or may not be a

legal activity, and to take the position that they are not prepared to discuss

with a group that have claims of the nature of the aboriginals unless they

conform to some pre-arranged decision by the Minister of Justice as to what may

or may not be illegal, I think, is inappropriate in the context of the

aboriginal peoples.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If there are no further Statements by

Ministers, would the House permit the Chair to revert to the period before

Statements by Ministers? Or, we do not need to do that since we are in the

middle of nowhere, but what the Chair would like to do should be at the

beginning, at the top. The Chair wanted to do it yesterday but there were so

many things yesterday that I didn't want to delay the proceedings of the House.

We have to do it today because it is a rather important matter. It is related to

Commonwealth Day, and I have here, a message from Her Majesty the Queen that we

have been asked to read into the record of the House. The request comes from the

Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whom many of us

would know, Arthur Donahoe, the first Canadian to get that job. He wrote me, we

being a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I will just read

an excerpt from his letter. He says, 'While Speaker of the Nova Scotia House of

Assembly, I read the text of the message from the Chair at the opening of

proceedings on Commonwealth Day. You might want to consider the advisability of

suggesting to your presiding officer' - that is written to our secretary - 'that

this practice be adopted if it has not already been done.' So I am asking

permission of the House to read Her Majesty's message to the House. Yesterday

was Commonwealth Day.

"This year on Commonwealth Day, I am asking you to think

about human values. I know from the many letters I receive from young people

that their generation cares deeply about the rights of the individual, about the

sufferings of others and about making a better world for all of us to live in. I

believe the youth of the Commonwealth is well placed to give a lead in showing

how human values can be improved.

We share the same world but we do not share the same

opportunities. Everyone wants to be free from poverty and hunger, disease and

discrimination, to have access to education, and to live in a safe environment.

People everywhere want to be able to play a full

part in the democratic

government of their countries and to live in freedom, protected by just laws.

These aspirations were endorsed by all the heads of government of the

Commonwealth when they met in Harare in 1991, and much has been achieved since

then in fulfilling them.

In societies where constitutional rights are assured,

co-operation between all citizens becomes more natural and more fruitful in

tackling the major problems we face. The achievement of one human value can help

to achieve others. We should all aspire to raise the standards of life in our

countries, to achieve a more prosperous and equitable society, and to exercise a

powerful influence for peace within and between nations.

None of this is easy to bring about because the establishment

of human values implies duties as well as rights. If we want to exercise and

enlarge our rights and opportunities, we have to safeguard the rights and

opportunities of others. We should look for chances to give service just as

eagerly as we look for benefits for ourselves.

The young people of the Commonwealth have the future in their

hands. May they keep their vision of human values alive and their determination

to achieve them undiminished. And may our fifty nations, sharing our experience

and working together to enhance the quality of life, send an example to the rest

of the world."

Signed, Her Majesty, the Queen.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have not had Oral Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh - I am sorry. I don't think we would get

away with that today!

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were just about to forego that. We want to show

co-operation early in the session. We don't know what might happen later on.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. At the end of

the Premier's speech on Thursday, when he responded to the Throne Speech, he

made a passionate plea for joint management of our fishery.

I want to say to the Premier, it seems rather ironic, and the

timing has to be questioned, that here we are on the brink of a provincial

election, when he seems to be picking up the cause rather vigorously - a cause,

I might say very honestly to the Premier, that he questioned at times when he

was in Opposition. And for a good part of his tenure now, four years in

government, he asked such questions as: 'What would we do if we had it? We can't

afford it. We wouldn't do the job any better than the Federal Government.

Perhaps they are doing it better than we would do it if we had the management

say,' and so on, the Premier said. I remember very well, in the old Legislature,

the Premier making some of those remarks to me, in Question Period.

So I want to ask the Premier: If he really believed, and

really believes, in joint management, why didn't he make it the central issue

for our Province in the constitutional discussions that took place for about

three years? Why did he allow the issue to die and not promote it at that time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is fairly simple. I am not a

blackmailer. I am not a blackmailer. I don't blackmail the Federal Government.

That is the reason why I didn't make it an issue. No constitutional change is

required for joint management. We don't propose change in constitutional

jurisdiction. We just asked the Federal Government to put in place a sensible

system of management of both aspects of the fishery - that which comes under the

jurisdiction of the Province, and that which comes under the jurisdiction of the

Federal Government. It has been the policy of this party and this government for

a great many years, including the last election. It was part of our program

during the last election and we put it forward.

I spoke when I sat on the opposite side of the House, as the

hon. member mentioned, because I thought this suggestion of constitutional

change in jurisdiction was wrongheaded, it was the wrong approach to it, but

that joint management was, indeed, the right approach.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't accusing

the Premier of being a blackmailer. But one thing I can say to him, we know,

very honestly and sincerely, is that he is not a very good negotiator, either,

not only when it comes to the fishery, but with respect to negotiations that are

ongoing in the Province.

The Premier talked about a constitutional amendment. There

were lots of administrative agreements that were associated with the failed

Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord. Why couldn't the Premier have

said that he really wanted - we want joint management, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we want it as an administrative agreement? Why

didn't he say that? - not a constitutional change. It didn't have to be a

constitutional change. Why didn't he say that? Why didn't he fight for that in

those three years of constitutional discussions? - particularly in the last part

of the constitutional discussions when there seemed to be such a mood of

compromise in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I did, Mr. Speaker, in June of 1990. As a

matter of fact, there was one occasion when New Brunswick wanted certain changes

in the Meech Lake Accord. They wanted certain changes that would take out the

discussion of roles and responsibilities in the fisheries. I said: 'Well, a

commitment to discuss it is not a whole lot, but you can't ask me to take it out

without replacing it with something.' And the Prime Minister said: 'Well, Clyde,

if you will agree with that, I will give you a letter undertaking to put in

place joint management consistent with that proposed in the Harris report.' So

he gave me the letter that had that proposed. This was an undertaking that the

Prime Minister gave me, and he gave me that letter.

Then, Premier Buchanan got all upset because of this. He

wanted it changed. He was going to scuttle things, and he wasn't going to sign

anything. So Premier McKenna changed his mind and he said: 'Okay, don't change

the Meech Lake proposal, leave in discussion of roles and responsibilities in

the fishery.' And, as a matter of honour, because Newfoundlanders are honourable

people, I gave the letter back to the Prime Minister and said: 'Here, Prime

Minister, it was given on a different basis. I have returned it to you.' The

Prime Minister, in my meeting with him in November, acknowledged that. I

reminded him of it. He acknowledged the discussion we had at the time and if Mr.

Crosbie is being fair-minded at all, Mr. Crosbie will agree that we must put in

place a system of joint management.

Now, one question raised that I didn't deal with in the first

answer, and I must answer it now, was the question of timing. Timing is brought

about now, making the position known now, by two factors: One, the Prime

Minister's resignation. Because I had confidence that the Prime Minister would

recognise the commitment he made to me in June of 1990. When I gave him back the

letter he said: 'It is alright, Clyde - you don't need the letter, we will do it

because it is the right thing to do.' I reminded the Prime Minister of that and

I was prepared to rely on him to honour that commitment.

That is why it was raised at this time. The second point is:

Mr. Crosbie, I am told, is about to bring in a proposal for joint management by

the five Eastern Canadian Provinces, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and

Newfoundland. Now, if you want to wreck the fishery of this Province

permanently, put that in place and it will be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear that? (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the hon. member, I heard it,

but I don't believe everything the Premier says, the way he does.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Charlottetown Accord, I say to the

Premier, dealt with everything, I guess, except leaks in the kitchen sink. The

lists attached to the appendix, the lists of the issues that were raised but not

resolved - I ask the Premier: Why was fisheries never mentioned in that list? We

know it wasn't resolved, but why wasn't the fisheries ever mentioned and

attached on the list? Was it because you never ever raised it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't because we

didn't raise it. We did raise it, we did discuss it. But I say again, I am not

prepared to turn the Newfoundland people into blackmailers - you do this for us

or we will not agree to the constitutional changes, that should be made, anyway.

This had nothing to do with constitutional change. This is an administrative

agreement that can be entered into by the exercise of the legislative authority

of Parliament and the legislative authority of this Legislature. We can put that

into place without any difficulty whatsoever.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier can squirm all he likes, Mr. Speaker. There were

numerous, I say to members opposite, administrative agreements that were listed

in the appendix of the Charlottetown Accord, but fisheries was not there. If it

was so high on this Premier's agenda, why was it not there, I say to his

ministers, who are laughing at the matter?

MS. VERGE: He didn't even try.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said, Throw it in the garbage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are on a supplementary, and the hon. member should get on

with his supplementary. I ask the hon. member to get on with his supplementary,

please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier why,

for three years, while this Province was going to 'we know where' in a leaky

basket, he was jogging in every major city in this Province, talking senate

reform, distinct society, Native self-government, all important issues, I say to

the Premier, but no talk on his national campaign then about our Provinces most

important industry and the backbone of our economy, the fishery. Why won't the

Premier tell the people of this Province and this House: Why wasn't the fishery

at the top of your agenda then? Why did you waste three years and not mention

our most important industry, and now, all of a sudden, you are going to launch

another national campaign to try to persuade Canadians of the importance of

Newfoundland and Labrador having some say over this industry? Why did you wait

until now to have this say when you had the golden opportunity for three years

to make that impression on the minds of Canadians, when you had their attention?

Why didn't you do it then?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the document I have here is

dated November, 1991. November, 1991, in case the hon. member doesn't know, here

is the position of the government on effective fisheries management, on joint

management and government co-operation in the Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery

- just in the preface. The whole document is on joint management, what is

necessary, how the board should be structured and how it should function. 'It

should also be recognized that Newfoundland's proposal for joint management is

an administrative and legislative arrangement which differs fundamentally from

past proposals which sought to make fisheries an item of shared constitutional

jurisdiction. A system of joint management would acknowledge and accept existing

constitutional arrangement in the fisheries.' Now, there was the Province's

position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, I don't know whether the hon. member

doesn't read, or if he is just standing in this House to speak for John Crosbie,

which is probably more like it - just to protect the feds, put all the burden

and expense on Newfoundland and Labrador, the same as he just tried to do with

respect to the Innu matters.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of this Province is, perhaps for

the first time in many years, protecting the interest of the taxpayers of this

Province. They are not used to doing that. They have been used to selling them

down the drain. Well, we are not about to do it, Mr. Speaker, we are giving

priority to the taxpayers of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think I

know what the Premier's problem is, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't get homesick, he

gets sick of being home. So, he has to hit the road again now, that is the

problem with the Premier. He has to hit the trail again, he has been here too

long. The realities of Newfoundland and Labrador are coming home on his

doorstep. Now, I want to ask the Premier, is it a fact that his sudden

conversion, Damascus conversion, to take up this cause for the fishery is

nothing short of crass political opportunism, that is what it is right on the

eve of the election, crass political opportunism, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier

is trying to attempt now to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - he is attempting now to make the federal

government the whipping horse, and to try to turn Newfoundlanders attention away

from his failure, his failure to do anything, not only for the fishery but for

the total Newfoundland economy. Won't the Premier admit that is what he is up to

and come clean with Newfoundlanders?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I personally have been

championing the cause of joint management now for more than four years, since

before we took office, and we tried to do it in a civilized way. We met with the

Prime Minister, we met with Mr. Crosbie, we tried to persuade Mr. Crosbie, we

developed a proposal, we tried to talk sense and reason to them. In June of 1990

I tried to persuade the Prime Minister to do it, he undertook then to do it

because it was right, and he recognized the fact that the people of this

Province and this government were not prepared to blackmail the federal

government, that we were prepared to act honourably to achieve our objectives

honourably, and his response to me was: don't worry about it, Clyde, we will do

it because it is the right thing to do. Well, I trusted the Prime Minister and I

expected that he would do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why now?... because the Prime Minister has

announced his resignation without doing it. He is going to go, so now, knowing

Crosbie's position, knowing his determination not to agree to it, I do not know

why, I cannot see any logic in it and if I live to be a thousand I will never

understand why he will not agree with it. I cannot for the life of me imagine

how a federal fisheries minister from Newfoundland could not agree with it. He

has a lot to explain to the voters of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: And he will never do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The Prime Minister's resignation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The Prime Minister's resignation, coupled

with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: The Prime Minister's resignation, coupled

with my advice that Mr. Crosbie was about to table his proposal for management

by Quebec and the other Atlantic Provinces of the fishery in the waters around

Newfoundland and Labrador, made it necessary for me to go to the people of

Canada, and I am quite prepared to do it, and if the members of the Opposition

are not prepared to put the interest of the fishery of this Province first, and

hide behind their political narrow-mindedness, well, they will have a lot to

answer for also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, the members of this party

were way out ahead of the Premier in seeking joint management of the fishery,

way out ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador waited for three years for the Premier's frequently

promised Strategic Economic Plan. Finally, last June, the Premier's PR man,

Edsel Bonnell, spun out a plan. The economy has been getting worse ever since,

but last Thursday the Premier told the House of Assembly that the Strategic

Economic Plan is really only half a plan. He said: it is one-half of the

equation, so he is sending Edsel back to the drawing board to come up with the

other half of the equation, the Strategic Social Plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier, what happened

to the Liberal slogan in the 1989 election campaign, " we have been studied to

death, what we need now is action." What is the slogan for this election

campaign... Know us by our words, not our deeds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Know us, Mr. Speaker, by our deeds which

are completely consistent with the words. Mr. Speaker, you can lead a horse to

water but if the horse does not want to recognize that it is water, it is not

likely to drink it. That is what I see with the hon. members Opposite.

The Strategic Economic Plan spells out some 134 specific

action items; specific action items. It is not studies, it is an action plan.

Now I can read it for the hon. member, word for word, item by item, action by

action, but if she is determined that she is not going to recognize it as

action, then I cannot cause her to speak about it and acknowledge it as action.

The people of the Province will recognize exactly what their position is; will

recognize the absolute obstinacy of their position on the merit of the Strategic

Economic Plan, which by the way, is widely endorsed throughout this Province by

groups - business groups, rural planning groups - widely endorsed everywhere

throughout this Province and, Mr. Speaker, is already being actioned by major

groups within this Province, as I believe people will come to know within the

next two or three days, as a matter of fact.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: What about the report of the House Royal

Commission on Unemployment and Employment - a report which made very specific

recommendations on major issues of economic policy and social policy - a report

which called for sweeping reform in income support systems, for example? Does

the Premier not regard that as a worthwhile document with useful

recommendations? Why, after five years - four years of which the Premier has

been in charge of the provincial government - have those recommendations not

been implemented? Why is the Premier now going on to call for yet further

studies? We have studies. We have reports stacked upon reports.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. We

had to do it. We had to take the bull by the horns and develop a plan, partly

out of those studies, because the former government took the study which they

commissioned and paid for, and put it on the shelf to gather dust. They did

absolutely nothing with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Not one iota of work did they do with it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we had to put in place and develop a

Strategic Economic Plan that used significantly many of the proposals and much

of the information that was contained in the House Royal Commission Report.

Mr. Speaker, we developed the Strategic Economic Plan because

the former government (

a) probably did not know how, did not have any ideas or

thoughts, did not know how to organize it, and certainly did not have the

initiative to organize it. They were not willing to put the economic interests

of the people of the Province foremost, they thought they had done their work

when they did a study. They got the study and put it on the shelf, and there it

languished for months and months and months until we came into office, and

within three years - within two years - we had the consultation paper out for

discussion around the Province, and then there was public input into it, and

within three years of our taking office - three years and one month to be exact

- within three years and one month the Strategic Economic Plan was in place and

action under way.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why has he been Premier for forty-eight

months and allowed the House Royal Commission Report to be on a dusty shelf? Why

has he added to that document other reports - the Strategic Economic Plan, the

report of the Hughes Royal Commission on Justice, the report of the Williams

Royal Commission on Education? Why is he now sending Edsel Bonnell to get a

strategic social plan that Mr. Bonnell says will take eighteen months to

prepare? Talk about procrastination! What is the Premier's excuse for the

inaction? Why is he continuing to commission study after study, report after

report, instead of acting, instead of reforming?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I know, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite

are totally devoid of any knowledge or familiarity with organization and

planning, and doing things in an orderly, disciplined way. They just throw an

idea out, do a part of it, and put it on the shelf - spend vast quantities of

money and do nothing with it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we took the House Royal Commission Report

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, they have to try and cover

the truth about their inadequacies by this constant battering and shouting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: But, Mr. Speaker, there are some truths

that just will not be put down, and this is one of them. Their failures are

legion. They are available for everybody to see; yet they stand in this House

and say: Why did the government not act?

We did act. What is being developed is not a study. It is a

plan.Now, plan is p-l-a-n. It is a specific course of action identified as to

what you are going to do. It is the thing that is developed after the studies

are complete. You do not need any more studies. We are not doing studies. We are

in the process of developing a strategic social plan for the first time in the

history of this Province. Where were they for seventeen years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: My question is for the Premier and has to do

with the fifteen social and community agencies that are being deprived by this

government of a place to operate from. Some are being deprived by being thrown

out of the King George V Institute which the government is not going to maintain

properly and others who were dislocated by the Harvey Road fire. Now, Mr.

Speaker, these organizations will have no place to operate out of by the end of

March and further the government has a planned reduction and phasing out of any

support for these organization on a rental basis. These organizations have

provided great service to the people of this Province over many, many years. Mr.

Speaker, what I want to know is is this part of the government's strategic

social plan, to down load these services onto the private sector and have them

go fund raising, or is the government prepared to change its policy and support

these agencies as it has in the past?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, two things have occurred. One

of which is that the King George V Institute building has deteriorated rather

badly and the government either has to spend a vast sum of money on it or it has

to allow it to be removed, or sell it and let the private sector use it. That is

one event that has caused a serious problem and that did not happen in the last

two years. That has been developing for thirty-odd years. The second thing was a

most unfortunate fire that occurred on Harvey Road about which the government

was not in any manner a cause. We have to live with the consequences of it and I

do know that ministers have been striving, and I know the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation has been striving to try and find to the maximum

extent that we can accommodation for the very valuable social associations that

were accommodated in these two building. Now, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the

tremendous contribution that these volunteer groups make to society and every

time I do a proclamation or I meet with one of them I always publicly

acknowledge the contribution they make in carrying out a public purpose and give

them full credit because all of them deserve the full credit and support we can

give them. But government cannot be everything to everybody and for the first

time we have a government in this Province honest enough to say so.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the facts of the fire and the

facts of the problems of the George V Institute are well known but the Premier

has not acknowledged that his government is now telling those organizations,

such as the Community Food Sharing Association, the Canadian Mental Health

Association, the Boys and Girls Club, the Newfoundland Hearing Association and

others that it will no longer assist them in providing accommodations and will

phase out any support for rent or any support for accommodations over the next

couple of years, leaving these organizations to spend the money they would have

spend on programs on rent. Now, that is what this government is doing and I want

the Premier to tell us whether that is part of his strategic social plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I know the hon. member is sincerely

concerned but he should make the effort to fully inform himself before he makes

proclamations that cannot be sustained. He just made one that is not capable of

being sustained. I understand what has been happening is all the agencies that

are there are being looked at on an individual basis and the public purpose they

are serving. If it is delivering a valuable public purpose, we want to try and

help them and every department is concerned in that and is looking at it. Each

of the organizations have been told: if you are doing work for a government

department, for a public purpose, if that is your objective to achieve a public

purpose, you find and ally yourself with the department and we'll let that

department try and find the means of providing you with the accommodation that

you need. Or, a reasonable level of financial support if the officials in the

department think that's the way to go.

For the first time we're doing it on an orderly, organized,

disciplined basis. First time ever in the Province's history we're doing

something on a planned, organized, disciplined basis, thinking always, Mr.

Speaker, of the primary interest of the taxpayers of this Province.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the

Premier if he could then say why it is that these agencies are required to write

the government on February 11 saying that: just in the last week we've been

notified that no accommodations will be provided, the non-availability of

government office space and the phasing out of subsidies. Mr. Speaker, at the

end of this month these organizations will be literally out on the street. What

is the government going to do about that by the end of this month?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm not sure what agencies. He named two

or three. If the hon. member will provide me with the specific agencies that

he's speaking about I will undertake to get the information in respect of each

one individually. I don't know it in respect of each agency personally. I will

undertake to get the information and I will table it in the House.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the minister responsible for ENL, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology. Yesterday the Auditor General submitted her report to the House of

Assembly for the period ending March 31 1992, and she raised some serious

questions concerning the operation of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador,

which is really I guess under the control of the Economic Recovery Commission.

She says, on page 118 of the report: that there were serious

weaknesses in numerous areas of the report. Again she says: ENL has not been

monitoring and following up on loan accounts, and as a result 42 per cent of the

corporation's recorded investments of approximately $70 million was considered

doubtful, as of March, 1992. Of course, that's about $30 million. Thirty million

dollars is a substantial amount of money.

Now isn't ENL supposed to have competent, established,

business-experienced people so that they can offer this assistance to people? Or

is it, as a lot of people suggest, that ENL is being staffed with a lot of

personal friends, political hacks, with absolutely no experience in the

operation or the guidance of businesses?

The Auditor General also raises the question with regard to

public tendering by ENL. Mr. Speaker, can the minister respond to this question

that the public's money is being safeguarded in the public tendering process in

ENL, and also in the operation or the giving of public funds to these people who

are borrowing, and now these loans are considered doubtful?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that's quite a mouthful, quite a

series of questions. I'll just deal with the last one first. The business with

respect to the Public Tender Act. There is no question that there was a lapse.

There were two or three occasions where I think they were supposed to fill out a

notification for me to table in the House. Guilty, Mr. Speaker, on those one or

two things.

With respect to the 42 per cent, let me tell them about the

42 per cent. That's a $70.2 million investment portfolio. The $29.6 million is

for doubtful accounts. Now let me tell hon. members where that comes from.

Enterprise Newfoundland is the amalgamation of the former Department of

Development's RAND division, which ran a rural development authority loan

portfolio. It was amalgamated with the old NLDC. Mr. Speaker, the former

government set up the old NLDC and the former government set up the old Rural

Development Authority. NLDC made up $34 million from the former government;

$19.5 million of that is for doubtful accounts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen and a half.

MR. FUREY: Nineteen point five million dollars, of the

$30 million. The old RDA loan portfolio - two members I see chaired it - the

Member for Kilbride and the Member for Humber Valley both chaired this

development authority. That makes up $7.5 million, so it is 57 per cent we

inherited from NLDC, 46 per cent we inherited from the old RDA authority, and 13

per cent for doubtful accounts under the newly established enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, this government is doing pretty good, and we are

putting controls in place to deal with the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report

of Public Tender Act Exceptions for November, '92, December '92, January, '93

and the annual report of the Pippy Park Commission.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report

of the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board.

Petitions

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

MR. WOODFORD: I have a petition here, Mr. Speaker from

some 358 constituents in the community and the local service district of

Nicholsville, in the district of Humber Valley.

The prayer of the petition reads, Mr. Speaker: To the hon.

the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, in Legislative Session convened, the

petition of the undersigned, the residents of Nicholsville in the Humber Valley

district, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador would reconsider its

position on amalgamating their community of Nicholsville with Deer Lake.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to

request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such action as

quickly as possible, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. Some

358 signatures, Mr. Speaker.

Since this amalgamation issue was brought to the forefront by

the minister now responsible for Social Services, some three years ago, the

names of communities of Deer Lake, Spillway and Nicholsville have been included

in one of the amalgamation procedures or the combinations that they are about to

follow without some possibly 140 that they were talking about. Just recently the

minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs stated that those

three particular communities, the Town of Deer Lake and the local service

district of Spillway and Nicholsville would be amalgamated, after all this time.

The citizens of Nicholsville stated, Mr. Speaker, quite

clearly, when the study was commissioned some time ago, that approximately 99.9

per cent were against amalgamation. Now if that is not clear, I do not know what

is. The Premier has said it before, both ministers, the former minister and the

present minister have said it, that if the people in those communities do not

want to be amalgamated, they will not be forced to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier today since the

minister is not here, would he go along with the wishes of the people of the

local service district of Nicholsville, and tell them what he told us in the

House and what he stated publicly, previous to the day on this particular issue,

that if you do not want it, you will not be forced to have it? The people of

Nicholsville are very proud of their community and it is no good to say that by

bringing it to the Legislature it is not forced, the Legislature has a majority,

the government has a majority in this Legislature. By automatically bringing it

to the floor of the House, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, it will be

passed.

The people of Nicholsville, in this particular instance, are

making it quite clear that they do not want to amalgamate. They have given their

reasons, they have an excellent local service district in that community, they

made a request to have a community council or a town council in that particular

community, they have a lot of questions that are not answered and they would

like to have answered. They have sent letters to the minister stating quite

clearly what those concerns are, and I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the

minister will answer in due course, but the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is this:

the people of the local service district of Nicholsville do not want to be

amalgamated. This was a separate committee of people who went around the

community and had this particular petition signed, got the people to sign it.

This was outside of the local service district of Nicholsville, a very competent

and dedicated group of individuals who would be quite competent in running a

town council or a community council if they had the chance to do so. I asked a

question of the minister on December 8, about three months ago in the House -

the minister now responsible for Municipal Affairs - what was going to be done

pertaining to this particular grouping? He told me at that time that a letter

would be sent to the municipalities involved asking them for some other input.

That was never done, Mr. Speaker. Another question I asked him was: would he

notify me and talk to me before he made a decision? Yes. Mr. Speaker, it is in

Hansard, that he would do so. Neither of those two promises were kept. The

minister then came out and announced that the amalgamation of this particular

grouping would take place. So I would caution the minister, members, and

ministers opposite to at least communicate before a final decision is made on

this particular grouping to make sure that the concerns of the town of Deer

Lake, the local service district of Spillway, and especially, of the local

service district of Nicholsville are properly addressed. They have some grave

concerns that should be answered, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: In closing, I would like for some minister

opposite, maybe the Premier or the House Leader, on behalf of the minister

responsible for Municipal Affairs, to address some of the concerns I have

pertaining to this particular petition.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my hon. friend from Humber Valley has just indicated, the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not in the House. He is away

from the Province on business. I think he will be here tomorrow. In his absence,

perhaps I could make just a word or two in response, because I think the hon.

gentleman from Humber Valley has made a very fair and balanced presentation of

the case as a number of his constituents see it. I think that is an entirely

appropriate step for a member of the House of Assembly to take. We are sent here

for a number of reasons and one of them is to give voice to concerns of

constituents. I will leave it to the minister to make a response in substance

because I don't know a great deal about the situation and I am not going to

pretend to have knowledge that I don't have.

MR. MATTHEWS: Will the minister be coming back?

MR. ROBERTS: The minister will be coming back. Not only

will he be coming back tomorrow, he will be coming back after the election, I

say to my friend from Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the gentleman from Humber

Valley, because he raised a serious matter and I want to deal with it in the

same vein as he raised it. I will leave it to the minister to address the

detailed situation of Nicholsville and of the men and women who signed this

petition. I do want to say to my hon. friend and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that

it is not just a matter of the wishes of the people of Nicholsville that, in our

judgement, must be taken into the balance. The balance is surely what is best

for the interest of the people of the area, and what may very well have been

appropriate as a form of municipal organization a number of years past when we

had the town of Deer Lake, the town or community, whatever the official title

is, of Reidsville and the Spillway area, may no longer be appropriate. And that

is the issue which we must address. That is the issue which the minister has

addressed, taking advice from his officials and from others. We can't have a

situation, Mr. Speaker, where any group of people who wish to form their own

municipal government, can do it. Why can't we have that? - because to do so

imposes burdens upon all the taxpayers of the Province. Now, I don't make those

remarks with specific reference to the case the hon. gentleman brings forward. I

make them as a matter of a general statement of the type of approach we make. I

will make sure that the minister is made aware of the petition. I will make sure

he is aware of the remarks made by the gentleman from Humber Valley in

presenting it and I will ask the minister to address it at the appropriate time

and in the appropriate way. All I can say to my hon. friend now is that we pay

serious consideration to the request of his constituents but whether we agree

with it or not remains to be seen. In fact, we have taken a different position,

as he knows, but we are prepared to review it and see whether there is any cause

for change. We will do so in the light of the principles that I have said; we

must look at the broader interest, the public interest. We are not here, nor is

he here, simply to speak for the people of Nicholsville or for any area in his

community. He is here to speak for all the people of the Province and then,

within that context, to speak for the people of the district who sent him here

as their member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition put forth by my colleague from

Humber Valley on behalf of the local service district of Nicholsville. It was

only yesterday that we saw a similar petition presented in this House by my

colleague from Ferryland, on behalf of the people of Mobile, who were asking not

to be annexed or joined to the communities of Bay Bulls and Witless Bay, Mr.

Speaker. We find that today, the same thing is occurring, where over 300 people

in a community have expressed to the minister and to this House that they do not

wish to become part of the larger town of Deer Lake.

I listened with some interest to what the Government House

Leader said, that under the new arrangement we find in municipalities, it is not

always the interest of a community but the larger area that takes priority. It

begs the question, then: Who protects the minority? Someone has to protect the

minority, too. And under this arrangement, minority protection can never be

assured anymore if we are to have larger communities which sometimes want the

assets of a neighbouring community that might be quite well off. And if that is

fairness, equity and justice, then, a new term, a new phrase, a new meaning will

have to be applied to it.

If the 300 people of Nicholsville, an entity unto itself

prior to the study - and now the minister broke two promises, one he made to the

member and one he made to the people of Nicholsville. Neither of them was

complied with. Now, Mr. Speaker, we find that this community, a minority -

because Deer Lake is bigger - swallows it up and the community ceases to exist.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfair. Minority rights have to be protected. I ask the

Government House Leader to convey to the minister the concerns of the people of

Nicholsville.

I think it is time we put an end to this process once and for

all. Amalgamation has been a dismal failure in this Province, and unless all

communities are willing to participate, it is time to bring it to an halt. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no!

MR. SPEAKER: Revert to - I am sorry. I had seen the hon.

member stand but I thought he was - previously, I would have waited, but I

thought he was standing to speak to the petition, in view of the fact that he

stood to the last one.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: I have a petition of my own to present, Mr.

Speaker. It is a petition on behalf of the people of the community of Island

Harbour on Fogo Island. I will read the prayer of the petition. I see that the

minister is not in his place. Perhaps he is outside.

The petition is to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland

in legislative session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of

Fogo Island:

Whereas the road in the Fogo Island community of Island Harbour is

in such desperate need of upgrading that residents served by the road are

without proper access to ambulance service, fire protection, or the delivery of

basic supplies; and

Whereas there are seven residents on this portion of road

with a large number of children who attend school and have to rely on bus

service;

Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to act without delay to provide the necessary funding

to upgrade this road.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by some 118 residents of

Island Harbour. For four years now these people have made the same request to

this administration to have that portion of road, on which there are seven

residents, upgraded to a standard where you can drive over it, at least in a

pickup. They are not looking for a 401, they are not looking for a paved road.

They are looking for a little strip of gravel road that would cost a few

thousand dollars, with the resources of Works, Services and Transportation quite

capable of putting it there.

Island Harbour is a small unincorporated community. It

doesn't have a council. Its snow clearing and other services are provided by the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation. And this is the fourth time

that I know of, since I have been a member, that we have requested that this

particular piece of road be upgraded to a standard where people could drive over

it. During the winter, I think it is regrettable that people who live in a

community have to get oil delivered by sled. They have to pump it from the oil

truck into a barrel and have it pumped in, dragged into their Houses, and then

pumped out so they can run furnaces. There is no access to road connections at

all despite the fact it is only about 1,000 feet or so away from the main road

that is presently maintained by Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, for four years this request has been ongoing.

The minister has never found it possible to include in his budget a sum of money

for roads in unincorporated areas. Now, the budget process is well under way. I

am sure it wouldn't be too much to ask of the minister that he find a few

thousand dollars for this. We are not talking a major road construction. The

local Works, Services and Transportation depot have enough resources to do it

themselves. All it takes is the will of government to say to the department:

Change your focus to now, when you can do it. Construct roads in an area like

Island Harbour, where they are not served by a council - there is no one to

serve them. Because these people have the right to a road they can drive on, in

this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise to support my hon.

colleague from Fogo. I have been on Fogo Island on a couple of occasions, and I

certainly have feeling for the people.

A lot of us take a great number of things for granted, and

roads are no exception. I believe that the government is a bit lax, and the

minister should immediately look into places such as Island Harbour, that do not

have even a passable gravel road. It is a very, very, short distance. I am not

sure of the exact distance in kilometres, but the work could be done by the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation in the area.

Mr. Speaker, there is no other way. Other areas under

municipal government have a means of taxing people, to do some of the local

roads themselves, and to address the situation to Works, Services and

Transportation and sometimes get results; but those are almost like people

crying in the wilderness.

As the hon. member stated, a request has been made for the

last four years. It is not an amount of money that the government can't find.

Surely, God, a few thousand dollars can be put there to help those people just

to get back and forth to their community.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I do not know it like that. Perhaps the hon.

member has travelled much more in Newfoundland than I have, but I have seen bad

roads. One is over on the back of Old Shop, of which the hon. member is their

member. It is deplorable.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have seven (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate what

the hon. member is saying, that he has seven like that, but I have travelled

extensively through that area, and there are none as deplorable as the one

leading out from Old Shop. But that is beside the point. I am not up here today

to speak about the people of Old Shop. I am sure the member is quite concerned

with the condition of that road, but - even the Minister of Finance, I have just

learned, at one point in time, almost guaranteed the hon. the Member for Fogo

that he would see to it that this road was brought up even to par. How many

people are there?

MR. WINSOR: Seven residences - about thirty people, or

thirty-five.

MR. PARSONS: About thirty people. Still, thirty people

have to survive. We can't resettle them. It is very simple. All the minister has

to do is rise in his place and say: Yes, I agree. We will do something.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Department of Works, Services and

Transportation would do it in the spring.

MR. PARSONS: The Department of Works, Services and

Transportation would do it, as the hon. member says, this spring. Why wait? It

is not going to get any better. Look at those people. Imagine, in 1993, having

to bring oil for your furnace by sled, and then have it pumped into a barrel.

Glory be to God, I know times are hard. I know that, but let's be reasonable.

That hardship on those people is unforgivable, and I ask the minister, when he

rises in his place, to address the problem for those few people. They are doing

their best. They are coming to their member and asking him to present their

needs in the House of Assembly, which is the right thing to do. Now, the other

right thing to do, as far as this House of Assembly, is concerned, is for the

hon. minister to rise in his place and say: Yes, it is long overdue and I will

do it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The case with this particular road is like a lot of roads in

the smaller communities in rural Newfoundland. There is a great deal of need,

but unfortunately, budgets have been limited. When the Budget comes down and the

allocations are made for provincial roadwork. This road, along with all the

other roads in all the other districts, will be considered. The needs will be

assessed and the government will try to direct its resources to those roads

where the people are most in need, in keeping with the spirit of fairness and

balance. It is an unfortunate situation, Mr. Speaker, that there are so many

needs in rural Newfoundland to address roads like this but I guess if we had the

$20 million in capital that was sunk into Sprung cucumber's, we could have had a

few more roads done. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Could we start by doing motions 4 to 11, the

first readings of bills?

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

"An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited Agreements

Act," carried. (Bill No. 10).

On motion, Bill No. 10 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," carried. (Bill No. 4).

On motion, Bill No. 4 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture to

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Department of Tourism And Culture,"

carried. (Bill No. 6).

On motion, Bill No. 6 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act," carried. (Bill No. 7).

On motion, Bill No. 7 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend the Taxation Of Utilities and

Cable Television Companies Act," carried. (Bill No. 11).

On motion, Bill No. 11 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991,"

carried. (Bill No. 5).

On motion Bill No. 5 read a first time, ordered read a second

time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law In The Province

Respecting Rail Service," carried. (Bill No. 3).

On motion, Bill No. 3 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On

The Environment," carried. (Bill No. 2)

On motion, Bill No. 2 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend the House

of Assembly Act." (Bill No. 1).

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

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

It gives me a great deal of pleasure and a great deal of

pride to introduce this bill for second reading in the House of Assembly. One of

the characteristics I suppose of good government concerned about doing things in

the proper way, is to have a good piece of conflict of interest legislation. The

perception quite often about politicians and others in a position of authority,

Mr. Speaker, quite often is that somehow there should be some watchdog on these

people. Somehow they are in positions to take personal advantage of decisions

that are made and somehow they do their job but get great personal gain from the

job in addition to what they get paid, regular salary.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we must first of all make sure that that

does not happen. Make sure that there is no way that a person in a position of

authority can get additional benefits from carrying out a job for the public.

Also, Mr. Speaker, we must do our best to dispel the notion that this is indeed

happening.

So, I am very pleased to introduce Bill No. 1 for second

reading today. Essentially, what the bill does, Mr. Speaker, and this bill has

had great public exposure, it has been dealt with by columnist's in newspaper's,

it was brought forward to the House in a previous sitting, it received a

thorough examination by a legislative review committee of this honourable House,

advertising was done in terms of public hearings and the mechanism of public

hearings was actually made available to people in this Province so they could

express their opinions about this particular act. The act has had wide

distribution throughout the Province, and generally has received wide acclaim.

It provides for a conflict of interest commissioner. It

provides for full, private disclosure. Disclosure is the cornerstone. Complete

disclosure is the cornerstone of this piece of legislation. It provides for

qualified public disclosure at the discretion of the commissioner. It takes full

cognisance of the principle of spousal independence which, I think, is a very

important principle to have in this conflict of interest legislation, and it has

a procedure on conflict of interest when members feel that there may be a real

or imagined conflict. It also has restrictions on post-employment possibilities

for ministers - things that for a period of time after leaving Cabinet, certain

things that they should not and cannot do. So it is quite a comprehensive

document to ensure that we have a superb, excellent, conflict of interest piece

of legislation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker - and I should say that the details of

this will be discussed in the committee stage where we can get down to the

clauses and the specific intent of the clauses and so on, that I am sure we will

get to in a matter of days.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this is

one of the things that when we were running for elected office almost four years

ago, this is one of the things that we said we would do during our term in

office.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to point out to members of the

House that we have fulfilled this promise that was made four years ago, in

addition to the other promises that we have already fulfilled. We have been a

bit longer with this one, but nevertheless it is done, but it is done well.

I commend the piece of legislation for discussion in the

House, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would also just like to have a few brief words on this

legislation. I would warn the hon. President of Treasury Board that although

this is before the House of Assembly, it is not yet passed and the promise is

not yet fulfilled. It was before the House of Assembly in the last session.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things with this piece of

legislation. One is that it is not passed in this House of Assembly. There might

be a fair, decent chance that it might never be passed in this session of the

House of Assembly. It depends on when the Premier calls the election whether it

will ever be passed in this House of Assembly, and if it is passed in the House

of Assembly, the last statement in it says that it does not come into force

until proclamation, which is fairly standard but again not a promise fulfilled.

It is probably a commitment being attempted to be fulfilled, I would say, and I

cannot argue with the minister when he speaks on the details of the legislation.

First of all, I was fortunate enough to be able to serve on

the legislative review committee that dealt with this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: A select committee (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: A select committee it was, at this one.

Yes, I am corrected.

I consider myself fortunate to be able to serve on that type

of committee because it is a good example of why these committees should be set

up.

There was co-operation from minute one, I would say, on this

act, between members of the committee. We were trying - sincerely trying - to

make sure that this was good legislation, which is the purpose of our committees

- all of the legislative reviews and select committees. The minister himself,

when decisions were made by committee members that certain changes, certain

recommendations, would be made, the minister showed his co-operation by

accepting 100 per cent of the changes, I think, recommended by the committees.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a good reason to have the committees. Regardless of the

legislation, it is a good reason that all legislation should go to these

committees.

It is sad, in the last session, when we are sitting in this

House of Assembly here and we see important pieces of legislation that were

rammed through the House of Assembly before Christmas. Now members opposite

would take a different view on that but they were. They were placed there

strategically to have them done while people were busy at other private things,

such as getting ready for Christmas or trying to pay their heat bills or

whatever.

There was a lot of legislation brought into this last session

of the House of Assembly late which should never have been. It should have been

brought in on a more timely basis, and it should have been considered more by

the committee system that we have in this House of Assembly. Workers'

compensation is one of them, and we have changes to workers' compensation. Only

today did I get a letter from Workers' Compensation explaining one change that I

had made representation on behalf of a client on. That is a good reason - there

was no need of having this legislation put in place with a policy like the

Workers' Compensation had concerning CPP payments, this one happens to be.

If all of our legislation would go through the committee

system and have enough time to do it, I think we would be better off as a

province, as the people in the Province, of having better legislation. We will

have some conflicts, no doubt about it. Some of them will be more political than

others. I find that when we're in committee, when the committee system is at its

best, most people, all people generally, on that committee are trying to get

good legislation. If they want to make political points, that's the business

we're in. I've never had a problem with that. Anyone can make political points

whenever they like.

When you look behind the political points you see that people

were trying to make good legislation for this Province. The committee system has

allowed us to do some of that. It hasn't been perfect, and everything that I've

recommended to make it better has not always been accepted, even though it would

have definitely made it better legislation if I had - only because I recommended

it. But it was not always accepted. But the committee system is good, and I just

want to congratulate the Chairperson of our Committee, the Member for Carbonear,

for conducting the meetings fairly well and achieving a level of cooperation.

As the President of Treasury Board said, this legislation is

good. It is somewhat a copy but not really a copy of legislation that was

brought before this House of Assembly by another administration. Brought before

this Legislature on June 29 1988 but never was passed before the Legislature

closed. That 1988 legislation would be an improvement on what exists now, and

this legislation I would say is an improvement even on the 1988 legislation. So

it is good.

The legislation hinges 100 per cent on one clause and one

item in the legislation. If we do not have the right or a good person as

commissioner this legislation will not be worth the paper that it's written on.

The commissioner will dictate whether this legislation is going to be good or

bad. If we do not appoint a commissioner who has generally the respect of people

in the Province - I don't know what person you might pick, but the person who is

to be commissioner has to be well-respected in the Province. Has to be trusted

by the general public in the Province. His decisions will have to be respected

because he will be asked to make some decisions of whether to disclose people's

interest. He is the one who is going to make a decision of whether the public

will know of my complete interest or part of my interest.

He is the person who - he or she - I say "he" but it doesn't

necessarily have to be a he. This person, this commissioner, will have the power

of making this legislation work or not. If the commissioner once is considered

to be political or to be partisan or one-sided on any issue then this

legislation will not be worth any more than the legislation we have now. One of

the problems with the legislation we have now is that the premier had the final

say, which is unacceptable to this present Premier. It was unacceptable to a

past premier when he brought in his new legislation.

We have to be very careful in choosing who the commissioner

will be. I still have some questions, I am not 100 per cent sure that this

legislation is perfect - well it is not perfect because nothing we do in this

House of Assembly will be perfect, but I do have some concerns about spousal

independence. It was mentioned by the President of Treasury Board, I do not know

that it is fair to my spouse that if I become involved in public life, that my

spouse has to also become directly involved through conflict of interest, if

nothing else. Theoretically it is possible that a spouse, a husband and wife

team could have two separate professional lives, could have two very independant

business lives, they might not need to consult one another on their own private

businesses, most likely they will, but it is not necessary, it would not be

guaranteed.

If there is a minister or an MHA in this House of Assembly

who would lean towards some types of corruption maybe, or lean towards getting

advantages for himself or others, probably the last person that they would try

to use to influence someone, would be their spouse. Their friends, their

campaigners and their organizers are the ones who will be implicated or brought

in and who will get the advantages more than a person's spouse so it might be

more to the point to have mentioned in this legislation other people rather than

someone's spouse, but, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how you would set it up. I

could not offer the committee a better suggestion on how to set up this

legislation excluding the spouses, so I had to go along with what the

legislation says because I do not have a better solution. I would like to be

able to do it, I would like to be able to come up with some other idea, but I

could not do it.

I am still not positive what this legislation will do. I

wonder and I still question and maybe the minister when he answers will be able

to answer this for me. A situation came up in our last sitting of the House of

Assembly with the present Minister of Justice and a perceived or suggested

conflict that he might or might not have. Now I do not know how this legislation

would handle that situation, would his private interest have been made public or

not? I personally think there was a potential conflict there. Now I know members

opposite do not agree with that, but I think it should have been made public -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: What (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, the fact that you were receiving an

income, whether money for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, well I will be finished in two

minutes anyway - but that type of conflict, what would have happened under this

new legislation? I believe that it should have been made public, that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, the amount in itself -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is irrelevant.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, I do not know. If I have an

interest in a business with you that is worth $2,000, who cares? You are going

to pay me $2,000 when you get the money, but if I have an interest in a business

with you that is worth $200,000, then it becomes much more important for me to

make sure you are a success, your business succeeds or whatever I can do to get

you so I can get my money -

MR. ROBERTS: If a minister of the crown is receiving

payments from a body with which the government may be doing business -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: - surely, it does not matter if the minister

is receiving one dollar or a million dollars,. That should be (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: But it will, from a human point of view,

it will to the minister. I mean it should not, I agree with that, but from a

financial point of view to the person. I mean, that person will have a better

interest, a larger interest in seeing that nothing happens to that person -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I think the legislation should make it

public, but I mean that is my view, it was not the view of the committee at the

time, but it certainly would be important in my mind to know if a person has an

interest. If I have an interest in a company whether it is worth $2,000 or

$200,000, that would be -

Now I know the commissioner will make a decision and if we

get the right commissioner there whom everyone will trust, maybe, maybe that

would work and that is the only reason that I went along with the committee. We

have to hope that the person who is made commissioner - I would never want to be

that commissioner - I would say that commissioner has a lot of responsibility. I

don't expect I ever would be with this government. Mr. Speaker, that

commissioner will have a lot of responsibilities, more than I would like to take

on at that type of job. More responsibilities.

There is another situation that happened only recently, and

in the last month or so, where an executive assistant for a minister of this

government went out in private business - there is nothing wrong with that I

guess - but when he went out in private business he got immediately a contract

directly related to that department or that minister. I don't know how this

legislation or the commissioner would deal with that.

We have had an explanation from the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology and the Premier, I believe, that this Mr. MacKenzie, who

was an executive assistant with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology,

that this member when he left his employ from the Department of Industry, Trade

and Technology - the department that Enterprise Newfoundland is responsible to;

that's the minister that they answer to through this House of Assembly - when

the executive assistant left that department and went in private business,

within a month had a major contract from Enterprise Newfoundland, if that is not

a conflict, it was probably arranged before he left, that'd be my guess at it.

I'd say that was all arranged before the person went in private industry, but

certainly that's a guess. I can't prove that.

It is likely. It is likely that person had some information

of what was coming up. It would not be hard to find out. When I was Minister of

Rural Development, Farm Products was under my auspices in that department. I

knew, I could find out quite easily, what Farm Products was doing in the near

future. I should have known. I know they were spending a lot of money most of

the time. I knew what major contracts were coming out because we had to approve

their budgets, we had to approve their finances.

So this Mr. MacKenzie who worked for the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology could very easily have known of a contract that

was coming out. I don't know if this was a tendered contract. I don't have all

the information yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: There were proposals called, which is a

different thing than a strict tender call.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, it was a consultant proposal call

which again someone had the discretion, someone at ENL probably had the

discretion of picking from one, two or three. However if there were twenty

proposals put in and it was narrowed down to probably three, which is the way

the system usually works, somebody had the discretion of picking one, two or

three. Somebody working with ENL most likely, or the Department of Industry,

Trade and Technology, most likely, had to say: let's pick number two over number

one, because - and you could make up a rhyme of reasons for why you want to pick

it, telling how good it is. Mr. Speaker, somebody who is presently working for

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology had to say: this Mr. MacKenzie

will get the contract.

Even under today's conflict of interest information that is a

conflict. There's no doubt in my mind that that would be a conflict, if that

person at ENL happened - I don't know who the person is, I don't know who did it

- but if they happened to be an acquaintance of the minister, if they wanted to

impress the minister, or if they wanted to do a thousand things, he would have

every reason in the world to pick the minister's buddy to do that job.

Now that is a conflict. But we don't have any action taken by

the Premier. We don't have action taken on this by the government. We don't have

much reporting of it in the media. It happened during the post-Christmas period

and I suppose people weren't interested. Maybe they weren't interested. I don't

know. Nobody seemed to know about it. I heard one report on it and that was it.

This type of conflict - if it happened to be an MHA, a political person do it, I

suppose there would be a lot more reporting.

This is just as much a conflict if an executive assistant

from a department can walk away from that department and have someone who worked

for his minister, directly under his minister, select him for a contract within

a month or so. That's a conflict. If this legislation does not deal with that

type of conflict this legislation is no good. If I know this and I couldn't go

to the commissioner and say: cancel that proposal call or cancel that contract,

this legislation is not going to work.

Then again that's where I say the commissioner has a lot of

responsibilities, because as soon as I go to the commissioner to do that,

obviously the commissioner is going to say that I am doing it for political

reasons; it has nothing to do with conflict of interest; I am only trying to

stir up trouble again. Then the commissioner will try to find a way around

cancelling the contract, if he wanted to do that - if it is not the right person

- if it is a political person or he happened to dislike me for something I did

or said about him or her in debates in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, if this legislation does not deal directly with

that Minister of Development's conflict of interest, I think there is a problem.

There is another conflict of interest that is happening in

Enterprise Newfoundland. I think this would be a conflict of interest, too.

Enterprise Newfoundland seems to be the hiring place for past executive

assistants. I think in Enterprise Newfoundland, or the Economic Recovery

Commission, there is a Mr. Guinchard who used to be an executive assistant to

Paul Dicks, or the Member for Humber West.

When the Member for Humber West left Cabinet, decided to get

out of Cabinet, because he could not get along with the present Premier and he

could not swallow the policies of the present Premier, when he decided to get

out, then his executive assistant had no job for awhile. He stayed around here

for awhile, but he actually had no job, this young man - and probably a very

capable, competent young man - but what we find out very quickly is that he has

a job with Enterprise Newfoundland. He is now working somewhere in this

Province, on the Burin Peninsula I believe, in a special job. He has gone to the

Burin Peninsula in a job with Enterprise Newfoundland - an area that had a

development officer. Enterprise Newfoundland had a development officer in that

region. Now we have a past executive assistant also in that area doing the job.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a conflict of interest. It is

certainly a conflict. If that job is not publicly advertised and everyone has a

shot at it, that is a conflict.

Mr. Speaker, there is another conflict. There was a person

who was an executive assistant to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I cannot

remember that person's name now - Hollett. It was a woman Hollett who was

executive assistant to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Where is that person

now - this Ms. Hollett who was the former executive assistant to the Minister of

Mines and Energy? She is now working for Enterprise Newfoundland - on the Burin

Peninsula again, I believe, or she started out on the Burin Peninsula. She might

have been moved somewhere else in the meantime.

As luck happened, her father happens to be the ACOA agent in

the same place, so I guess they work pretty close together.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, Gordon Slade, I believe. There is a

big difference.

So here we have another executive assistant, completely

political person, brought into this system - never went through any competitions

to get the job, except that they were very helpful in an election or they were

very competent people and friends of the ministers. They now left their

political jobs because they see the writing on the wall that there will be no

political jobs around for them after the next election anyway, so they try to

get in a permanent position with Enterprise Newfoundland, or the Newfoundland -

Now we also have the Economic Recovery Commission, with

people like Mr. Lush from Gander. He is a bag man for the Liberal party.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: A Mr. Lush - Fraser Lush.

AN HON. MEMBER: Campaign manager.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Campaign manager for someone, anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would never put a Lush as a bag man.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is working in either the Newfoundland

Enterprise system or the Recovery Commission system. I cannot keep them

straight. It is hard to keep them straight. They do not do anything significant

so that you would want to really knuckle down and delve into what they are

accomplishing, because they are accomplishing very little.

Now my comments certainly will be considered very partisan on

conflict of interest, and the fact that these political people are getting jobs,

but there is a person who works for this House of Assembly who has a similar

view to mine, and that person just presented a report to us yesterday. Even in

the Auditor General's Report there is a report of conflict of interest on Page

Mr. Speaker, there are conflicts in our system now that could

be quite easily handled by the Premier, who has all the control under this

legislation that we have in place now. These conflicts of interest could be

handled, they could be ruled on immediately by the Premier, yet he does not do

it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what leaves me a bit nervous of who

the commissioner is going to be in our new legislation. If that commissioner is

not the type of person that everyone can have trust in, this legislation is not

going to be worth anything. For the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology,

just for his information I brought up a direct conflict of interest that

concerns him a few minutes ago, where his own executive assistant, who left his

employ, a Mr. Mckenzie I understand it to be, who left his employ rather

recently, I do not know if he won the lottery also but I do not think so. I do

not think he won the lottery but he won a mini-lottery. This executive assistant

won a mini-lottery because he had a job set up for him. I contend that he had

his contract set up for him before he left the employ of the minister. He was

working for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and immediately or

very shortly after he left his employ and set up his private company, he was

selected to do some public relations work I believe it was or some promotion

work for Enterprise Newfoundland. Now, Mr. Speaker, that certainly could be a

coincidence, maybe it just happened to fall that way, that proposals were called

for a little while after this person left the minister's employ. It could be a

coincidence that somebody from Enterprise Newfoundland or whoever put out this

contract, someone subjectively looked at the proposals that were sent in,

whether they be one or twenty-one, it does not matter, and somebody who

presently works for the Minister of Industry, Trades and Technology, someone who

presently is in the employ of the minister made the selection. Someone who the

minister, had he not made the right selection, the minister could probably have

said; out the door, you did not pick the right one. If the minister wanted to, I

know this minister would never do that because he is to smart for that. He had

it set up before his executive assistant left. Now he knew who was going to pick

this proposal. He knew exactly who was going to pick it so he said; Okay, safe

enough now, you go on and in a month or so we will have it all straightened out

for you. So his executive assistant went out the door and within a very short

time had a rather lucrative contract from his past employer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a conflict of interest. There are

probably some illegalities in there somewhere also but it is definitely a

conflict of interest, no doubt at all. I do not know how this new act will deal

with it. That is what makes me nervous of the new act. The new act should be

able to stop that immediately. As fast as it has been made public, under the new

act, I should be able to go to that commissioner and say; now what about this

conflict of interest? He should have the power to stop the contract right away.

I believe that is what this act will do but, Mr. Speaker, the act we have now

where the Premier controls it, the Premier is the commissioner, the Premier

could do the same thing. So, what is happening today is that the Premier allows

this to go on in his government. The Premier allows the conflict, yet when the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was renting a building out in Buchans

somewhere to the Liquor Commission which was done by public tender, completely

open public tender, the Premier nearly had a conniption when he found out about

it and told the hon. member to sell the building. He had to sell the building at

a loss, I would say, because it was not a good time. There has never been any

good times since this government took over.

So, Mr. Speaker, he had to get rid of his building because

the Premier thought that was a conflict of interest. A business or a building he

owned happened to accept a public tender, yet the Minister of Development's

executive assistant can go and pluck a contract with them when he is going out

the door and have it all arranged when he is going out the door and the Premier

never opens his mouth about it.

MS. VERGE: The Premier is part owner of an office

building in Corner Brook that was renting space to the government.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was a time, I am not sure now, but

there was a time when I did have some information, as mentioned to me, that the

Premier and his wife were part owners of a building in Corner Brook that at one

time was renting space to the Health Co-ordinating Committee on the West Coast.

Indirectly from the Premier, but from a building that the Premier owned a part

of. Graham Flight had to get rid of his building. I do not know what happened to

the Premiers but there was never any big deal made of it. He probably still owns

part of the building. Another member, the Member for Humber West, was found to

be owner of a building that rented space to a government department and he had

to get rid of it right away.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: What is Danny saying today? What is wrong

with you this morning?

AN HON. MEMBER: Danny wants to run for the NDP.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am going to work for Carson Shipping

when I leave here. My son does now by the way. If I can get hold of that boat

and get a contract like the Minister of Development Executive Assistant did, if

I can get a contract when I am walking out of here it would be pretty good. You

would make a lot of money on it. You do not have to bid on it. You do not have

to take any risk. You do not have to spend much time preparing your tenders. You

just walk out of here with a cashier's cheque. You walk out the door with a

cashier's cheque or a permanent employment slip. The executive assistant of the

Minister of Mines and Energy had an employment slip when she walked out the door

and went right to Enterprise Newfoundland. She got a job right away. Then the

former executive assistant to the Member for Humber West, when the Member for

Humber West decided he could not work any longer with the present Premier, in

his Cabinet, when he wanted to get out of it because he could not stomach it

anymore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Humber West.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Humber West, was it? Did I say Humber

East? The person from Humber East knew that when she beat him in the last

election. She knew she could never work with him when she beat him and did not

allow him to come into this Assembly. There is another job. He told a member to

get out of the Bay of Islands seat: You get out of the Bay of Islands seat. Here

is your permanent employment slip while I am here. I will get you a $60,000 a

year job on the west coast somewhere. That person, Mr. Joyce, is still working

happily, in bliss mostly, but I understand he is under a lot of pressure on the

west coast. He is having a hard time because of the way this government treats

the west coast. Mr. Speaker, he is doing pretty good out of this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is Morrissey Johnson?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Morrissey Johnson is doing better I would

say mostly because he is a more competent person and not for any other reason.

Just to have his expertise around would do the Department of Fisheries wonders.

Had I been there I would have given Captain Morrissey Johnson a job. I would

have. Patronage was never a big deal with me. I would literally try to help out

the people who helped me. I would try to do it. I did not hide away from that. I

did not go around this Province preaching to people that this is cut out. This

is going to be cut out and you will never hear it again. There will be no

patronage. Who went around preaching in 1989 about that, I wonder? Was it you or

was it me? You were one of them because you were following the Premier around

like a little puppy dog hoping that you might get in Cabinet some day, but when

you got in here and he called you an immature person you knew then you would

never get in Cabinet so you had to go fight it on your own. You are doing a good

job. You are getting the publicity. You are doing alright. You will never see

the inside of the Cabinet room but you are doing alright. If Bill Rompkey gives

up you will never see the inside of the Cabinet room up in Ottawa either. I do

not say you will see the inside of the Commons because Garfield Warren is going

to beat you when you go after that one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was not laughing so much at that. I was

just trying to imagine the campaign with Danny Dumaresque and Garfield Warren. I

really have trouble trying to visualise that. But it would be good. I would like

to be up around there and taking it in as they go from community to community.

I'd have a hard job keeping up with either one of them, probably.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of our Province is the one who went

around preaching there'd be no more patronage: it would be unconscionable for me

to be doing these things. This fairness and equity is going to spread like Good

Luck butter on bread. This fairness and equity will be all over our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balance.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Fairness and balance, yes, that was it. I

get a little off balance every time I think about them, Mr. Speaker, because I

can't - hard to swallow it when you know really what's going on. I have a list

here in my drawer of some thirty-one patronage appointments that the Premier

had. I had it now before we closed the last time. I'm not sure if I still have

it or not. When we closed the last time I wasn't positive that I'd be back here

again, and I might have taken it home and framed it.

MS. VERGE: Remember Beaton Tulk?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. Beaton was the good one. Beaton is

now beaten, and he's going to be beaten again. I hear he's out looking at Fogo

again. So he'll be put in his place again.

Mr. Speaker, all this patronage stuff and the conflict of

interest that the Premier has control of now, he'll go around clapping himself

on the back about the great legislation that he has brought in. Actually it was

legislation that was brought in by a non-partisan committee, consisting of

Liberals and Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, all members of this House of Assembly had input

into this legislation. The Premier will go around and take all the credit in the

world for it eventually in the next month or so. When push comes to shove, when

he can have a say on what conflict of interest happens in this Province, like he

could have a say in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology's executive

assistant, or he could have a say in all these appointments to Enterprise

Newfoundland, or he could have a say in the Auditor General's report when it

points out the conflict for Enterprise Newfoundland, he just ignores it. He

ignores it and will go about the Province preaching fairness and balance again

in a month or so, when actually all the Premier has ever done since he got in

here is preach to people, and his actions have been very little, Mr. Speaker,

and nil on most issues.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'm not as politically motivated

today as my colleague for Kilbride but I'm certainly sure that if I had in the

last twenty-four hours looked back at some of the patronage appointments that

were made prior to 1989 I'm sure the list would have been quite long - I could

take up the whole afternoon in the House talking about patronage appointments.

Mr. Speaker, basically I suppose what my friend for Kilbride said is one of the

reasons why we're bringing in this piece of legislation. Whether or not what he

said was true or false really doesn't matter, because if there's the opportunity

there to secure things and favours from governments through patronage or

whatever, then I think there has to be legislation brought to this House that

can control that. I think this piece of legislation will do just that.

I want to say that at the outset I was surprised too that

this piece of legislation went to committee. The members of the Committee I

thought acted very responsibly, and without any hesitation whatsoever the couple

of meetings that we did have, there were no arguments, because I think most

people on the Committee level agreed that this piece of legislation was badly

needed. There were no arguments. A cordial type of, I suppose, approach to this

particular Bill.

I have to thank the minister and his officials who sat with

us at the meetings. Because it was through them that we were, I suppose,

explained certain sections of the bill that some of us did not understand, and

ultimately made the necessary changes and enabled the minister of course to come

into the House today and introduce the bill as early as this.

I will say that I agree with my hon. friend from Kilbride

when he says that the committee system does work, because, since I suppose 1989,

in one way or another as chairman or member of committees, I have sat on a

number of committees of the House, I have chaired a number of committees of the

House and I can honestly say that 99 per cent of the time those committees

worked. The members who sat on the committees, be they Opposition members or

government members got along and we tried our best in every case to improve the

bills and to recommend to the minister involved with those bills, different

changes, and I think we have been successful. So after four years of this

committee work, I truly believe that the Legislative Review Committees and

special committees that the House has struck work to serve a worthwhile purpose

in this House. Like the hon. Member for Kilbride said, it was not only the

minister's bill, but the bill belongs also to this committee, the Standing

Committee or Select Committee of the House and it was the changes that we

recommended that were accepted and I congratulate the committee for the

wonderful work that they did.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is basically I

suppose, the watchdog. It will create the watchdog of the public purse and his

mandate will be to disclose to the public anything that he perceives as

wrongdoing, and wrongdoing I suppose would mean almost anything that relates to

someone taking advantage of their situation as a sitting MHA, a Cabinet Minister

and even an executive assistant. My hon. friend from Kilbride mentions several

executive assistants whom he claimed had procured work from the government

because they were executive assistants. Now whether that is true or not I do not

know, but under this piece of legislation that can no longer happen.

When I look back over my years involved in municipal politics

and even before that, I remember hearing of members of the House of Assembly,

ministers who owned property that they were renting to government, major

appointments to boards as for example the Workers' Compensation Board. I often

said to myself, well, will I ever be in a position where I could possibly

acquire a position with such little responsibility but making such a large

salary, and I have said it a number of times myself. My hon. friend from

Kilbride made the comment that sure, he would help those people who helped him

and in a way I suppose I tend to agree with him to a certain extent, but I think

when it is blatant and out in the open and it involves the public purse, then

the public has a right to see and know what is going on and I guess, basically

it is not the thing to do. It is not the thing for MHAs on either side of the

House to do and hopefully this bill will rectify this problem.

During our review of the bill, Mr. Speaker, we looked at

practically every jurisdiction in Canada including the federal government, and I

can honestly say that, and I think the committee members would agree that

looking at all the jurisdictions that we have looked at in the country, this

piece of legislation far exceeds the vast majority of those other jurisdictions

including the federal government. There are a number of provinces in Canada that

are bringing in or hope to bring in this type of legislation, conflict of

interest legislation in the next little while, but we were first off the mark

and I congratulate the government for taking the initiative.

There is nothing in this bill that any single person, sitting

in this House now, or I guess at any future time, should be afraid of. There is

nothing there to be afraid of. If someone should stand in this House and

criticize this bill, as far as I am concerned, without the criticism of the

actual pieces or the actual paragraphs and so on, but to get up and criticize

this bill and possibly vote against it, to me it would be sort of

an act of

defiance and

an act of admitting that you would rather see something other than

this in the House, and I do not think the people of Newfoundland would

appreciate it. I certainly am going to support the bill and I think just about

everyone else in the House will support it.

There may be cause for some changes but, when you consider

where we have come since 1972, I think we have done quite well. I know there

will be changes and amendments to this particular bill over the next number of

years and the next government, be it a Liberal government or a Progressive

Conservative government or an NDP government, will certainly make

recommendations for changes to this bill as we progress, I guess.

So do not be afraid of it. Do not be afraid of it unless you

yourself are afraid of what you may lose yourself. When I say 'lose yourself', I

mean what you may lose because your husband happens to own a company that does

business with the provincial government, or because your son or daughter is

looking for a job with the government and the government has to say 'no' to your

son or daughter because of these new rules and regulations put forward in the

bill. I really do not think, as I said, that anyone should be afraid of this.

I guess, as backbenchers, and not Cabinet ministers, you are

probably in a better position to deal with this bill than ministers are, but

with this particular bill ministers will certainly have to be more forthcoming

and will be scrutinized to the point where the public will know exactly what

that person or that minister has as equity, and possibly any conflict of

interest that particular minister then would have would and could possibly be

disclosed to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments about the

appointment of the commissioner. I sat in this House last year and heard all

kinds of comments about what type of person this government would hire or

recommend for the commissioner for the police - city police. I was surprised

that after the appointment of Dr. Harris I never heard a word. There was not a

sound. I did not hear any comment from the opposition. I did not hear anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: A tremendous appointment.

MR. REID: So I think it was a tremendous appointment, and

I am sure that the Premier and his Cabinet, in appointing Dr. Harris, made a

perfect choice. I am certainly sure that in appointing a commissioner - in

consultation, by the way, because it is written - in consultation with the

Leader of the Opposition and with the Member for St. John's East, that that

person will also be of impeccable character, and I am certainly sure that the

choice will be made.

Now I really do not know if this commissioner would need that

job as a full-time job. I am not sure he would.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or she.

MR. REID: Or she, I am sorry, because if people are up

front and are honest - if the fifty-two members of this House are honest and up

front and make their declarations in honesty, then the commissioner would not

have any reason to be concerned, if we are being honest with him - and the

Cabinet and the Premier and all those people who are in authority to be able to

make appointments and so on are honest and trying to follow the guidelines, he

would not have much to do. So I am not sure if this person would have to be a

full-time employee who looks after this particular position and this particular

position only.

I think maybe the government should consider the appointment

of somebody who maybe is in a position of trust within the Province at the

present time. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, if the Auditor General might be a

person who could do it. I do not know what extra work you would put on her at

the present time. Maybe some judge - some provincial judge - could do it, or

something, so that there is not an outlay of a tremendous amount of money. This

is what I would be afraid of because, if we do that, the public has a tendency

to look at these types of positions as: Oh, well that is another job that has

been created for someone.

So I am not sure. I think the government has to look at the

possibility of finding someone as cheaply as they can to do the job, but to make

sure that they find someone with a reputation that is acceptable to all members

of the House of Assembly - and not only all members of the House of Assembly,

but all members of the general public in Newfoundland, someone that they can

trust.

Mr. Speaker, in our report yesterday to the House, a few

comments that were made - and I am sure no one has read the report other than my

colleagues who sat on the Committee with me. I want to just give a few quotes

from the report and then I will finish up, because I think I have said enough on

it.

I am going to give credit, I suppose, to those who initiated

the first measure in 1972, and then, also - and I agree with my hon. friend from

Kilbride that there was a piece of legislation drafted and ready in 1988, but it

died on the Order Paper, I believe, at the time, because it was supposed to come

up, I think, in April of 1989, and then we went into an election. But the

existing legislation, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: We wouldn't open the House.

MR. REID: You wouldn't open the House.

MR. CRANE: That's right.

MR. REID: That's right, too, it wasn't open - I forgot

about that.

MR. CRANE: You said it.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why he would make a good

commissioner, he tells the truth.

MR. REID: Just to reinforce what I said, Mr. Speaker. In

our report, it said it was crucial to the success of the legislation that the

commissioner be a person of integrity who enjoys the confidence of the members

in the public who - and I want to stress that point.

Basically, I have said all I need to say on the bill. There

are a few minor things, minor changes, that we made, I suppose, that took some

time to do. The thing that disappointed me more than anything else in the world

was the fact that other than for a comment, I think, from Peter Fenwick, from

the West Coast, and a comment from - Who was the other guy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Peter Boswell. I may be mistaken here, but I

think they were the only two outside comments from the whole of the Province.

Those comments were written publicly and not sent to the Committee. And it was

sort of disappointing. At the time, I made the comment to the media that I was

disappointed, and the Committee was disappointed, because with the air that we

have today of political corruption in Canada, in the United States and in the

world, in general, and this feeling that exists that: Well, politicians are in

there for one reason and one reason only, to fill their pockets and get what

they can, for no one in this Province to take an interest in this particular

piece of legislation, it sort of left me bewildered.

Because I thought there would be people out there who would

come forward and either at least tell us that we were doing the right thing in

introducing the piece of legislation, or be critical of it that we hadn't gone

far enough. We didn't receive that, and that was disappointing to me and to a

number of members of the Committee.

I will finish by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I have to thank

the members, and I am being honest here. Even the Member for Kilbride played a

very active role, and when I say that, I say it in jest, of course. Because the

Member for Kilbride is a conscientious member. He works hard. The committees I

have sat on with him in the past, I have always said that we could appreciate

Bob Aylward in his serious moments and also appreciate him in his humorous

moments. All the members of the Committee - Dr. Warren here to my right, the

Member for St. John's North, I believe, and the hon. the Member for St. John's

East - I thank them.

With the co-operation we have had from the Opposition in

deliberating on this particular bill, with the few comments that I am sure I'm

going to hear from my hon. friend, Mr. Harris, and my hon. friend, Ms. Verge -

because I am sure she is going to say something - I am hoping we can get this

through the House as soon as possible, and let's hope that we can get it enacted

and into law before this House closes. Because, if we don't, then God only knows

when this bill will come back to the House. Then, I don't think we would be

doing justice to the people whom we serve in the Province. Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise with pleasure to speak on this piece of legislation

because I think it is a most important piece of legislation for any Legislature

to deal with. Before I talk about the bill, itself, I want to talk a little bit

about the process.

This Act was dropped before this House just days before

Christmas in the expectation that it was possible we would not come back here

again, that we would, in fact, be at the polls responding to the drop of an

election writ; so that the Premier and the government could say that it had

fulfilled one - at least one, if only one - one promise that they made to the

electorate in 1989.

The last remark of the Minister of Finance in introducing

second reading debate today is probably the most significant remark in saying

that one of the good positive aspects of this bill was that it was in fulfilment

of an election promise. I think there is a cynical side of this legislation, Mr.

Speaker, in that this legislation was brought in to fulfil an election promise

so that they can go to the electorate and not be challenged for failing to look

after an issue as important as conflict of interest. It is instructive to note

that this legislation is now being brought in, in what will surely prove to be

the dying days of this administration. As the Member for Carbonear, who chaired

the committee, said, there is a danger of this dying on the Order Paper. Well,

is the Liberal Government going to do what the Tories did in the past, produce a

bill in the dying days of their administration, let it die on the Order Paper,

and rush off to an election saying, Well, we brought forth this legislation and

we are very concerned about conflict of interest, and not have this in place?

That is what it looks like, Mr. Speaker. The only problem with this is that

there is no assurance that it is going to pass. Perhaps, when the Government

House Leader speaks on this bill, or the deputy, in closing debate, he will tell

us when he will bring it back for third reading.

MR. ROBERTS: We can do it this week.

MR. HARRIS: I am glad to hear the Government House Leader

say that he is prepared to do it this week. I would rather he do that than wait

till the last two days, or the six hours before Good Friday like the six hours

before Christmas Eve we had in December to try to pass a heap of legislation in

the wee hours of the morning because plans had not been going right. Let us have

it passed this week if everybody is in favour of this bill.

MR. ROBERTS: We can go through all stages today if

everybody agrees.

MR. HARRIS: That may be a wise thing to do. I would be

quite happy to see it go through all stages today and I will finish my speech in

plenty of time to allow that to happen. It is important, Mr. Speaker, and it is

not something that ought to be made into a political football, nor should it

encourage the kind cynicism that the lack of this kind of legislation breeds in

the public. I welcome this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I welcome it for two

reasons. It is not a perfect piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation

that has been put together by imperfect individuals.

MR. CRANE: Why don't you write it then?

MR. HARRIS: I note the Member for Harbour Grace asking,

why don't I write it? Well, I say to the Member for Harbour Grace, I had a hand

in writing it. I say to the Member for Harbour Grace that this Committee had a

hand in fashioning the bill, unlike some of the committees he chaired, when he

wouldn't allow any amendments and wouldn't allow any discussion to go on, and

refused to let the committee system operate the way it was because he thought

the purpose of the Committee was to railroad the minister's legislation through

the Committee and into the House. That is what he thought and that is what the

other backbenchers thought on the committees that he chaired. I am sorry to say

this but it is true, that when the Member for Harbour Grace chaired a

Legislation Review Committee and the legislation needed amendments, in fact,

they finally got them when it came to the House because this hon. member

insisted that legitimate debate and discussion take place and that amendments

that needed to be made were made. And ultimately, they were made on the floor of

this House, because the committee system did not work when the Member for

Harbour Grace chaired the Committee of which I speak. I have to give some credit

to the Member for Carbonear, who chaired this Committee and the other members of

the Committee, because they all participated in the debate, in the discussion,

and in the amendments on this legislation. And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that

I take some pride in saying that many changes that were made in Committee and

form part of the report of the Select Committee were changes suggested by this

hon. member in the Committee, and I say that it is still not perfect. It is

still not perfect.

I know the Member for Harbour Grace is a bit miffed now

because he seems to think that I am perfect, Mr. Speaker. Well, I have news for

him - I am not perfect. I have news for him. Unlike his Premier, I don' claim to

be perfect. I don' claim to be right on everything. I don' think that everything

that comes out of my mouth is the utter and complete and final word on

everything, unlike certain other members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this bill is not perfect, but it is

important that some of the major features of this legislation be enshrined into

law to do two things. They are, number one, to protect the public from the abuse

of public office by hon. members who are elected. That is number one. Number two

is to protect hon. members of this Legislature from the kind of scurrilous

comments that of