December

14, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 80

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the issue that we raised in the

House yesterday in which my colleagues, in particular from Baie Verte and St.

Mary's - The Capes, in other words, has been raising for the last several weeks,

is an issue that has struck a cord with a lot of people in Newfoundland and

Labrador. If the number of telephone calls that have been coming to our offices

over the last eight or ten hours since the office is opened this morning, is any

indication, the hardship stories continue and continue to flow.

People also know, Mr. Speaker, that for the last three years,

for each of the last three years, this government funded its own emergency jobs

program in order to respond to the high levels of unemployment and other

problems. People also know that this government, in each of the last three

years, did not wait for the federal government in order to do it, they did it on

its own. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, why are you

procrastinating? Why, this year for example, are you dealing with the federal

government in the first place, can the Premier answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government is dealing

with the federal government on the issue, and if anything is done, we want to

try and share the cost of doing it. We want to recognize that the major part of

our unemployment problem is caused by what has happened in the fishery. If you

look at the figures, and if you look at the unemployment insurance changes - if

you look at the figures you will see very clearly that when you take fisheries

out of the equation the growth in employment in this Province was the highest of

any Province in Canada. The same is essentially true over the last three

quarters. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is good general performance in the economy. The

primary problem rests with the fisheries and the primary responsibility for that

rests with the federal government. We want to work with the federal government

to resolve the overall economic and employment problems, not work against them.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I think three of the last four

years this Province has had a negative growth in the economy. The moratorium

came into effect two or three years ago; this is not a new phenomena. Last year

the government funded its own emergency program; the year before you funded your

own emergency program so that explanation does not hold any water, Mr. Speaker.

In the past also, I say to the Premier, you have not budgeted

in fact for emergency job creation programs yet you came up with $2 million in

'91, $5 million in '92 and $6 million in '93 and we all know that the deficits

here were worse then than were projected for this year. The difference, Mr.

Speaker, is that the people in this Province have a greater need than they have

ever had in each of the other three years, that is the real problem that we

have, so this whole thing, I think, boils down to the Premier. The buck stops

with the Premier, and I want to implore him, I want ask him, I want to plead

with him if necessary, will he make a commitment today to undertake your own

emergency jobs program; would he do that today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the policies of the former

government wrecked the economy of this Province. Now we spent the last six years

trying to put it back in some kind of a rational, affordable basis that we can

have a successful economy for the years to come. If we had not taken these

steps, Mr. Speaker, we would be bankrupt in three years from now because of the

policies followed by the former government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to straighten out this

god-awful mess that they created. It is a difficult challenge to do it, it is

made even worse by the political pandering that we now hear from the opposition

to try and promote their own political interest in this way.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is dealing effectively with the

federal government to try and deal with this problem. Leave it with the

minister; we hope we can find some solution that will be helpful.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his government

have been in office now for six years; they are heading into their seventh year

in another few months, so to blame everything on the past is irrelevant to the

people out there who are starving to death and cannot put bread and butter on

their tables, that's the problem.

Now, does he understand? Do you -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is false.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That is not false. It is not false. I can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I can tell him, Mr. Speaker, it is not false.

Does he understand at all, does he have any feeling, does he have any compassion

or understanding for these people, or does he dismiss it all and say it is a

figment of our imagination? Is that what he is trying to say here today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this

Province starving to death, and it is the same kind of statement that was made

by the Member for Mount Pearl the other day; the same kind of shocking,

obscenely wrong statement for the member to say that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody in this Province is starved to

death. We have a system, I did not invent it, I don't take credit for inventing

it. We have a system that looks after people with need. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

hon. members opposite want to thwart the system and create scare tactics, as

they are doing, for their own political self-interest. Well, Mr. Speaker, this

government is not going to run simply because hon. members opposite are trying

to feather their own political nest.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have heard hundreds of people

telling me for the last several months that they thought the Premier was out of

touch. If even there was an example of it, it was the statement he just made,

that somehow this is something we are conjuring up. My god, what's wrong with

the Premier? Doesn't he understanding what is happening to the people out in

rural Newfoundland, in particular? Does he have any understanding? Does he have

any compassion, and is he at all interested in these people? Can he answer that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not

conjuring up the unemployment problem. The hon. member didn't conjure up the

recession we have gone through. He didn't conjure up, although he contributed

to, the financial mess that this Province is in. All those things are real. What

he did conjure up is the statement that people in this Province are starving,

and he ought to apologize to the people for it.

MR. SIMMS: Is that right now?

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we will see if there are people

who are starving in this Province. We will see if the Premier has any

understanding of it. We will see in due course. We will tell him of some

examples, and he will have to eat those words, I say to him. That's what he is

going to have to do.

Now, this government, under this Premier, spent $6 million

last year for lawyers and people like the Rothschilds on a scheme to sell Hydro.

Taxpayers are going to end up paying millions of dollars more than they should

pay because of some cooked-up scheme to give your good Liberal buddies hospital

contracts. You can afford $600 a night for a hotel in Japan, which is more than

some people live on in this Province. What they want to know is, on the one

hand, is it okay to help your friends and on the other hand do absolutely

nothing to help those people who are starving in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that I

have cut the hotel costs in half from the former Premier, in half or less.

That's what I am doing to help the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that what we have done to

put Hydro in shape will save millions of dollars for the taxpayers of this

Province, to try to get this Province out of the god-awful financial mess that

the former government put us in, and we will succeed, Mr. Speaker, all to the

betterment of the people of this Province. For the Leader of the Opposition to

now resort to these kinds of low political commentaries is really unworthy of

anybody who occupies that position.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations. Over the past several weeks the minister had led us to believe

that there was going to be an emergency employment program. In answering our

petitions and in general conversation, the minister made it clear that he had

hoped to announce a program either last week, or at the latest, this week. Now

we are led to believe there will be no announcement. I ask the minister: What

happened and who is responsible for putting a stop to his plans.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the

hon. member that we are still dealing with Mr. Axworthy. What the hon. member

needs to know and understand is that all the other employment generation

programs we have had throughout this year have been cost-shared with the Federal

Government. And we feel, as the Premier has already said, the turmoil that this

Province finds itself in now can be attributed to what has taken place over the

last four or five years with the moratorium problem and the spin-off to it.

Now, we understand the need. We are trying to negotiate and

we are continuing to negotiate, and my understanding is that I will have a

response from Mr. Axworthy before the end of the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member that I have

absolutely nothing to do with what Mr. Baker would say or do. I can't control

Mr. Baker's comments. I'm only telling hon. members, telling this House, telling

the people of the Province, that we are still talking to Mr. Axworthy and we

will continue.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the Member for Ferryland, about

Nova Scotia, the 1.2 initiative cost-sharing incentive -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me correct the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

This year, we put $5 million in a similar program. The member should get his

facts straight.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the

Premier. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit several communities in my

district. I witnessed, firsthand, many cases of extreme hardship. One of my home

visits involved a mother of three small children, who showed me an empty

refrigerator. That mother had nothing to feed her children. I ask the Premier:

What would he say to that family?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we maintain a system in this

Province, and have done so for many years, of providing social assistance to

people who need it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, they get exactly the same as

everybody else receiving social assistance. To that person I say: I wish I could

produce a job for her or for her husband. I would like very much to be able to

do that. Unfortunately, due to the devastated mess in which the former

government left this economy, due to the collapse of the fisheries, it is very

difficult and slow-going to restore the jobs that our people need.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of an excuse is that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier: I wasn't part of the former government,

Mr. Premier. I don't think the Premier understands how desperate things are in

this Province. I know many government members don't, judging from the laughter

that we get every time we present petitions in this House pleading for help for

people in desperate need of help.

Now, I ask the Premier: Will he come with me today to my

district? I will drive, if that happens, so that he can see for himself,

firsthand, people living in desperate situations, to see what I have seen. Will

the Premier accept my invitation and come with me today to see this in my

district?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to fall for

that silly grandstanding. He can see exactly what he is talking about in every

single district in this Province, including streets in the city of St. John's.

MR. SIMMS: You just said it's not true - make up your

mind, man, you're a walking contradiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, could we have the Caboto

minister silenced over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! (Inaudible) question and

answer (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Speaking of wasting money and putting

some people back to work, use some of the money you have wasted already on

studies you are not going to do anything about, I say to the minister.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. In recent weeks, Mr. Speaker, we have heard more people than

expected have applied and indeed have qualified for benefits under TAGS program.

Now, I have heard the number of 6,000 to 8,000 people bandied about, of new

entrants who have been accepted for the program. I am wondering if the minister

has inquired about this, and can he tell us actually what the number is and what

percentage of the extra claimants who have been accepted are from this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't share with you the exact numbers, but I will get

those numbers for you and table them in the House.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, our information is that

about two-thirds of the extra claimants who have qualified are from the Atlantic

Provinces and Quebec region. As we know, the Federal Government has already

announced that there will be no new funding. The $1.9 billion that was allocated

is all there will be, and this Province was supposed to receive about 80 per

cent - I think 77 point-something per cent, we were supposed to receive.

Since most of the new claimants are from outside this

Province. Can the minister tell us how much TAGS money will be shifting from

this Province to the other Atlantic Provinces and Quebec? The information I have

is that the amount which will be shifted from this Province to other provinces

is between $200 million and $300 million. Can the minister confirm that for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: No, I cannot confirm those figures for you but

I will look into it and bring the information back to the House.

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

Opposition House Leader.

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

ask the minister, has he talked to his federal counterpart about this situation,

how this money will be redirected from this Province really to claimants in

other provinces? Now there is only one of two ways to do it, either you reduce

the weekly benefits that those who are now receiving will get, we have already

seen a reduction in TAGS by some 6 per cent, or the federal government will

speed up the rate and the process at which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are

dropped, the fishermen and plant workers are dropped from the TAGS program. So I

am asking the minister, has he any idea and has he consulted with his federal

counterpart? Can he give any direction or information to the House to tell us

what the federal government indeed will do since most of this money will go from

our Province, out of the pockets of our people, to people in other provinces,

can he give us an answer to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Indeed I have had

discussions with my federal counterpart and discussions are ongoing on this very

issue. The whole issue of TAGS is of course of very much concern to both this

government and the federal government. I cannot share with you any more

information then that at this present time.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the last few

weeks that we have been assembled here in this Chamber there have been

considerable concerns express by the Opposition as to corruption at the highest

levels of this particular Administration. We have received word that there might

also be trouble at the bureaucratic level. I would ask the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology is it a fact that there is a police investigation of one of

your officials underway and if that is a fact, could you please enlighten us as

to the matter?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true that there is a

police investigation underway. I don't think it would be appropriate at this

time to say anything more than that, in fairness to both the police and the

individual involved.

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

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

the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, since 1989 and in fact, just before Christmas in

1989 this government made some dramatic changes to the way they administer the

MOG, the municipal operating grants to municipalities. For example, the roads

component was reduced from $2,000 a kilometre to thirty-nine and now back up to

$500. Snow clearing; just recently the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation told municipalities that next year they will possibly have to pay

$3,500 a kilometre for their snow clearing services. Now, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has introduced another bill, Bill

62, and I quote,

Section 38 (1) "The minister may by order transfer a highway or

a part of a highway that is under the jurisdiction and control of the department

to a municipal authority in which that highway is located." Mr. Speaker, could

the minister now tell the House and explain, after just playing Santa Claus to

ten or eleven real estate people around the Province, why he is now playing

Scrooge to all the municipalities in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say it is a

relief to be called Santa Claus and not what I was called by some of his

colleagues over on the other side last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And also Scrooge, it is a welcome relief to

hear that name.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member opposite should realize, we

are talking about two different departments. The Department of Works, Services

and Transportation are responsible for roads outside of municipalities, that is

the role of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. What has been

happening in the past is that we are duplicating services within the

municipalities. When a town council or a community becomes incorporated they

really and technically, under the Municipalities Act, become responsible for all

the services within their jurisdiction. We are bringing in and putting equipment

in our department to deal with the network of highways within the Province. What

we are doing here, the same as we are doing with the snow clearing, any town

that has become incorporated, is to put the responsibility of those community

councils and town councils to take responsibility for the services which they

should provide under their own tax assessment in their own communities. It is

just as simple as that.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister realizes - and if

not his colleagues surely do - that if this piece of legislation goes through in

this Province, if this piece of legislation is passed in this session of the

House of Assembly, or the next one, you can be assured that 60 per cent to 70

per cent of the municipalities in this Province will be literally bankrupt.

Could the minister today stand in his place in the House and tell the House that

he will withdraw this piece of legislation and will not have it go through in

this session?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I will assure the hon.

member is that this government, this department, this minister will not see any

community, any town council, or anyone else go bankrupt in this Province.

Sensationalism is again what the Opposition is playing over there, jumping to

conclusions. What we are doing, very clearly, as we've done with the snow

clearing, we told all the councils around this Province that we would not see

any community council stuck with no capability of snow clearing. Where there is

a reasonable ability for a community council to do its own services they will

have to do it. Where there is not we, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, will work with the community councils to do whatever is necessary.

A greater responsibility must be put on where the ability of

a community is able to pay the taxes. We know, and all hon. members opposite

know full well, that there are hundreds of communities in this Province not

charging a reasonable amount of taxes to the residents of their communities.

That is a well known fact. Where there is ability to collect and pay, a greater

role of responsibility under the act will have to be followed by the

communities.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to

the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the

minister rise in his place and tell the House today that he agrees with his

colleague the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that along with

what is after happening to the snow clearing policy, the $3,500 a kilometre, and

if this piece of legislation is introduced into the House and has to be followed

by municipalities, that this will inflict untold misery on municipal councils in

this Province? Could he stand in his place and confirm today what the minister

has said, that this will not have an affect on municipalities in the Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Let me say to my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that

he knows as well as I do that a large number of communities in the Province have

been I suppose taking advantage of the government for some time in regards to

snow clearing. In my town for example as a town council we do I would say 99 per

cent of the roads, and then there is a small

section that the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation does.

I know what the member is saying and I can honestly say to

him that I can reiterate what my hon. friend the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation said. There will be no town in the Province suffer to the extent

that they are going to go bankrupt or they can't provide funding to snow clear

the roads. We've made an agreement in a number of cases with communities already

where if they are stuck for funding to pay that bill to Works, Services and

Transportation, then some arrangements will be made to accommodate them

Let me say to the member, I agree with this piece of

legislation. I would like to see the piece of legislation go a step further, and

that piece of legislation hopefully will go a step further. That not only are

there people living in municipalities in this Province who are paying taxes on a

yearly basis, but we have thousands of people out there serviced by Works,

Services and Transportation who don't pay a cent for their services. I think

that whole question has to be addressed. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all

honesty, that the hon. member and I on numerous occasions over the years, with a

number of his colleagues on the other side, sat and discussed that particular

point for years. I can honestly say as well that in most cases everyone who

discussed that point with the Federation of Municipalities and other groups

agreed with the principle of everybody paying an equal share.

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

West.

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

Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister is aware that a few years ago Hydro installed a

$10-million gas turbine at Holyrood. Now the gas turbine is there for one

purpose, which is to start up the main turbines in the event of a total power

failure or a blackout.

During the past weekend, Mr. Speaker, why did Holyrood have

to get a line in from Bay d'Espoir to start the main turbines, and could the

minister tell us what really happened to the gas turbine?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro, at no time had to get a

line in from Bay d'Espoir to start the turbine; at no time. Unfortunately, when

line 217 from the west was energized on Saturday I think it was at 1:35 p.m., a

breaker at Holyrood faulted and as a result of that fault, the Holyrood turbine

stations were tripped out of the system and just by the automatic processes that

are in place, that had to go down; unfortunately that happened and very shortly,

within a few hours everything was back and on stream again on Sunday, so there

is no reason to go asking any particular questions about Holyrood.

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

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the minister

had to say but he never gave a clear indication - is that Hydro spent over $10

million to put that system in place and why did it fail, why was it down, why

did it not cut in and fired up the main turbines that it was supposed to do?

What caused the failure?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, from what I have been told by

Hydro, the Holyrood system went down because the breaker faulted when line 217

from Bay d'Espoir was energized and tripped the system. That is what happened; I

have no other information I can add to that, there was nothing unusual about it,

it happened.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister then.

Would he tell us whether or not maintenance was performed on that gas turbine

over the years since it was put there and while it was not being used; and, Mr.

Speaker, let the minister answer this question: Did they put off regular

maintenance on the gas turbine generators in order to pay the privatization bill

of Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.

In the last few years, I think probably within all the years

that I have been energy minister since 1989, the three major turbines at

Holyrood have all gone through significant maintenance. I believe units 1 and 2

have been totally completed in the last few years and unit 3 is the one that has

gone through some major refit in the last year or so, so we have certainly not

put off maintenance at Bay d'Espoir; there is no question of a maintenance

problem in this case.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services.

Recently, a constituent of mine came to visit me who was a

recipient of social service herself. She went to the department to request

emergency funding to send her to Halifax because her twenty-three-year old

daughter, who is being operated on was in danger of dying, she received the call

from Halifax General. The social worker then told her that she could not provide

that emergency funding to send her there even though her daughter was in danger

of dying, because her twenty-three-year old daughter was not a dependent child.

Let me ask the minister this: Do you think that is fair and

compassionate?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your question was: do I think it is fair? Sometimes, a lot of

things in life are not fair and not equal but there are policies and I think

that the policy in this case was adhered to; you and I have already had a

discussion on that matter.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there are exceptions to every

rule.

This lady's daughter was sent to Halifax because an operation

could not be performed here; she was in danger of dying, she received a call

from the surgeon who left the operating room, she had to borrow the money, $300

to get there and when she got there, the Department of Social Services in Nova

Scotia paid for her food and lodging while the Department of Social Services

here did nothing.

Madam Minister, could you review the situation again and look

at this case as being an extraordinary case and see if you could provide some

funding for this lady?

Thank you.

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

I would like to advise the hon. member that I will certainly

look into the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. FITZGERALD: Bonavista South, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

minister -

MR. SPEAKER: North, south...

MR. FITZGERALD: I do look after some constituents there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Back in April, when the 1994-'95 Budget was presented,

government changed the way of tax exemptions for self-employed fishermen. Under

the new way of doing business, the fishermen pay taxes and then remit their

invoice to the provincial sales tax office for a PST refund. I ask the minister

if any problems are being experienced with this new way of doing business?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will check, find out, and get back to the gentleman.

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

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

House of Assembly Mr. Tom Hutchings, the Economic Development Officer for the

town of Ramea, and Mr. Jim Marsden a town councillor and Chairman of the Ramea

Economic Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following

reports, the financial statements March 31, 1994 for the Livestock Owners

Compensation Fund and also the financial statements March 31, 1994 for the

Newfoundland Crop Insurance Fund.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, my new critic across the way

asked me three questions yesterday regarding Ashley Holdings, Fortis

Incorporated, and R & M Holdings on some leases, so I will table those answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I do not have time. If members opposite

cannot read we will get somebody to read it for them.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of thirty-four

people in my district from the community of O'Donnells. The petition, to the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer. We the

undersigned do hereby request for the Minister of Employment and Labrador

Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to generate desperately

needed employment in our communities. As in duty bound your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that I have had

the opportunity to present on behalf of the people in my district in relation to

some type of emergency employment program. I say with all honesty that I believe

the present Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would like to stand in

this House and announce something, but I believe there is something gone wrong

with the whole plan because there was something in the works, Mr. Speaker.

Questions were asked today in regard to exactly what happened

but we did not get the answers.

There was a feeling in this House last week that something

was going to be announced. I say it is desperate. People are in a desperate

situation. The Premier may not believe it. The Premier may not realize that

people are in desperate situations in this Province but he does not have to go

too far from the Confederation Building steps to see it. He does not have to go

too far from the overpass in St. John's to see it, and he definitely does not

have to go too far within his own district, I believe, to see it.

Mr. Speaker, people for the first time in their lives have to

resort to social assistance. People who are proud to get up in the morning and

go to work in this Province have been put on the back burners by this government

and have been laid to the wayside over the past couple of years. We stand up

here and we blame it, and we hear government members blame it, on what happened

here for seventeen years, and what happened here with the previous government.

They have had six years in office and have come forward with

an emergency employment program every year since. This is the year that the

people in this Province are in the most desperate situation they have ever faced

and we see no employment emergency program. There is something wrong, something

wrong with the thinking on the other side of the House if they think that people

in this Province do not want, or do not need, an emergency response program.

I was in seven different communities in my district yesterday

and I am telling you that I had people who I had to drop in and see. Sure, there

are some people who are finding it a bit harder than they use to, but there are

people who are desperate. I am not joking when I bring these petitions to the

House of Assembly. This is a very serious situation.

I was in a home yesterday and I was talking to the lady about

Christmas and she said to me, Fabian, toys will not be under the tree here, our

priority is food on the table and we really do not know if we will have that.

For some reason or other people do not believe these things are happening here

in this Province, but they are, Mr. Speaker, and all you have to do is go around

this Province and you will see it.

We have presented several petitions and I am surprised that

over the past couple of weeks petitions have not been coming from the other side

of the House of Assembly. I am sure there are people in every district in this

Province who are finding it difficult. There are people in every district in

this Province who would like to hear the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations stand in this House and announce an employment generation program.

Mr. Speaker, in the next couple of months there will be

thousands of people in this Province who will be dropped from the TAGS program.

Thousands of people in this Province who have been depending on NCARP and TAGS

for the past two years will be dropped from this program come December 31, but

those people have had, over the past year or two, at least some type of income.

I was in a home yesterday where it has been two years since

the father in the home has found work - two years. He travelled over to Nova

Scotia last year and was just lucky enough to find four weeks work, and these

people want this government to act. They want this government to come forward

with something to tide them over for a short time until hopefully something

improves.

Mr. Speaker, we say it here day after day after day, these

programs are not the answer to the problems that this Province faces at this

time. They are not the answer to the future of this Province, but they are

something. This is an emergency situation. We are not asking for an employment

program; we are asking for an emergency employment program, because this is an

emergency situation.

Mr. Speaker, the people have been calling our offices and

trying to explain their situations to us. I know sometimes when you are sitting

on the other end of the phone listening to it, you ask yourselves, `Can this be

true? Can this be the truth what these people are telling me?' I have come face

to face with it. I have come face to face with this reality, and I believe that

something has to be done. I believe the government has a role to play. We cannot

depend on the federal government to come forward with something. I believe that

the provincial government has to come forward with something themselves. This

government was elected for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have

to answer to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Therefore, I think there

is a need that they come forward with something and stop trying to be the

something for the people in this Province who are in desperate need.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to support

the petition presented by my colleague from St. Mary's - The Capes.

While maybe the Premier and his colleagues might not realize

it, there are many, many hardship cases out there in the Province today. The

economy might be recovering, the Premier might say. We were part of a recession

for a number of years. The U.S. economy has moved out of the recession into

Canada, here in this Province. The Premier hasn't stood in his place for the

three years of real negative growth in this Province and applauded the comments

of this government on what they are doing. He hasn't stated there are 12,000

less people in the workforce in this Province today. He hasn't stated there are

19,000 more people on unemployment insurance in this Province today, and there

are mixed signals coming from this government, I say to the Premier.

The Member for St. John's South and the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations did give the impression, and hopefully it will

come, that there is going to be a program. The Premier put an end to that. His

press release today - the Premier rushed up to the member yesterday: Now, Tommy,

we can't have all of those negative things coming out over the airwaves there.

You have to get out a release today and say there will be no more media contact.

You are embarrassing us over here. You have to do that, and nothing else.

When George Baker is dictating policy for this Province,

Brian Tobin and Lloyd Axworthy should not have a say in whether this Province

wants to go ahead with an emergency employment program. It has been done by this

government in power now, in 1989 and 1990 and 1991 and 1992 and 1993, when the

unemployment rates were lower, when hardships were less than they are today, and

they don't realize that the 6,000 people getting kicked off TAGS are getting

kicked off from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The 8,000 getting

added on are getting added on, most of them - and I hope the minister will have

the figures; he didn't today - are getting added on from Nova Scotia and other

provinces. We are going to have a very serious situation here in this Province

over the next few months, and this government buries its head in the sand and

either fails to realize the problem or they are ignoring the problem.

There is one of two things happening in this Province, and I

think it is a downright shame to see that happening here. It is a downright

shame when this Province has been crippled in the last year with the changing

U.I. regulation which has gouged $263 million out of the economy of this

Province, when regulations came into effect April 1 that haven't even been

publicized, and I found out about four or five weeks ago while inquiring for a

constituent. They brought in regulations now that if you only qualified this

year and last year with the minimum number of weeks, they will go back for 104

weeks, and they will say that you have a weak employment history; we are going

to disqualify you from meeting unemployment insurance for a specified period of

time.

I know constituents have been disqualified for up to eight

weeks before they can start drawing their claim, another eight weeks before they

get a cheque. Sixteen weeks. We are looking at a long period of time when you

file in October and you can't get a cheque until February. Because the

employment opportunities are not here in this Province by the very Premier who

was going to create jobs in this Province and bring home people, who said: Now

the time is right to bring in EDGE legislation.

The time was right in 1989, and maybe before 1989, and it

wasn't done. We can afford to do it now. You can't afford not to do it, I say to

the Premier. It should have been done before. Looking at long-term jobs in the

Province now, after six years in power, they are saying: We have to realize now

we have to have long-term jobs for this Province. It is time to wake up. If you

can't meet the commitments of long-term jobs at least you should go out and look

around the districts and try to take care of the people who are in need.

I have constituents in my district who - they came in under

emergency repairs and repaired a chimney and a stove at $4,000. They didn't have

a door on the house. There is no money in the program to put a door on that

house. No door to put on the house and their light bill could go through the

ceiling and they run and get it paid for, but they won't put a storm door - they

had one storm door and no inside door. The family put siding on half of the

house (inaudible) of that and they couldn't get funding to put a door on a

house. That person has moved out of their house now over the past several months

into a subsidized house here in St. John's where they are paying full shot of

the rent at double the cost.

That is the type of waste going on in government. It is about

time they passed aside the regulation, get the loopholes out of there, and put

the money where it should be spent properly in this Province, instead of wasting

money on numerous types of studies and programs that they have no intention of

carrying out. That is what we need to do here. We need to care for the needs of

people in this Province in the most efficient manner and it is not getting done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me

say to the hon. members opposite they must realize that there are twice as many

hon. members on this side of the House as there are on that side. I can assure

hon. members opposite that all hon. members on this side of the House are just

as concerned on behalf of their constituents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I said all hon. members are just as

concerned. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we have had extremely successful

programs in conjunction with the federal government these past years. What we

are seeing right now of course is the typical hype and the typical political

garbage that we've been hearing since the House opened.

I say to the hon. members, we will continue to talk to the

federal government. We think the federal government has a responsibility in this

program. The hon. member refers to the Nova Scotia program. I have a copy of

what is taking place over in Nova Scotia. That is certainly nothing to get

excited about. One point two million dollars that belonged -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, it is not more than we brought, I say to

the hon. member. We had a similar program this year that had $10 million in it,

not $1.2 million. This is an employer program, I would say to the hon. member,

it is a cost-shared program. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of

program that we've had for the last four years. I say to hon. members that we

will continue to do our best as a government to negotiate with the federal

government to try and resolve the current problem. Hon. members will have to

bear with us. When the time comes that we can announce whatever we have to

announce then hon. members will hear it the same time as hon. members on this

side of the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Motion 1.

But just to notify the Opposition House Leader that the bills that will be

amended - I don't know if the Member for Naskaupi gave them to you - anyway,

they are Bill Nos. 30, 31, 5, 51 and 32 in Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Okay. It will be Bill Nos. 30, 31, 5, 51 -

which is a technical amendment on wording which the Member for Ferryland pointed

out - and 32. I will send the amendments across in a second. We will call Motion

1, move the House into Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): The hon. the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Motion 1, deals with the loans made under The Loan and

Guarantee Act, and it is a normal bill that is done each session. This

particular bill contains one clause which amends the

schedule to The Loan and

Guarantee Act, 1957 as follows; - no, Mr. Chairman, five clauses. First of all,

there is a $500,000 loan guarantee for Hotel Buildings Limited. This was

necessary because of what is happening in terms of the Holiday Inns. There has

been a court case ongoing as to the ownership of Holiday Inns and until that

court case is finally settled, there are certain things that we are committed to

do in order to retain the link with the chain and we have authorized up to

$500,000. Now, we will probably need $250,000 - $300,000 of that amount but we

have authorized up to $500,000.

Clause 2 of the bill is an extension of the $1 million loan

guarantee to A.L. Stuckless and Sons of Glenwood. This was originally done in

1987 and has once again been extended. This company has a couple of hundreds

employees, is doing extremely well - is getting into the export market and has

undergone some expansion in recent years. So that is Clause 2, A. L. Stuckless

and Sons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) lumber.

MR. BAKER: they are into lumber. They also work in

conjunction with both Kruger and Abitibi in terms of pulpwood, and they do an

exchange of saw logs and they deal in lumber. They have gotten, in a fairly big

way, as I said, into the export market as well.

Clause 3 of the bill, an extension of Carroll's Store and

Fisheries Limited, $50,000 guarantee.

Clause 3(b), the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited

which would reduce the guarantee to $1 million and we are doing an extension on

this reduction.

Clause 3(c), the Labrador Inuit Development Corporation and

loan guarantee of $300,000, Mr. Chairman, is now due to expire on May 31, 1995

and this is an extension beyond that date.

Clause 4 of the bill would deal with an extension to a

$700,000 loan guarantee to James Doyle (Sr.) and Sons Limited and this would

approve the extension to July 31, 1995.

Clause 5(

a) would extend the expiry date of a $400,000 loan

guarantee for Atlantic Group Limited.

Clause 5(

b) would extend the $600,000 loan guarantee for

Earle Brothers Fisheries Limited.

Clause 5(

c) would extend the loan guarantee of P. Janes and

Sons Limited, the $800,000 guarantee.

Clause 6, Mr. Chairman, would amend the

schedule by extending

the date of expiry of a $500,000 loan guarantee for the Torngat Fish Producers

Co-operative Society Limited and that extension will last until May 31, 1995.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is the normal bill that is introduced

each year to deal with any extensions or increases in terms of loan guarantees

that were dealt with by the Province.

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

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

This is a pretty routine piece of legislation that we deal

with each year, but there are a couple of questions basically that I have for

the minister, not understanding what all of the companies do, I guess - of

particular note, with the Labrador Inuit Development Corporation Loan of

$300,000. I am just wondering what that money is for? What are they doing with

that? I am sure the minister, when he responds, will answer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: $300,000 - I am just wondering what it

is for, that's all, it is no big matter. I note, as well, that there is a number

of loan guarantee extensions here for a number of fish companies and I think it

is fair to say that the number of loan guarantees for fish companies, I guess,

has diminished, quite naturally, but obviously, these companies are still doing

some processing and whatnot, and I am just wondering - I guess we will be back

next year extending the loan guarantees again for another year. Is that

basically what we are facing here?

MR. BAKER: Normally, if you don't extend the loan

guarantee, you cause the business to go bankrupt, and as long as there is no

increase we generally extend unless there are some circumstances to indicate

that by causing the bankruptcy, that will be a positive circumstance.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, my colleague, the Member for

Ferryland, ask the question: Has government had to bail out or pay up any of the

guarantees in the last couple of years because of what is happening in the

fishery. Maybe when the minister closes debate and he responds, he can just

answer a few of those questions; those are all the concerns I had about it. Mr.

Chairman, I don't know if my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl and the

finance critic, wants to have a word on this.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to take this opportunity to ask the minister, as

it relates to the first item there, the loan guarantee for Holiday Inns, would

the minister like to update us on where we are now with that corporation, Hotel

Holdings Limited being a wholly-owned provincial corporation. Do we still have

ownership and have the leases been renegotiated with Atlific Inn, that was

current a few months ago, I think? And I don't think the minister ever told us

what the resolution to that was, it was a question of whether or not they had

the right now to buy it out for a dollar - or what the purchase price might be.

Will the minister be able to give us an update on that?

MR. BAKER: Yes, and I will check to verify it. I think

the situation is that we won the original court case, and there is a certain

time limit for an appeal process. I think Atlific Inn is now going through the

appeal process through the Supreme Court and at some point in time we will hear

whether the Supreme Court will hear this appeal or not, so until that happens,

it is kind of in limbo.

The government has certain obligations to keep up with

certain things until this is finally settled; I suppose we could move in and

take over now but if the decision were reversed, then that would cause other

problems, so I would say to the hon. gentleman, this is to provide enough - just

in case. To provide enough, we may need $200,000 or $300,000 of it but we need

to do certain improvements; there are roof repairs that had to be done and the

reason that we may not need as much as we guaranteed, is because this summer was

a particularly good summer. Originally, it looked as if we would need $500,000,

so the guarantee was given. But we may need not nearly that much, because this

was a good summer and the revenues were good in terms of Holiday Inns, but there

are some extensive roof repairs and things like that, that need to be done.

I would also like to point out a little bit of additional

information, that, you know, we have had enquiries from a couple of other groups

about our intentions with Holiday Inns and when we finally get it, what do we

intend to do with it and the suggestion has been made that we just go out to the

market to sell them and so on; that decision has not been dealt with by Cabinet,

it has not been made and we can't really do much else until that Supreme Court

situation is clear.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Maybe the minister could just clarify - he

said you are not going to need as much because we had a good tourist season this

summer. How would that impact on Hotel Holdings Limited? They are just a holding

company that owns the buildings and leases for a fixed amount to Atlific Inn;

Atlific Inn would get the benefit of a good tourist season. How does that impact

on Hotel Holdings Limited having money to do capital repairs?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: The hon. member is absolutely right, but I

mean, because it was a good season, then Atlific, which runs the Holiday Inn,

can afford to do some of those repairs out of cash flow and that, in essence, is

what is happening. So, as I said, we may only need $200,000 or $300,000 of that

guarantee. So they can now afford to do it, otherwise they couldn't. I mean, as

the hon. member realizes, they are paid an operating fee, essentially. The

profit comes back to Hotel Holdings Limited which then turns it over to

government if there is a big profit, so, in essence, the money they are spending

is really government's money anyway.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no difficulty with any of the individual loan

guarantees mentioned here, and would support their continuation. I would like to

ask the minister, though, whether or not a fee is charged for these guarantees

similar to the fee charged to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the Province

providing loan guarantees to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Perhaps if that is

the case, would he just refresh my memory, at least, as to what that fee might

be for these particular loan guarantees?

In addition, is there any set policy determined by the

government as to what situations or in what circumstances loan guarantees are

available from the Province, or is it done on an individual case-by-case, ad hoc

basis - that if some company or proposal seeks the support of government for a

loan guarantee they come and make their case, and if they convince the

government to support them, they get it; if they can't, they don't. Is it done

on a case-by-case ad hoc basis, or is there some overall policy that is set down

by Cabinet as to the types of circumstances under which government is prepared

to give loan guarantees to individual operations? Is there some program that has

specified policies and criteria that are open for all to see and determine

whether or not they can apply and fit into the government's loan guarantee

program for particular industries?

As I said, Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with any of these

particular circumstances. I am familiar with most of these operations, or most

of these enterprises, obviously, not in detail, but I am aware of the activities

of these organizations and companies and I have no difficulty with the

guarantees as set forth therein. But would the minister indicate whether there

is a substantive policy that may be reduced to writing that sets forth the

criteria under which the government may make available this type of financial

facility? Obviously, it is of crucial importance to these particular

enterprises, and perhaps to many others who have current loan guarantees, and it

is obviously of great assistance in supporting enterprise within the Province

and making it possible for enterprises with debt facilities which they require

to operate, to be able to do so. Perhaps the minister could advise the Committee

what these policies might be.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East

if he could repeat the first part. My hearing device is not working. I must have

left it on overnight and the battery is not working, and I find it difficult to

hear the hon. gentleman. I didn't get his question about - I believe he

mentioned Hydro and the connection between Hydro benefitting, so could he repeat

that for me, please?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say, I sympathize with the Minister of Finance. I

sometimes have difficulty hearing things that are going on, particularly from

the great distances that we sit from each other in the House, but the question

was concerning charges for these facilities. Does the government charge

individual companies? What are the fees for the government providing these loan

guarantees, and are they similar to the fees, or the same rate, as might be

charged Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for the loan guarantee facilities

provided by the Province?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is a very sensible question. We charge a 1 per cent

guarantee fee for all of these guarantees. This is a policy that was brought in,

I believe, four or five years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is for a year, is it?

MR. BAKER: Yes, and that policy is applied to all of the

guarantees.

In terms of our general policy, our policy is to first of all

keep to an absolute minimum the number of loan guarantees we give and, number

two, to try to reduce the ones we have out there. Now, that is what we are

trying to do. It becomes rather difficult. Every now and then we table in the

House indications of loan guarantees that have been paid out and we then attempt

to collect on, so, by and large, that is our policy.

The hon. member will notice that there is one addition here -

the others were extensions - there was one addition because of a special problem

with the Holiday Inn chain that we presumably still own. That is the question

mark. That was a very special circumstance. We were obligated contractually to

provide these monies, and we did. This is the only new one. So, our attempt is

to reduce the guarantees that are out there and not to add to our indebtedness.

However, having said that, I can envision circumstances where

perhaps government would issue guarantees. Normally, the requests come through

either from Enterprise Newfoundland, that perhaps has a particular enterprise

that needs a guarantee and they want to go that route instead of an actual loan,

and so on, there may be requests coming from Enterprise Newfoundland, or from

the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology that would go to the Department

of Finance and Treasury Board and be analyzed. Then, a paper is presented to

Cabinet with that analysis. I say to the hon. gentleman, it is very difficult to

get a loan guarantee at the present time because of the past experience with

these guarantees, and this is not a preferred way to go. It is very difficult to

get loan guarantees now, but not impossible. There are cases, perhaps, where

this would be done.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the

guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to

certain corporations."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion 2.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion 2, again, is a

normal procedure each year. The bill has one clause which would amend the

schedule of the act, the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to add municipal

loans and guarantees issued during the period February 26 1994 to October 12

1994. In other words, in the period immediately leading up to the opening of the

House. These are the normal loan guarantees that are issued. As members can see,

they are from all over the Province. The length of the guarantee is indicated

after the amount. This is the normal municipal works loan guarantee program.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board has already stated, this is an annual thing to bring in and

update the - I never asked the question before but I will ask today: Why is it

always the date from February 26 to October 12? What happens to anything

in-between? I know it is just carried, I suppose, and comes back with the next

session of the House, and then it is included in the amounts submitted under the

guarantee of certain loans.

While I am speaking on this particular piece of legislation,

because this really comes under the auspices of the Minister responsible for

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I say to the minister about this Bill No. 62

that I brought up today, that this is going to have a direct effect on the

repayment by municipalities for their new formula for the repayment on capital

debt - no question. The minister, if I can remember, a few short months ago was

talking about approximately ninety to one hundred municipalities in the Province

that could not meet their commitments for repayment on capital debt. From now

on, if Bill 62 goes through and the threat of charging $3500 a kilometre for

snow clearing, you are going to have a real mess when it comes to repayment on

capital debt. There is nothing more certain than that, Mr. Speaker.

There are problems with municipalities this year because they

just cannot raise the funds. The thing with Bill 62, Mr. Chairman, is that this

is maintenance and snow clearing. It is not just snow clearing, it is

maintenance and snow clearing, year round, twelve months of the year for

municipalities. What I said today I stick by it, in saying that municipalities

in this Province will not be able to cope with it, will not be able to cope with

snow clearing and maintenance twelve months of the year looking after roads in

their municipalities.

The other thing is this, municipalities in the Province under

the Municipalities Act must submit a budget before December 31 of each year and

they must submit a balanced budget. They cannot submit a budget with a deficit.

They cannot do it and it is not suppose to be accepted by the minister

responsible for municipal affairs. I say to the minister without belabouring the

point on the Loan Guarantee Act that this should be taken under advisement, no

rash decision should be made with regards to Bill 62. Coupled with the decision

on snow clearing for municipalities in the Province it is going to be

devastating to municipalities and I say to members opposite that when the news

gets out to municipalities in the Province, that this is contemplated, and

especially if it goes ahead in the next few days, they will be deluged with

petitions and phone calls from their councils in their municipalities saying

what kind of devastating effect it is going to have on them.

I say to the minister opposite that if this goes into effect

your loan guarantees, the communities who now have loans out under the Loan

Guarantee Act will not be able to meet the requirements for the repayment on

capital debt under the formula they have today. You have ninety to 100

municipalities now who cannot meet their requirements and their commitments, but

you will have a lot more after, I can assure you.

With those few short comments, like I said, without

belabouring the point, I will have an opportunity to speak again later on. I

will just wait and see what the minister has to say on it.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I think I can on behalf of my

colleague, too, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, honestly say

that there are some problems out there. There are some serious problems in a

number of municipalities around the Province, and we know there are. The hon.

member knows that I am on top, I suppose I would like to think, that I am on top

of as much as possibly can handle in the Province when it comes to

municipalities, and especially when it comes to the financial ability of

municipalities in the Province to meet their commitments to their constituents.

I can say on behalf of the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, as well as myself, that he is as well. He has a number of towns

in his own community that are in some financial difficulty as well as I have,

and as well as the hon. member has. He understands that. We were discussing that

particular piece of legislation that he referred to earlier today, and hopefully

we will be able to give the member some answer on what exactly we are going to

do with that particular piece of legislation.

I am not at liberty to say what is going to happen to it, but

I think the member will be satisfied with it. I say to him that I do sympathize

with the plight of the municipalities. I really do not know at this particular

point in time what government per se is going to be able to do to cope with some

of the problems we have around the Province. It is a direct result of the

economic situation that we find ourselves in, especially with the downturn in

the fishery.

When you consider that 90 per cent of our communities are

fisheries related communities, communities who secured their livelihoods from

the fishery, and in a lot of cases secured their taxation base from the fishing

industry, fish plants, wharves, and so on, so, yes, Mr. Chairman, I will accept

the comments that the hon. member put forward today and I can assure him that

not only the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and myself, but all Cabinet ministers are cognizant of the

problems that municipalities have in the Province, and hopefully in the new year

we will be able to address some of those problems.

Thank you very much.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the guarantee of the

repayment of loans made to, and the advance of loans to certain local

authorities."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution

and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Order 20,

Bill 42.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 20, Bill 42. The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing new to add to

this particular bill. This is the bill to accommodate the purchase of lands from

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper, and Kruger. If any members opposite have anything

to say, I ask them for their comments.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When this bill was introduced the other day, I spoke at some

length about some of the problems that I had with it. Like I said from the

outset, I have absolutely no problem with the principle of the bill - absolutely

none. In fact, I said that I would agree if the government opposite went further

in obtaining more lands from both Abitibi-Price and Corner Brook Pulp and Paper.

A couple of the areas that I did have problems with, one is

Schedule B whereby the lands other than the lands that have been taken out and

exempted for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper for the transmission lines, the flow of

water from Main Dam, the overflow of water through Junction Brook, and the

transmission from Deer Lake to Corner Brook, I have absolutely no problem with.

The thing that I have problems with, and I was just talking to the Premier about

it again today just before the House opened, is the land within the Town of Deer

Lake that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the transmission of

power, with the flow of water from Main Dam, or with the overflow of water out

of Junction Brook - absolutely nothing.

Those particular lands - and I am not saying for one minute

that they necessarily just have to give the whole works over. What I am saying -

I want the minister, and I am sure he will take this to heart - if there is any

development required, or any potential for development, which there is there now

in Deer Lake - the council has one

section of land there of between eleven and

fifteen acres that is owned by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that is ready to be

developed, that he, through his office, in conjunction with Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper, try to make it possible for this particular block of land to be

either sold or given, or something - some kind of negotiation to take place - so

this could be accommodated for the Town of Deer Lake.

The other, just as important, is that if there is anybody

there who has a deed - now, I realize that if anybody has a deed or a piece of

land of any type of conveyance whatsoever that was not registered, and anything

listed in this

schedule here, then they will be looked after. I understand that.

The minister told me whatever names here... Not only that, but the pieces of

property, the land sales that are partially completed will be looked after, but

what I am talking about are the people - if there is anybody who falls between

the cracks in this - for instance, I give an example, people years ago got the

property around the Spillway area there in Deer Lake, they never got title to

it, never registered it and all of a sudden someone else went in and bought it.

A gentleman's agreement in those days, $5,000, $3,000 you would buy the block of

land and probably the house in some cases and never, ever got it registered.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, Cormack is not the same way. Cormack is

all granted or leased from the Crown land. There is some on the back of Cormack,

yes no question, some on the back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Moving out your fence without permission.

MR. WOODFORD: Moving out your fence without permission.

But, Mr. Chairman, the minister knows full well that there are - and, like I

said to the Premier today, he said to me before the House closed, he said, `Rick

some of the problems that you've got with this...' I said, `yes, those are the

two main problems.' He said, `how come there is a problem with this particular

land in Deer Lake?' I said, Mr. Chairman - when I look back and see that just

seven or eight years ago - I got people now seven, eight, nine, ten, fifteen

years trying to get title and when I see, the minister knows full well what I am

talking about, I am not going to mention -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I am not going to mention, Mr. Chairman,

but there are pieces of land in this sold to people in the Corner Brook area and

other parts of the Province, that as late as 1986, some fairly substantial

amounts of money involved and a transaction was completed by Corner Brook Pulp

and Paper. Now if this can be done for some individuals in this Province, it can

be done for all. I am sure, I know with the names that I see here, that there is

no way they had a deed, no way they had a piece of paper, absolutely no way they

had anything from the past. It was done primarily in consultation and

negotiation with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. I say to the minister - for

example a relative of the former Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, Member

for Buchans in Howley, he's got eighteen to twenty inches of his house on a

piece of Kruger property and in the last eight to ten years cannot get anything

on it. Now that is not right, that has to be looked after. If they got something

on it, okay but other than that I think Corner Brook Pulp and Paper through the

minister's office and consultation (inaudible) should be looked after.

One other concern and I am sure the minister will probably

agree with me on this one and probably some other ministers will as well, the

six months in the agreement and in the indenture, it calls for six months before

there is any disposition of lands. I think it is six months isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Okay, well that is what I wanted to bring

up because if there are people - I got people now, I got four cases in Deer Lake

now, two with a certain bank in Deer Lake that are ready to go through and

another one is in a law office in Corner Brook now waiting. The only way he can

go ahead now with his mortgage is if the lawyers and the banks agree to let his

mortgage go through with the possibility or with the intent of this legislation,

based on the intent of the legislation but it has to be weighed by both the

lawyers and the banks. If that was dealt with - even in the next couple of

months, if the Crown lands office could deal with that the same as they could a

Crown land application and get a letter of intent or something from the Crown

lands office saying that this would be dealt with, well then the banks would be

able to complete their mortgage and let the individuals do whatever they want to

do.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll deal with special cases like that.

MR. WOODFORD: So that is the kind of things that I would

like to see addressed, Mr. Speaker. I am sure, through the minister's office,

some of those problems if they are brought up over the next month, two months,

two weeks whichever it is, if there is anything that comes from the minister's

office through Corner Brook Pulp and Paper most of this stuff, probably 99 per

cent of it, might be able to be addressed. It is not something that is out of

the way, it should be looked after for the good of the community and the good of

the individuals involved because it is very frustrating when they want to

renovate, they want to get a mortgage, they want to get title to their property.

It is something I think that all hon. members opposite can understand and agree

with.

Like I said, the principle of the thing, Mr. Chairman, no

problem. The majority of the things contained in the legislation, absolutely no

problem. In fact I would probably go further, but forget that for today. We will

leave that for another day. Like I said the other day, if I have to go out and

get a permit to cut 20,000 cubic metres of wood, I don't see why anybody else

shouldn't have to get a permit to cut 20,000, 40,000 or 50,000 cubic metres to

look after their needs. It has absolutely nothing to do - any company can come

in this Province today and wants to set up a sawmill, for instance, in Labrador,

and they came to the government, the government gave them a three- or four-year

guarantee of wood or 50,000 cubic metres a year for the next ten years, what is

wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. They don't tie up the land

for development, they don't tie up the land for the cabin development, they

don't tie up the land from access to waterways (inaudible) today, and so on. It

makes it easier not only for the individuals in the Province but also makes it

easier for the government to operate, and any government department to operate.

With those few comments I would like for the minister and his

Cabinet colleagues to take those few words to heart. If somewhere in the next

couple of weeks, and I know he will, have to deal with some of those problems,

then they do it with the concern of the people in the district at heart, and

deal with them properly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the comments from the hon. member opposite. Certainly we will consider the

concerns that he raised and address any particular issue as they come forward

and not apply that six-month time frame.

A bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement

Entered Into Between The Government Of The Province And Corner Brook Pulp And

Paper Limited." (Bill No. 42)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order No. 3, Bill No. 30.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, before speaking to Bill No. 30

I would like to move an amendment. Clause 18 of the bill is struck out and the

following substituted: "This Act comes into force on December 30, 1994." This

amendment would change the date on which this Bill comes into force. Seconded by

my hon. colleague for Humber St. Barbe.

Bill No. 30 is one of the most important pieces of

legislation that has come to the House of Assembly in years. The congratulatory

messages alone from across Canada tell how Newfoundland for a change is being a

province leading into the change in doing what is necessary to protect the

driving on our highways, highway safety. I just want to read briefly a media

release sent out by Mothers Against Drunk Driving across Canada and it supports

Bill No. 30 in the Newfoundland Legislature.

This is just briefly what it says, a couple of paragraphs:

Responsible drivers should support this bill change to affect change in the

driving patterns of impaired drivers who put everyone at risk, says John Bates,

Founder and Director of Public Policy in highway safety. With impaired driving

being the number one committed violent crime in Canada, counter-measures which

seek to prevent deaths need to be implemented which can identify drivers who are

taking dangerous risk and stream them into re-education programs and alcohol

assessment programs before they kill or injure people.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is enough to be said about Bill

No. 30, the importance of bringing in new measures, new regulations, that will

make sure that we have the safest highways possible in our Province. What we are

doing very clearly and simply is reducing the alcohol blood count down to .05, a

regulation that an individual would lose their licence for a twenty-four hour

period and a cost of $100.00 re-instatement fee. That is the clear message, Mr.

Chairman. Statistics on our highways in any one year, in 1993 for argument sake,

there were 2,182 injuries on the highways in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the last ten days?

MR. EFFORD: Unfortunately in the last ten days there were

ten people who lost their lives. I am not going to get into each individual

accident but we know very well the cause of one of the accidents in the park. We

know it was not caused by the condition of the highway. Number two, the accident

outside of Clarenville was not because of the condition of the highway. Number

three, the accident in by Benton, outside of Gander, there were not even

slippery conditions on the highway.

Mr. Speaker, those things will be released by the proper

authorities in the very near future. Hon. members opposite can play games but we

are talking about a very serious and a very important piece of legislation here.

I spoke to it before in the introduction in the House of Assembly. I do not know

of anybody in the Province not opposed to drinking and driving on our highways.

I will sit down and listen to members opposite if they want to make points

against drinking and driving on our highways. Drink if you wish. All we are

saying is do not drink and drive.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 30, the minister said, has gotten support. Well, I

imagine it would have gotten support. He was pressured last year to bring in

such legislation. He said at the time last spring that he would have it in place

by Labour Day. It was that important to the minister that he had forgotten about

it and he could not convince his own Government House Leader to give him the

time in the spring to get it in. It was that important, he is telling us now,

that he had to try and get it in at the last minute. He has awakened after a

spring nap.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the bears.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, and pretty testy, too, like a bear just

waking from a long hibernation.

To make highways safe is a very justifiable thing, but this

bill does not really attack those people who are repeaters of drunk driving,

those way beyond .08 when they get caught, those people who have their licenses

suspended. It makes no difference to some people if they lose their license

because they are going to drive anyway. There have to be stiffer penalties. Last

year in this Province there were some 8000 people who had been caught and blew a

warning, but if they catch the same number this year, 8000 multiplied by $100 -

they are not calling it a fine, they are calling it a re-instatement of your

license, is $800,000. They seem to be more after money.

They found in statistics that those people who are repeaters,

who are loaded drunk behind the wheel, cause most of the accidents. It is hardly

the ones between .05 and .08. The minister has accused me, among others over

here, of promoting drinking and driving, but if you allow .04 and .03, is that

not drinking and driving? I say that the minister is looking for extra money for

his government. Now, if he is looking for extra money for his government, if

they were putting in emergency job creation you would accept that.

There are parts of this bill that are good. An extra fine is

going to be put on people who go in and use handicapped space, $45 is not

enough, you probably should charge them $145 but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: The bill itself is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: The bill will come into effect December 30,

well that will make sure that there are New Year's resolutions way prior, in

advance, but the thing is, their concern is, a lot of people, very responsible

people who have a beer or two on their way home in the evenings, people who have

a beer or two on their way home from work were never a hazard on any of our

roads; these are the people who are now going to be penalized by the minister's

bill.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, well you are saying it too. If you allow

any percentage in there at all, you are allowing it up from .01 to .04 so

obviously, you are agreeing with drinking and driving, I am saying you are

getting after the people from .05 to .08 to get money off them.

What I have said, I have said before, but the minister is

putting undue pressure on responsible citizens when, the ones who are

irresponsible, the ones who are caught way, way over and above the legal limit,

there is not a stiffer penalty being put on them like it should.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the hon. member

opposite make some statements in this House of Assembly but it is too bad that

the people of this Province, and especially the people who had injuries due to

drinking and driving and people whose family members have lost their lives

because of drinking and driving, to listen to the hon. members opposite making

the statements that they are making today.

Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest problems that the law

enforcement agencies have in our Province and in our country, is to be able to

control and to be able to deal with the people drinking and driving on our

highways.

When an individual takes a breathalyser, there is a tolerance

point of .01 and if an individual is on the borderline of.08, then the police

officers cannot charge that individual, it will not stand up in the court. This

new regulation now, will give the authority to the law enforcement agencies to

be able to control those people who are drinking and driving at an impaired

level on our highways; .05, .06,.07 have been researched and stated by all the

professional people in Canada and in North America, that it is a state of

impairment, those people who drink and drive with that level of alcohol blood

count in their bodies.

To say that someone who can only drink one or two or three, I

cannot and I don't care to answer that question, I don't want to answer those

questions. That will be up to an individual when he or she is caught behind the

wheel of a vehicle at that level of blood alcohol count, and if somebody chooses

to go out there and to take a chance of causing a danger to his own life or to

somebody else's life, then they will pay the penalty. There is no question about

that, they will pay the cost, they will lose their license for a 24-hour

suspension and they will have to pay $100 reinstatement fee.

The nonsense that the hon. member gets on with, that this is

a money-making racket for government, that is just as silly, as everything else

they have said over there in the past three or four weeks since this House

opened, pure silliness, a money-making venture for government. If nobody drinks

and drives, then there will be no fees charged and that is what we are trying to

accomplish here, to make our highways safe, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has called for order. Unless we have order, we

won't proceed.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to have a few words on Bill 30. It is obvious that

there is a fair bit of this legislation that we all support, Mr. Chairman. I say

to the minister, I don't know if the minister fully realizes it or not that he

indeed is allowing, is tolerating, the consumption of alcohol and driving. His

bill allows that, permits that.

If the minister feels so strongly that there should be no

drinking and driving then let's have zero tolerance on our highways, I say to

the minister. Not .05, let's have zero tolerance. The minister's only defence of

the bill is to shout at us continuously that we support drinking and driving,

but the minister's own bill condones the consumption of alcohol and the

operating of a motor vehicle, I say to the minister. Don't blame it on us that

it is .05.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I want to say to the minister, they

don't even have the breathalyser set at .08, I say to the minister. Is he aware

of that? That when you blow into the breathalyser and fail it you will not fail

it at .08.

MR. EFFORD: That is because of the law.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because of what law? Now you are talking

about impairment. Someone had to come up with the level of .08 for the level of

impairment and conviction. What I'm saying to the minister is that if you blow

into the breathalyser now before December 30 - the minister is not listening to

me now. I'm trying to make a point to him. You will not be convicted now unless

you blow .10. You will not get a conviction.

Our point to the minister is this. If you don't want any

drinking and driving, zero tolerance, but the point is that you are targeting a

group of people in this Province who are not the problems on our highway, we say

to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not with people at .01 or .02 or .03 or

.04 or .05, I say to the minister. These are not the people who caused injuries

or were injured on the highways, and that is the point the minister is missing.

The Member for Placentia's point, and any other number of members have said, the

problem is not with those who stop in and have a beer and go home, or a glass of

wine and go home. He is not the problem. I don't know why the minister won't

listen. Why won't the minister listen, I say to him. Because -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you don't listen, that is your

problem. When you do listen you listen to the wrong people. All you mind is

Tories, Tories, Tories. That is your problem. That is why we are going to be

here next week, it's because of people like you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You better talk to your colleagues

behind you then. Because they care if they are here next week. They don't want

to be here. The sooner you get some sense into what you are doing here and

realize that your own colleagues don't want some of the things that you are

doing, as well as us, the sooner we will get out of here. If you want to finish

this House this week you better tear up a piece of legislation or two and not

have it brought to the floor of this Chamber, I say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. You better get rid of a piece of legislation or two

or we are going to be back here next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister won't listen to the point.

I'm quite prepared, Mr. Chairman, today, now, to let the minister.... Why

doesn't the minister if he is so against drinking and driving make an amendment

now for zero tolerance? Why doesn't he instead of making the amendment now to

bring this in on New Year's Eve - make this bill law on New Year's Eve now. He

couldn't get it done for Labour Day. He wants to have it done now for New Year's

Eve. Why don't you rise in your place now and move an amendment that we have

zero tolerance? Why doesn't he, I say to the minister.

If you are knocking us so much about supporting drinking and

driving and we are for drinking and driving and you can't believe it, get up and

move an amendment for zero tolerance. Then it is done with. There will still be

people drinking and driving, I say to the minister, he knows that.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he won't have people drinking and

wondering where they are.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is right. Stand up.

MR. EFFORD: You don't have to have alcohol to not know

where you are.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, and I say to the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an example of that, John.

MR. MANNING: There is a prime example with the Premier of

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The minister is impaired here in the

House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member -

MR. MANNING: There is a prime example with the Premier

with that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member who -

MR. MANNING: The Premier doesn't think there is anybody

hungry in this Province. He doesn't have any alcohol in him and he thinks it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The member whose judgement is most

impaired in this Chamber is the minister. It is quite obvious from what we have

seen coming from this minister the last two or three weeks, what he has brought

forward here, there is no doubt. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, his judgement is

impaired, there is no question this minister's judgement has become impaired

this last month. Really his judgement has become impaired and I am surprised

that his Cabinet colleagues are allowing it to go on because it is so

embarrassing for them and so damaging to the government, what this minister is

doing. His whole judgement is totally impaired.

So we don't support drinking and driving. I am going to

conclude my remarks by saying we do not support people driving and operating

motor vehicles while impaired but if the minister will do a foreign analysis of

statistics, he will see that the people who he has targeted are not the problems

on our highways. They are not the causers of accidents. They do not cause

injuries on our highways. They are those that are .10, .15 and over who causes

the problems on our highways and these are the people he should be targeting.

Now he cannot enforce, the minister is unable to enforce those blatant chronic

drinkers and drivers on our highways. He cannot enforce it. Now the big question

to the minister, how in the name of god does he hope to enforce this .05 level?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to do it himself.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would not be surprised. I would say

when I go home from here Friday he will be parked out by the Roaches Line with

the mobile breathalyser unit.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will have to find a phone booth so he

can change into his (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I wouldn't be surprised that he won't

be. I would say he will be out with the police. Now I want to ask the minister,

will he now get up and move the amendment? Does he want to go all the way? Does

he really believe that there should be no consumption of alcohol while operating

- will he get up now and make an amendment that - if it is zero tolerance on the

highways, I ask the minister? Now get in your place, get up out of it. No, he

will not get up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a

technical problem. I would like to move the amendment to Bill 30 so that Clause

18 of the bill is struck out and the following substituted, `the commencement

eighteen, the act coming into force on December 30, 1994,' seconded by the

Member for Eagle River.

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

MR. HARRIS: There is more than technical problems with

this act, Mr. Chairman. There is more than a technical problem on that side of

the House, Mr. Chairman, with this piece of legislation and with this minister

because what we have -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East.

I would ask all the other members please to allow the hon. member to be heard.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I say in all

sincerity, there is more than technical problems with this particular piece of

legislation. We are dealing here with a kind of a `me too' legislation that this

government is bringing in because it exists in some other provinces, for one. He

did not produce one single statistic, not one single piece of information about

drinking and driving related to statistics in this Province. He did not produce

one argument to justify why, between .05 and .08, there will be fewer accidents.

In all those provinces that have similar legislation not one province is able to

say that there was one less accident as a result -

MR. EFFORD: Are you saying then (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: I will deal with the minister's little

logical problem in a moment. I will deal with the minister's little technical,

logical problem in a moment. The minister says, am I agreeing with drinking and

driving? That is the minister's statement. I will deal with that in a moment but

the minister is bringing in legislation which he hopes will raise a considerable

amount of money. He wants to bring it in for the last end of the year cash grab

on the highways. He could not get it in before Labour Day when he figured he

might make a lot of money, and now he is bringing it in for December 31.

What he is saying is that we ought to have a law that says

you can't drive a vehicle when your blood alcohol content is between .05 and

.08, but he has provided not one shred of evidence that it will save one life,

save one accident. Not one shred of evidence has he brought in to that effect,

and he has done that without any justification and without any logical defence

to it, without providing any support for this bill. He has failed to recognize

there has been a vast change in public attitudes about drinking and driving over

the last number of years, resulting in a very serious decrease in the number of

charges, even, for impaired driving under the Criminal Code of Canada - a

drastic decrease in the number of charges - but with greater vigilance, I might

add, on the part of the police, higher penalties in the courts, greater

vigilance on the part of the RCMP and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and

yet fewer people charged, fewer people convicted.

There is a reason for that, and the reason is that public

attitudes have changed, that there is, indeed, a public attitude that opposes

drinking and driving. In fact, you can't go into a liquor store without coming

out with a bag which has a `Don't drink and drive' logo on it that everybody is

familiar with, so public attitudes have changed dramatically and as a result the

number of impaired driving charges has been reduced.

The minister is not satisfied with that. He wants to have

more people dealt with by the law, on very flimsy grounds and very flimsy

evidence, and anybody who opposes the minister's ideas on this he accuses of

being in favour of drinking and driving. He accuses anybody who opposes having a

ban on a blood alcohol content of .05 and .08 as being in favour of drinking and

driving. Well, I say to the minister, he has it in his power, as the minister,

if he really supports that there should be no drinking and driving, to legislate

it. I am sure that the Cabinet over there, one of his Cabinet colleagues, would

present the motion on his behalf. I see the Deputy Government House Leader

jumping at the chance. All he would need is a nod from the minister, and the

Deputy House Leader would be very anxious to change the .05 to .01, or .00. All

he needs is a nod. I see him nodding there now, but he needs a nod from the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I only have ten minutes, Mr. Chairman. I

don't think I will get the nod from the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation before then, but if the minister really believes that there ought

to be zero drinking and driving in this Province, then I say to him: Stand up

for what you believe in. Don't be a hypocrite in this House. Stand up for what

you believe in. If you really believe that, don't use weasel words. Don't act

like an Omadhaun. If you really believe what you are saying, then get up in this

House and have one of your colleagues move an amendment for .00. I say to the

minister, don't be a hypocrite; get up and do it, because we are sick and tired

in this House of this minister in particular, but lots of people over there,

saying one thing and doing another. He has gotten in this House every day since

he has been here -

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a

point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Chairman, time and time again hon.

members can use the word hypocritical, but to say that another hon. member is a

hypocrite, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to ask the member to withdraw that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, the member said that the minister was a

hypocrite. Yes, he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair didn't understand it that way but if the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I did use the word hypocrite but I say on the

point of order that I did not call the minister a hypocrite. I said to the

minister that he should not be a hypocrite, and that he could avoid being a

hypocrite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - by getting up and moving an amendment

consistent with what he has been saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that he can't say indirectly what he

can't say directly, and I ask him to withdraw that.

MR. HARRIS: If the Chairman thinks that I have called the

member a hypocrite then I would have to withdraw, but I did not call the member

a hypocrite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. member knows that if he disagrees with the decision

of the Chair that there is a procedure in place to challenge that.

MR. HARRIS: I would withdraw any unparliamentary remarks,

Mr. Chairman, and go on to say that the minister has an opportunity to avoid

being called a hypocrite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair cannot tolerate this kind of thing. I ask the hon.

member to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him. Flick him out.

MR. HARRIS: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman, but I would invite

the hon. member to do the hon. thing and act consistent with what he has been

saying in this House for the last month. That if he is opposed to drinking and

driving then he get on his feet and move an amendment. He has an opportunity to

do the hon. thing. I'm prepared to yield to the hon. minister if he wishes to

stand and indicate that he is prepared to do the hon. thing, that he is prepared

to do what he says and what he implies by his remarks across the House. If he

really thinks we ought not to have any drinking and driving that he should have

a law that is consistent with that.

If he is not prepared to do that then he should withdraw the

whole bill. He should withdraw the whole bill because he hasn't provided any

sensible reasons for it, other than his suggestion that anybody who opposes it

favours drinking and driving. That is all I've heard from this minister, that if

you don't support this bill you are in favour of drinking and driving. That is

all he said. That is the only argument he has given, the only one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 18, there is an amendment.

Shall the amendment carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 18, the amendment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I want to speak to the amendment.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not to take much time because we got

bogged down in this longer than I thought we would be today, Mr. Chairman, I

must say. It is because of the behaviour and attitude of the minister really

that we are bogged down on Bill No. 30.

The minister has moved an amendment here to clause 18 which

says this act comes into force on December 30. I'm just wondering really what

the minister's reasoning is for changing it to December 30, 1994. Why didn't the

minister say January 2, 1995? It is a peculiar date, I say to the minister. On

December 30, 1994, this minister wants to bring this act into force. Can he

amend the amendment?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure he can, yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why doesn't he amend it to make it

effective January 2 or January 3, 1995, I ask the minister?

MR. SULLIVAN: And move that it be deleted.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: Move that December 30, 1994 be deleted and

be amended (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Can I do that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, an amendment to the amendment.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is an amendment to the amendment in

order, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will second it - seconded by me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I move, seconded by my colleague, the

Member for Ferryland, that `December 30, 1994' be deleted, and change it to read

`January 2, 1995'.

On motion, sub-amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The sub-amendment was defeated. Shall the amendment carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 18, as amended, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill No.

30)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 6 - which bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 20? We have already dealt with Bill

20, I believe.

MR. BAKER: The description of the bill is in the long

title. It is "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The

Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies". (Bill No. 20)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 20, okay.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, it is an agreement

the government and its agencies that are imposed by the Province, and the

Province agrees to pay all taxes to the Federal Government owed by the

Provincial Government and its agencies to the Federal Government. So, in

essence, this is the agreement that we are discussing here today.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, Order 7, Bill No. 35.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 7, Bill No. 35.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very simply again, this is a minor change with fairly

significant consequences. What it does is, it tries to straighten out a

situation whereby, according to our Pensions Funding Act, employers in the

Province are required to make payments into an employee pension fund, and there

are some 300 of these funds around the Province.

In some instances, employers have been a bit lax in making

their payments, and what this does is, it says that in instances where they

don't make the payments in compliance with the act, they can now be assessed

interest and penalties in accordance with the act. This is to ensure that the

workers out there who have pension plans with their employers are protected, and

the proper funds are deposited at the right time and earn interest so that the

fund remains 100 per cent funded.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pensions Funding Act." (Bill No.

58)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 17.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, this is pretty

straightforward. It covers the $500 per kilometre for roads under the guidelines

under the MOG grant. I think most members understand what that means by now.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have already has something

to say on this particular piece of legislation when it was introduced by the

minister, but I can't help spending a few more minutes on it, especially in view

of the fact of what has happened since we introduced this particular piece of

legislation, and especially with the introduction of Bill 62.

Earlier today, I was speaking on the Loans Guarantee Act

about what would happen if Bill 62 goes through this Legislature, Mr. Chairman -

tie that in with the $500 that, I said today, went to $2,000 per kilometre back

in 1989 down to $39 and the minister last year put it up to $500, and is going

to put legislation in place now that would keep it at $500, and make sure that

the cap doesn't go up - what is it $41.5 million, I believe, the cap on the MOG

grants? I think it was $41.5 million last year and it won't go over that this

year.

Mr. Chairman, if members opposite would look at

section 3,

especially 3 (1) and see that the funding total by expressing the difference as

a percentage of the total local revenue incentive component - that is where it

will come from, the local revenue component. If a municipality is due any more

monies or funding from municipal affairs that is where it will come from, that

is where the reduction will come from, totally.

Now, I asked the minister when he introduced the bill - last

year, I think it was 13.5 or 13.2 per cent, I am not sure. I have it here in a

Ministerial Statement he made at that time. I think it was around 13 per cent,

the total reduction in the local revenue incentive component. I believe that was

across the board to keep it within the $41.5 million.

When the minister gets up he can probably answer another

question, one that is often asked by municipalities around the Province, and by

various individuals: Does he foresee anything in this upcoming Budget to raise

the cap from $41.5 million to probably $42 million, $43 million, or $44 million,

raise the cap on the municipal operating grant, because this, coupled with the

fact of what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done with

regard to snow clearing and with taking over the local roads - the thing with

this one that municipalities don't realize, is that this is a twelve-month

thing. This is not just snow clearing, it is maintenance, snow clearing, the

works, all maintenance on roads in any municipality twelve months of the year.

Mr. Chairman, I see the advisor to the Minister responsible

for Municipal Affairs there now. Now, if this is what the member is doing, I

doubt very much that the Member for Fortune - Hermitage - I hope he is not

passing that along to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, some

of that advice with regard to Bill 62. Because there are quite a few members

opposite - even the Member for Bellevue, if this goes through, he is going to

have a lot of problems in his district as well.

The Member for Gander was on council before, and probably the

Member for Harbour Grace, the Member for Fortune -Hermitage for sure, was on

councils, the Member for Carbonear, the Member for Port au Port; the Member for

Conception Bay South knows what is going on with her council out there.

Conception Bay South has a debt this year of something (inaudible) the Loans

Guarantee Act of $3.2 million. The most important thing here that the minister

is going to get hit with is that in another two weeks, municipalities have to

have their budgets in. They are not allowed to have a deficit budget. They have

to have a balanced budget and it has to be in, under the municipalities act, by

December 31.

The minister - in Bill 62 he brings it in, he has April 1

1995. If that goes in with budgets announced December 31, how - well, when it

comes to the Municipal Operating Grant it is nothing new. Because they changed

it the last couple of years, Mr. Chairman. Especially from 1989 on, the budgets

were changed three years in a row right in the middle of the fiscal year.

I ask the minister, when he gets up - one of the questions I

never asked before: Is there a possibility of raising the cap on the MOG for the

fiscal year 1994-1995? I would say, the answer to that is probably no, but in

any case, in speaking on behalf of municipalities in the Province - because I

don't see, by the way, and I don't mind saying it, I don't see anybody else out

there today speaking on behalf of municipalities in the Province. I remember the

days of old when there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I don't care who hears me say it, and I'm

not worried about the individuals on it. If they want to sit down and debate

with me what has been happening to municipalities in the Province, they can do

it any day of the week. But I'm telling you, someone has to say it. I say to the

minister and his colleagues, it is about time we started putting some type of

funding back into the Municipal Operating Grant, especially as it pertains to

the cap.

What members opposite don't realize is that when there is a

cap on something, $41.5 million, there is no incentive. The only incentive is to

put up the taxes so you can get the local part of it. But when you have

municipalities that have a certain mil rate, and if they put the mil rate from 5

up to 20 it is not going to make a heck of a lot of difference with regard to

the money they get in that municipality. Because the value of the properties in

that municipality are very low, and one of the reasons for the Municipal

Operating Grants under the equalization component is just that. Where there is a

variance and a difference between the cost, for instance, of a home, of $25,000

in Jackson's Arm versus one in Mount Pearl or St. John's of $90,000 or $150,000,

that is where the equalization component comes in. That is where municipalities

will pick it up. Under this, where there is a cap of $41.5 million, and where

the money is going to come from the local revenue incentive component of that

MOG, then there is no way in the world for them to get extra funding - none.

Now, having said that, I will say it is a lot better for

municipalities to be getting the $500 per kilometre than the $39 they got a

couple of years ago. If we are working up from $500 to $550 or $1,000 next year,

then well and good, municipalities have something to look forward to. But, Mr.

Chairman, when the minister closes debate on this, I would like for him to

address the question that I asked, especially as it pertains to the cap on

Municipal Operating Grants of $41.5 million.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, there wouldn't be anybody any

happier in this House than myself if I could come in here in April or May,

whenever it is going to be, or in March, and get up and say that the cap was off

the MOG. I don't need to go any further than that.

Let me make another comment to the hon. member. I'm surprised

he would say that he seems to be the only person in the House who is

representing municipalities in the Province. To be honest about it, he did a

good job when he was on the Federation of Municipalities, too. But I think I'm

going to have to take a little bit of credit here and offer a little bit of

credit to the Members for Waterford - Kenmount, Fortune - Hermitage and a number

of other people who served with me when I was on the Federation of

Municipalities. I will say this - and I don't think the hon. member will

disagree with me - I will honestly say that I think the two years that member

and myself were on the Federation of Municipalities, those were the two best

years we had in a long time, because we did a lot of work. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Grants Act." (Bill No.

17)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Order 9, Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 18.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: When we introduced this bill some time ago, the

hon. the Member for Menihek made some comments to me and we have spoken a number

of times about it since. I think there may be some way that we can accommodate

his concerns, but basically, Mr. Chairman, this is - the municipalities will no

longer be able to impose municipal taxes on the value of machinery and equipment

in their particular buildings. It will affect some municipalities in the

Province but not all. It falls in line with the Strategic Economic Plan as well

as the EDGE legislation and we, as a government, think it is good legislation -

legislation by the way, that the Federation of Municipalities has addressed as

well. Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, just a few short comments.

There are a few areas in the Province - my colleague, the

Member for Menihek - I know, the minister, when he spoke the other day in

defence of him, was going to look after the problems with regards to Wabush or

Labrador City. So I don't know - that is a fairly substantial amount of money

there, I think, something like $800,000 or $900,000 or is it $300,000? It is a

fair amount, a fair chunk of money but that is not - across the Province it is

more or less just an anomaly, really. There aren't that many that would be

affected by it. But this comes, I suppose, from a couple of years ago when the

changes were made through the charging of business tax from Newfoundland Hydro,

Newfoundland Light, and utilities such as cable companies and Newfoundland

Telephone and so on. That was done at that time and, as far as I am concerned,

it should have been done years ago. I suppose it would be tied into what has

been done now with regard to the - it will be just on the buildings and not the

contents, the equipment, because some of the equipment in some of those

buildings, Mr. Chairman, is fairly expensive stuff, especially hi-tech

equipment.

I used to always, when I was on council, look at the business

tax structure whereby you could charge an estimate. An individual or a business

person didn't have to come in but you could charge him an estimate - estimate

the business that he did and charge him out a business tax; but yet, a person

who came in, if he could come in and show his books, well, then, you could

charge him a business tax on the exact amount, on gross.

The difference with that, as the member knows, is that, say,

for instance, you had a little convenience store or an oil company, for

instance, doing the biggest kind of sales on retail and wholesale, and then you

had a retail outlet like a garage or something like that, you could probably

have $1 million worth of gas or one or $2-point million worth of sales in gas,

very little profit, but yet you had to pay your business tax based on your gross

revenue. Here is someone else who could come in with probably $150,000 worth of

sales, paying the same taxes on that gross, and probably had a 25 per cent or 30

per cent mark-up - and that is where the injustice was. So there was some

injustice before this particular piece of legislation - no question. That

injustice should be addressed now with this particular piece of legislation - if

a place like Wabush or Labrador City was addressed. There are some other areas -

the Member for Roddickton...yes, that sawmill down near Roddickton might be

affected. There are a few places around that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, well, anywhere that gives a grant in

lieu, well they wouldn't be - but anybody who has a bit of high technology or

anything at all in the building, I am telling you, they could be hit hard. In

any case, I think that the minister and his colleagues might be able to address

some of the concerns that some of those municipalities have, because there

aren't that many. I think, regardless of municipalities that come up on the

Municipalities Act - that is something I don't like about the Municipalities

Act. Most communities in the Province are covered by the Municipalities Act,

except for the City of St. John's, the City of Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Gander

or Corner Brook and a few places like that. Because it is under the

Municipalities Act, there is no flexibility, I think the minister should have

some flexibility in those cases to make some amendments to those particular

pieces of legislation.

A bill