March 19,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 9

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

We extend a cordial welcome to a group of fifty-five students

from Holy Trinity Central High, Norman's Cove, who are visiting us today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, As Minister responsible for the Human Rights

Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of this hon.

House that March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial

Discrimination.

This day marks the anniversary of the 1960 Sharpeville

massacre in South Africa when 70 peaceful demonstrators against apartheid were

killed and 180 others were wounded. In 1966 the United Nations declared March 21

the International Day for the elimination of racial discrimination in

commemoration of this tragic event.

In December of 1983 the General Assembly of the United

Nations called upon states and organizations to participate in the Program of

Action for the Second Decade to combat Racism and Racial Discrimination.

Canada's participation in this program was announced by the Prime Minister in

1986. Subsequent to this in September 1988 ministers attending a

federal/provincial/territorial conference on human rights agreed to commemorate

March 21 in all Canadian jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth year that this day has been

officially recognized. It is worthy of note that just this week we hopefully

have seen the last of the white only votes in South Africa where that country is

moving, albeit slowly, to the elimination of apartheid.

While this is a day singled out to focus attention on the

need to eliminate racial discrimination, we should keep this in mind every day.

We must confront and fight racism wherever we find it. The theme for this year's

campaign is an appropriate one. It asks the question: If you don't stop racism,

who will?

Mr. Speaker, we all have to do our

part in eliminating racial

discrimination, and I would like to fully endorse the recognition of this day

and every day as a day for the elimination of racial discrimination, and I

encourage hon. Members to do likewise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

Minister for providing me an advance copy of his statement. We on this side

certainly want to echo the remarks of the Minister. It is particularly

appropriate I think that this would come about on a day when 67 per cent of the

white population of South Africa voted yesterday or the day before - we got the

results yesterday - that they would go on with the reform that de Klerk has

started in South Africa with the intent of eliminating racial discrimination in

perhaps one of the most racist countries left in the world. So we want to extend

the same kind of sentiments the Minister has in appreciation of all people to

eliminate racial discrimination in the world. Thank you.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I

asked the Premier some questions related to the ongoing discussions concerning

the Lower Churchill development. I appreciate the answers he gave. They were

forthright and we got some information, some straightforward answers, which is

helpful, I think, for the purpose of at least letting our people know some of

the things that are going on. So I want today to ask him some further questions

in the hope we will get the same kind of information.

He mentioned yesterday that the negotiations or discussions

were about coming to a conclusion. I think that is what he indicated. And

sometime soon there will either be an agreement or there will not be an

agreement. I think that is the way he put it. I want to ask him this, even

though it is hypothetical, it is still an issue that I think would need some

answer. If tomorrow, for example, there was an agreement reached which was

acceptable to the Government, would the implementation of that agreement require

a settlement of native land claims? Assuming that it would - I presume that is a

very important issue that would have to be dealt with - can I ask him how the

Government proposes to deal with the issue of native land claims in relation to

the Lower Churchill development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, it would

not require a settlement of native land claims before a development took place.

There are all kinds of developments that may take place in Labrador that may or

may not require a settlement of native land claims. If it involved a specific

area or lands that were consistently and exclusively used by native people, we

would have to reconsider it, but this, as hon. members will know is largely the

flooding of the existing steep wall river channel and will have very little

additional flooding involved. The reservoirs of the Upper Churchill would serve

as the reservoirs for this water system and the power would be taken out of it

at another stage down river. It is simply backing the water up from Gull Island

up to the tailrace of the Lower Churchill and primarily it is just flooding the

steep banks of the Churchill river.

There is very little additional land flooding involved and to

the best of my knowledge it does not bear directly on any lands that are

currently used in any manner by native people in Labrador. It would certainly

involve a total environmental impact assessment, although one was done I think

in the 1970s, it was sufficiently long ago that we are of the view that another

should be done to have it updated, but that I would expect that any issue of

native land claims or impact on native lands would come up during that

assessment. I do not think that it would impact significantly on any lands

presently used exclusively by aboriginal people.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain, from

the public comments that have been made by native people whether or not they

would agree with that assessment by the Premier, but if the Premier says that -

we will assume that therefore the negotiations have not included any significant

talks concerning native land claims having to be settled before such a

development proceeded. We will assume that has been the case, I think that is

what he said. May I ask him a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

May I ask him if the negotiations and/or discussions that are

taking place involve the construction of a transmission line to the Island

portion of the Province, and if so, does he know the estimated cost of that

line, and secondly, presuming that the Federal Government would have to be asked

to provide some help, because it would be a significant undertaking I suspect,

have there been any significant discussions or negotiations with the Federal

Government towards them providing any help with financing that might be

required?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with

the Federal Government all along on the fundamental aspects of the proposal. We

have kept them reasonably well informed. In fact, some months ago, we presented

a fairly substantial proposal to the federal government. I don' think it is in

the public interest at this stage for me to discuss the detail of any such

proposals now without having the concurrence of the federal government and

perhaps the Quebec government or Hydro Quebec to do so.

I can say to the House, and to the Leader of the Opposition,

that the government is working diligently to ensure that it is developed in a

manner that will best protect the interest of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I undertake to make the information fully available to the House at

the earliest possible opportunity. Discussion of that kind of detail would not,

right at this moment, be opportune.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't debate or argue whether it would be helpful to the

people at this time to know that information. We will have to let the people

decide or judge that. I would like to ask him one final supplementary.

Yesterday he indicated that the development of the Lower

Churchill project would mean the power would be sold to the Province of Quebec -

put into their grid, I guess - for its use. At least, most of it, I believe he

said, would go to Quebec. I ask him if he can be a little more specific. How

much of the power will be sold to the Province of Quebec? How much will be held

in reserve for our own Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the objective is to reserve

immediately an amount sufficient to provide for the power supply that the

Province needs that would enable it to displace the oil-fired at this time. Then

the contemplation would be, I believe, that the remaining major block would be

sold to Hydro Quebec for a fixed period of time. The Province would then decide

on its additional needs, after that.

You are getting now into some detail of the negotiations with

Hydro Quebec, and I don't think it would meet with the understanding that

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has with Hydro Quebec for me to be discussing

those kinds of details at this time.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: My question is to the Minister responsible

for Mines and Energy. It is concerning Churchill Falls power, specifically the

Upper Churchill - the infamous long-term power contract with Hydro Quebec.

My question: Is there a provision in that contract to allow a

recall of a block of power from Quebec so that we, in this Province, will be

able to consume the power within our own boundaries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is a recall right - and

of the recall right, approximately 140 megawatts are not presently being used in

the Province, in Labrador. If we had industrial development that would require

that right of recall, we would have to give, I think, three years notice to

Hydro Quebec that we would be recalling that remainder.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could

inform us how much Hydro Quebec presently pays CF(L)Co for this 140 megawatts of

power?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the rate is the same as the

standard rate in the contract, and, off the top of my head, I don't know what

that is. I can get the information for him later.

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

MR. A. SNOW: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it

will be clarified later, is that presently we receive about three mills for this

power. I wonder if the minister can tell me if this is a very wise or prudent

use of this cheaply priced electrical energy? Could this not be better used to

sell to industrial consumers that could be located within our boundaries, to

attract them? Could this not be used as an incentive to attract consumers to

this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, a lot of effort has been put

into trying to find alternate industrial developments to go into the Labrador

area that could use that power over the past many, many years, and we have had

very little success in that. As I said earlier, if there were an industrial need

identified we would give the appropriate notice to Hydro Quebec and recall that

140 megawatts still available to us.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier.

How long has the Premier known that about a year-and-a-half ago, a woman went to

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and complained that the Member for Naskaupi,

then the Minister of Environment and Lands, sexually assaulted her?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of

Justice knows better than to ask that kind of question in the House of Assembly.

If she wants to come to see me and ask me about it, I will do my best to answer

appropriately. I believe there is a police investigation underway at the moment.

I will have to speak to the Attorney General to find out whether or not there

is, but I believe there is one under way at the moment, and I would prefer to

let the police handle that in the ordinary course rather than respond to it here

in the House in this kind of grandstanding way.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People will note that the Premier didn't answer my question

which was: How long has he known about it?

When the woman contacted the RNC, which was in the late

summer of 1990, she met with three different police members and signed a

detailed statement. Shortly afterwards, she discussed the case with a Deputy

Chief. More than a year later, in October, 1991, after having heard nothing from

the Constabulary for months on end, she contacted the RNC again, and after

several enquiries she was told that the file had been accidentally shelved and

nothing had been done about it.

Can the Premier explain how it was ever possible for the RNC

to lose a file on a Cabinet Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, but I will

undertake to find out and advise the House if, in fact, the RNC accidentally

shelved or lost a file in the manner referred to by the hon. member.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the woman involved has concluded that

the RNC is not so incompetent as to have lost -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I have allowed

great leniency. The hon. member should get on to the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The woman has concluded that this is not a case of RNC

incompetence, but actually there has been political interference to stall the

police investigations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat, please.

I have said that the hon. member is on a supplementary and

she is into a rather long-winded supplementary. The hon. member should proceed

to get to the question.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, given a choice between gross

incompetence and political interference to stall the police investigation, the

woman has concluded that there has been political tampering to delay the

investigation until after the Member for Naskaupi qualifies for his severance

pay and departs this House and the present Minister of Justice can run for his

seat.

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

The hon. member is disobeying the Chair, and the Chair will

take the appropriate action. I have given the hon. member a couple of chances to

please put the question.

MS. VERGE: The question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, is:

What explanation can there be for this sorry mess?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have been a member of this House for a

number of years on a previous occasion and a number of years now and I have been

an observer in the past, and I have never seen that kind of low-level behaviour

in the House before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It may have occurred one other time when

the government was browbeaten into laying a charge against an innocent man by

this kind of political grandstanding. The man was a Cabinet Minister. His name

was Dr. Farrell, and I defended him and established his innocence before the

courts. But the man's reputation had been sullied by that kind of irresponsible

behaviour.

Now the member, as a former Minister of Justice, knows the

bounds of propriety when such a problem as this arises. She knows what is proper

for her to do. She is a member of the Law Society, she knows the proper role,

and this kind of behaviour is nothing short of despicable.

Now, let me hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, no Attorney General -

and there have been three, now, in this administration - has ever given or will

ever give direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police with

respect to an investigation. They have explicit and express instructions as to

how prosecutions are to be managed in this Province by a completely independent

Director of Public Prosecutions. I took the trouble to ensure that the former

Attorney General, the Member for Humber West, was fully informed of the right

process and made sure that he had the advice of a competent man, Professor

Edwards from Toronto, who wrote the book on the office of Attorney General and

Solicitor General, to ensure that nowhere, at no time, will an Attorney General

ever give instruction to a Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed or not

proceed with prosecution. And it has never occurred here.

The awful slur cast by a person who was a former Attorney

General is nothing short of despicable.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is despicable that a woman who

made a complaint of sexual assault a year-and-a-half ago is still waiting for

the police to conclude their investigation.

Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier refuse to meet with the

woman when she asked his assistant for a meeting, and when, after she had waited

outside his office for about two hours, he emerged with a lawyer saying that he

was not prepared to meet with her? Why wouldn't the Premier see the woman when

she was at his office?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't remember that

occasion but I will check with my office and see if that, in fact, occurred.

Now, I have been made aware some weeks ago that a complaint was made and is

being investigated, and I think it came about as a result of a question, or my

knowledge of it came about as a result of a question or a letter written by

somebody to the Minister of Justice, and he made me aware of it.

I didn't have to instruct him, he knew the explicit - he

doesn't interfere. He just makes sure that the Director of Public Prosecutions

does his job objectively and fairly. He gives no instruction to anybody to

prosecute or to delay or not to prosecute, that is entirely and solely for the

police to do.

Now, whether there has been any mismanagement by the police,

or any failure by the police, or whether those dates are right or not right, or

whether there is no basis to the complaint, or whether there is a basis to the

complaint, and some policeman failed to do his duty properly, I don't know, but

I will find out and I will advise the House. But that is all it is, it is

nothing else. I can assure the House of that.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Something has gone

drastically wrong. The Constabulary lost a file on a Cabinet Minister, did

nothing about it for over a year, and the matter is still not resolved. Now, I

ask the Premier, will he immediately appoint a senior judge to conduct an

impartial inquiry into this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the

Attorney General to take immediate steps to determine whether or not there has

been any inordinate delay, or anybody has caused any delay, or whether there is

incompetence in the police department, or whether there is any validity

whatsoever to the comments made by the hon. member today. I will take those

steps.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

the Minister of Health.

I had a very interesting phone call today, as well, from an

individual here in St. John's who doesn't mind having her name mentioned, a Mrs.

Clouston, who is in a dilemma. She is having difficulty getting her father

admitted to a hospital for a very serious operation which will involve the

removal of a lung. Doctors are telling that individual that they have to move

very rapidly on that operation, but they have not been able to do it to date

simply because no beds are available. This individual has been diagnosed now for

over a month, and doctors cannot say for sure if he is going to get in this

week, and they have been telling this woman that the situation is so bad that

they have to determine who is going to live and who is going to die on a first

come, first serve basis.

Now, is the Minister aware that the situation in hospitals is

now so bad, that hospital staff, doctors and nurses, are at the breaking point,

and that patient care is in serious jeopardy? Is he aware of that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to discuss patients

individually in the hospital system. I will deal with this matter with officials

in the Department and see if there is any validity to the accusations that are

being made. But I would be setting a very dangerous precedent. Ministers of

Health throughout this land have had to resign for interfering in the personal

lives of patients in the system. I refuse to discuss personal patients,

individual patients in the system. I can talk in general terms. I can say in

general terms it is the physicians in the system who are the gatekeepers. They

are the ones who decide who is admitted to the system, and they do it on a

professional basis. They have much more expertise in that matter than I do, Mr.

Speaker, or any of my colleagues in the government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main on a

supplementary.

MR. DOYLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to

hear the Minister of Health say that, given the fact that when he was health

critic over here he very often brought up individual cases and expected answers

as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me go to the Premier on a supplementary

because I really do not think there is any point in asking the Minister of

Health any questions. This same individual, Mrs. Clouston, was in a very

desperate state. So desperate that she went directly to the Premier's office,

not physically, but she went with a phone call. She phoned the Premier's office

and she spoke to one of his staff up there, a Mrs. Ploughman, who according to

this woman verbally abused her and treated her with such callous disregard that

she broke down and she cried.

MR. SIMMS: Shame, shame.

MR. DOYLE: Now is this the standard treatment, Mr.

Premier, that people who are in desperate need of health care assistance is

getting? Is that the standard treatment that they are getting today from the

Premier's office in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: What did they do in my office? Mr.

Speaker, just let me put this in perspective. This is the Fraser Institute

Assessment of Medical Services in Canada, comparison between the provinces,

February 1992 right up to date. Ranking the province's studied according to

'waited averages 'reported in Table 12.a, and described earlier, indicates that

the longest wait for surgery occurs in Manitoba and the shortest in

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of

quality health care the Government of this Province under the able leadership of

the Minister of Health is providing for our tax payers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be an individual incident that

needs to be addressed, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health will address

it. I have no doubt the Minister of Health will address any individual concerns

that need to be addressed, but I do not know of any woman who broke down and

cried in my office. I cannot see every single person in the Province who wants

to come and see me. I try my very best. I work night and day at doing it, and

will leave the House in a few minutes and meet with other groups, but I cannot

be every (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier, in light of the

numerous concerns being expressed by doctors and by the Nurses Union, who

incidentally have taken out full page ads in the Evening Telegram that I am sure

the Premier must be aware of. Can the Premier, in light of those numerous

concerns, offer any guarantees to health care professionals in the Province that

the Budget is not going to make an already terrible situation a whole lot worse

than what it already is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the Budget

will provide for keeping the Newfoundland health care system in first place in

the country as the Fraser Institute has found. But the details of the Budget

will be delivered by the Minister of Finance, I believe, next Thursday, and of

course the Member can wait until that time and hear the details firsthand right

from - I will not say the horses mouth - the Minister of Finance.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier as well pertaining to the

ongoing fisheries crisis and foreign overfishing, and the Premier has been up to

meet with the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Premier: has he sought

support from other provincial premiers and territorial leaders to put pressure

on for an immediate extension by Canada of custodial jurisdiction or management

- we were referring to it lately over the last few day - over the Nose and Tail

of the Banks; and could he tell us what results, or has he received any support

from other Premiers or leaders in Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am surprised that

the hon. Member is not aware of this because there was a news release on it.

Maybe Atlantic Premiers do not count for very much, but when the Atlantic

Premiers met in Corner Brook on March 1 and 2, that was the subject of their

first communiqu, and the four Atlantic Premiers all expressed support for

Canada taking steps immediately to put in place custodial management of the

fisheries beyond the 200-mile limit in order to deal with that issue.

I have since, as he knows and has mentioned, spoken to the

Prime Minister and I will be raising it as well at The First Ministers

Conference that will take place on Wednesday in Toronto.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I am aware of the press statement that came out of

Corner Brook, but if the Premier will reflect it was a bit confusing because

that was where we were talking about sending out the gunboats, and we were

supposed to have said it and not to have said it. So I did not want to refer to

that, but in his speech to Globe 92 forum just a few days ago, the Premier said

custodial control would give Canada the right to set rules and regulations for

harvesting of the fish stocks for the benefit of all countries. How would Canada

obtain that right, I would like to ask the Premier, and is there any provision

in international law that would allow Canada to exercise that right?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: This may take a few minutes. If the hon.

Member does not mind, I will try to answer the question thoroughly. There is no

express provision that says you have a right to do it, but there is no express

provision that says you don't have a right to do it. There is a recognition in a

variety of the clauses of the Law of the Sea Conference that acknowledge a

special interest and concern of the contiguous coastal state that is close to

the stock concerned, or that is directly affected, and there is specific

provisions referring to management of straddling stocks as well. The general

tenor and reading of it would, we believe, justify Canada taking that kind of

action. I think if Canada did it in a responsible way it would enjoy the support

of all right thinking responsible nations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that there is no world

legislative body that declares the law. International law gets developed by some

nation - a single nation usually - taking an action that is the start of it.

Some nation has to move first. That is the way all international laws develop.

There have been examples in the past. Canada did it with the Arctic Waters

Pollution Act. We passed a Statute of Parliament taking custodial jurisdiction

of the arctic waters to prevent pollution. The Truman Doctrine in the late

forties, I think 1946 or 1947, expressed the United States interest in

fisheries, and they took action as a result of it. Perhaps the most famous

incident was the British Parliament passed a law prohibiting trading in slavery,

and they sent the Royal Navy down off the coast of Africa. There was no

provision in international law for it. They sent the Royal Navy down and stopped

other nations from capturing innocent citizens living in the west coast of

Africa and selling them across the Atlantic as slaves. There was no provision in

international law for that either, but can anybody question for a moment that it

was the right and responsible thing to do? Can anybody question for a moment

that it is the right and responsible thing for Canada to go out and take

custodial management of those stocks to preserve them for mankind instead of

allowing the irresponsible actions of other nations to fish them to extinction

and destroy them for mankind? No!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That is the basis on which Canada should

act, and if Canada had any political courage in the world it would move now and

take that step. It would not wait another day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier really is preaching to the converted today. I am

sure he realizes that, but I just wanted to ask how he perceived, as a Nation,

we could do these things?

Last week while the Premier was away, and I am sure he has

been made aware, there was considerable interest raised in the Province by a

statement by some representatives from the Icelandic fishing industry. They said

that Canada could extend its jurisdiction to 350 miles. Is the Premier aware of

any provision in the Law of the Sea which permits coastal states to claim a 350

mile economic zone for the management of groundfish, and if so did the Premier

have the opportunity to discuss this possibility with the Prime Minister in his

recent meeting?

PREMIER WELLS: Could you ask the question again

(inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: The question, to shorten it up a bit is:

last week there was an interesting statement by Icelandic officials that Canada

could extend its jurisdiction in the economic zone to 350 miles. I am wondering

if the Premier is aware of any provision in the Law of the Sea for that, and if

there is, did he have an opportunity, or did he discuss this possibility with

the Prime Minister in his recent meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is as

good a legal case if any exist at all for extending jurisdiction to 350 miles. I

believe a sound case can be made for taking custodial management but extension

of jurisdiction is quite another thing and we have not asked the Government of

Canada to do that. If they had the right to do it in international law, we would

certainly ask them to do it but I believe there is a much better case to be made

for taking custodial management.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for a short question with a

similarly short answer.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

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

Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations in this Province.

The Minister has now had the review of the Workers'

Compensation Board for a considerable period of time. The Throne Speech last

week alludes to some changes that are going to be made, and while these changes

might address the deficit that the board presently experiences, what is the

Minister doing to speed up the delivery of services, both financial and medical,

to the injured workers of this Province?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been

ongoing discussions with the senior staff of the commission relating to these

matters because I think all Members of the House, from time to time, get

representation from injured workers who are sometimes dissatisfied with the pace

of the dealing with their claim at the commission, the pace at which it occurs,

and we are hoping that through a combination of the Budget next week, there will

be some announcements relative to the Workers' Compensation Review Committee and

their proposals.

There will also be a comprehensive package concerning the

whole forty-five recommendations made by that review committee which will go

through the Cabinet process in the very near future we hope, so that we could

make a definitive statement on all aspects of workers' compensation including

the time it takes for a claimant to be properly treated, that will be part of

the package and we hope to announce that in the not too distant future.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

Section 45, Paragraph 2, of the Financial

Administration Act, I wish to table a list of temporary loans raised under

Sections 44 and 45 of the Act between the period February 28, 1991 and March 4,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call hon. Members' attention to

one thing only, and that is that we have expanded our borrowings under the

Treasury bills from $10 million weekly to $22 million weekly in order to do more

of our borrowings in the short term to take more advantage of short-term

interest rates than we have in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have two. One is the

questions asked yesterday about: What representations did the Province make on

behalf of Newfoundland companies with respect to access to silver hake. The

situation was pretty much as I expected it was. Silver hake is a species not

found in Newfoundland waters but on the Scotian shelf off southwestern Nova

Scotia. Just as we have argued that stocks adjacent to Newfoundland should be

allocated primarily for the benefit of the Province, Nova Scotia argues likewise

for stocks in it's waters. Now, we cannot speak out of both sides of our mouths,

and this Government, at least, doesn't.

Seafreez, which is a company that operates both in Burgeo and

Canso, both in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, has been the largest recipient of

silver hake with 39,000 tons in 1991 and they had 50,000 tons in 1992. They

processed very little of it. Instead they exchanged it with the Russians for

Barents Sea cod which is usually processed either in Burgeo or in Canso. So, Mr.

Speaker, that is the answer to that question.

The second one asked yesterday along the same lines: Will the

Province be taking a position on the turbot and mackerel development program

that was announced recently by the Federal Minister of Fisheries, that he will

be releasing, I believe, 20,000 tons of turbot in the Davis Strait. Now, in the

past, Mr. Speaker, we have made repeated demands for the Federal Government to

make that fish available and we will make similar representations on this

occasion. With respect to the 16,000 ton mackerel development program announced

for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, this Province is

quite interested in that. There is a fairly sizeable mackerel fishery in my own

district, in the Bay of Islands, where they do much of the processing. Last year

they processed approximately 7,000 tons. So we will be seeking greater access to

that.

Mr. Speaker, the other question was a question asked this

afternoon by the Member for Humber East. I got some information from my

officials. The lady to whom she referred came to my office about eighteen months

ago, spoke to two of my assistants in the office and they mentioned it to me.

And now that they tell me this, I recollect the occasion when this occurred. At

the time her complaints dealt exclusively with - and that was the only mention

she ever made of it - there was never any mention of sexual assault or any such

thing. Her sole complaint was the financial state of her company and she felt

that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador was responsible for this, and she was

suing Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and she has a perfect right to do

that.

My response to her at the time was: I would not discuss with

anybody a legal claim they may have against the Government or an agency. I do

not do that and I have refused to do it three or four times previously, and I

will continue to refuse to do it unless it is a formal meeting set down, with

the lawyer representing the person present and with the Government lawyers as

well. I will not do it. Now, that is the circumstance that the Member for Humber

East just raised. It has nothing to do with what she just said.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

petition on behalf of the residents of Harbour Mille and Little Harbour. The

petition is not on the proper form as needed by the House so I ask leave of the

House to present the petition on behalf of these people in these two

communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking consent of the House to present a

petition that is not on its proper form, the hon. member claims. I haven't seen

the petition. It might be appropriate in the future, if hon. members have a

petition that doesn't meet the requirements, that they give it to the clerk so

that the clerk could take a look at it beforehand. That is normal procedure. The

Chair is not in a position to say more than what I have said. If the hon. member

would indicate what the prayer of the petition is, then hon. members would be in

a better position to agree as to whether or not they want the petition

presented.

The hon. member.

MR. LANGDON: I can read the prayer of the petition. It

says, 'We, the residents of Harbour Mille and Little Harbour East, petition the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide pavement for the road between

Harbour Mille and Little Bay East. This road is used daily by people going for

medical services, to places of employment, and most of all, by our children who

have to travel' -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard enough and I think hon. members have. Do

hon. members consent that the hon. member may proceed with the petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: I will continue, Mr. Speaker: 'We have been

concerned for many years because of the condition of this road, but our concern

is greater at this time because our elementary school will be closing in June,

1992 and all our children will have to be bused to Jacques Fontaine. We feel

that this road, in its present condition, is unfit for children and other

residents to travel over. We have waited too long for pavement, and our

frustration with government will soon make itself known. We hope that this

petition will elicit a favourable response, if not, we will resort to whatever

means we deem necessary to achieve our desired goal, a paved road.'

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition that has been signed by

approximately 210 residents of Harbour Mille and Little Harbour. In fact, I have

placed this particular road on the top of my priority list for the past two

years and have given it to the ministers concerned. This road was constructed

some thirty years ago and has been upgraded to paving standards some fifteen

years ago but it was never completed. In the spring of the year, like all gravel

roads, because of the spring thaw, there has been difficulty in getting over the

road. There was one incident last week, where a lady who had to come to the

Health Sciences was concerned about the road not being passable in the early

morning. I phoned the foreman from that particular depot and he, himself went to

that road the next morning to escort the people to the Health Sciences Centre. I

thought it was good of him do that.

Mr. Speaker, the government, I believe, will come through for

these people. We have had considerable road improvements in the districts in the

last couple of years. I have discussed this road with the minister concerned,

and I believe, in the not-too-distant future, their concerns will be looked

after. Again, as I said, I really support the petition; however, I would not

advocate any violence in respect of having the road done. I believe that through

common sense in our approach we can bring enough pressure to bear on the

department officials that, in the not-too-distant future, this road will,

indeed, be looked after.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has met with me and has raised the concerns

in the petition. He has pressed them strongly upon me. This particular stretch

of road is under consideration under the Provincial Roads Program. It will be

assessed, as all other roads are in the Province, on the basis of fairness and

balance, and it will be ranked according to its need, relative to the other

needs in the Province. I can assure the hon. member that it is being given every

consideration, as is every other road in the Province, and a final determination

will be made on this particular road, and all other roads at a later date. But

it is under active consideration.

As the hon. member indicates, the district of Fortune -

Hermitage has been the recipient of very significant amounts of money under the

roads program over the last several years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Yes, he has been a very good member to have

achieved the level of funding that he has achieved for his district. But it does

indicate that in that particular district there is immense need and,

unfortunately, we have a very limited supply of resources to meet it, not only

in Fortune - Hermitage district, but in all the districts of the Province. The

hon. the Member for Fogo has indicated, he has needs in his district, as have

other hon. members. There is a great need for roads all over this Province.

I will assure the hon. member that this will be fairly

assessed and a decision will be made in due course. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in

support of the petition presented by the hon. the Member for Fortune -

Hermitage. When people in this Province sign a petition to improve our roads in

the various communities, I believe it is our duty to support their endeavour to

have the roads brought up to standard.

It is most interesting. The hon. member mentioned that the

road was constructed twenty-five or thirty years ago. Mr. Speaker, I should

probably say to the hon. member through you, Sir, that I had the opportunity

back in 1959 of teaching in the little school in Little Harbour. The road was

there then, so that is thirty-two years ago. It was then a gravel road. Since

then, we have gone through a number of premiers, fifteen or twenty Ministers of

Highways, three or four different governments, and the people of those

communities have been asking, year after year, to have this piece of road

brought up to standard.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important piece of road, unless it

has changed recently, because from Harbour Mille, you go across the bay to other

communities. So it is almost like a drop-off point for other parts of the hon.

gentleman's district. We, in this party, support our colleague for bringing this

petition forward. Hopefully, the Minister of Transportation, in respect of the

form letter he sent out to all members has, by now, placed that road close to

the top of the list. Hopefully, this year, the people in Little Harbour, Little

Bay East and Harbour Mille will get a bit of black asphalt so they can

comfortably drive to and from work, and home. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service

for the financial year ending March 31, 1993, the sum of $990,196,700."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution

and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of

Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial

Year Ending March 31, 1993 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public

Service." (Bill No. 5).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report

that they have adopted a certain resolution, recommend that a bill be introduced

to give effect to same, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to

sit again presently by leave.

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

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 1. The Address in Reply.

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please say 'aye', those

against, 'nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a brief

recess of a couple of minutes to get a bill distributed and we will be ready to

resume in about a minute or so.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Motion No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No.1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House and Your Honour that

I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

'I, The Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland,

transmit supplementary estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the

Province for the year ending the thirty-first day of March 1991, by way of

further Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.'

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message

together with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are requesting

supplementary supply over and above what we needed in the Budget last year, for

$135,084,900, comprising: $1,600,000 for the executive council; $1,411,400 for

the Department of Finance; $83,000 for the Legislature; $20,287,500 for the

Department of Development; $1,795,700 for the Department of Fisheries;

$1,200,000 for Forestry and Agriculture; $95,000,000 for Mines and Energy;

$306,000 for Education; $3,961,800 for Health; $979,500 for Justice; and

$8,460,000 for Social Services.

Another modest amount, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the hon.

Members opposite will be as kind to as they were with the interim supply a few

moments ago. Many thanks.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, there really isn't much one can

say. This is really old potatoes that we are dealing with here today. This is to

the end... I guess what it is is the warrants that came after the fiscal year

that ended March 1991.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)?

MR. SIMMS: Yes. It says.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we had better get some answers there.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but for the fiscal year ending 1991. So

this is almost a year later now, so, yes, during 1991. So it really is old

potatoes. I cannot remember if we have asked all kinds of questions on this

stuff before or not. But there is not much one can say about it, not much point

to say much about it. Because it all done, over with, and it is a year later.

There is not much point in beating up on it at this stage or even asking

questions, right? We would rather get on to something current, Mr. Speaker, so

we really do not have much to offer in the way of debate on this particular

Bill.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of

Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The

Financial Year Ending March 31, 1991 And For Other Purposes Relating To The

Public Service." (Bill No. 2).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Motion 2, Bill No. 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Loan And

Guarantee Act, 1957."

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, this Bill, "An Act To Amend

The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," consists of a number of points here. Item

number one, for the Gander Masonic Memorial Complex, a $1,000,000 loan

guarantee; the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited, a loan guarantee of

$700,000; and a loan to extend in time a $200,000 loan guarantee to the

Northeast Coast Sealers Co-operative Society Limited; an extension in time of a

loan guarantee to A L Stuckless and Sons Limited, for $500,000, and an increase

of $150,000 to be extended to the same period of time. The Fogo Island

Co-operative Society would be to extend the date of the expiry and then to

reduce the amount of the guarantee from $3 million to $1.3 million to expire

February 29, 1992. That is about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate the

co-operation of members Opposite in approving these amounts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the

consent of the Committee for the Committee to rise to allow me to deal with, on

an urgent basis, the matter raised by the Member for Humber East?

Some very serious allegations were made. I now have the

answer and I would like to give it to the House so that the media, who have been

informed of all of these allegations, will have the full facts when they deal

with it, and innocent people will not be hurt by the irresponsible allegations.

So I would ask the Committee to agree to rise so that I can address the House

and give the answers to the questions raised.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the agreement to rise?

AN HON. MEMBER: No agreement with the truth.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me just remind the Committee

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me remind the Committee that what the

hon. Member for Humber East did today is nothing short of despicable in terms of

the allegations made by people, and I am asking the Committee - I am asking the

Committee - if the members of this Committee are interested in truth they will

give consent. If they want to hide the truth, and they want to protect the

despicable behaviour of the Member for Humber East, they can refuse consent.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderful show by the

Premier who is all upset and self-righteous as usual in his approach. He does

not have to rise the Committee and call the House and all that kind of stuff. It

is not necessary. We are debating a financial bill where members have ten

minutes back and forth, and he can stand and speak for ten minutes and respond

to whatever it is he wants to respond to - say whatever it is he wants to say.

We are quite prepared to listen, but there is no need to rise the Committee for

all of that. He has ten minutes. Let him go ahead and do it. He can get up for

one, get up for five, get up for ten - whatever. That is nonsense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply has considered the matters to it referred and has asked me to report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to

sit again presently by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to ask the consent of the House to revert if we

might to Answers to Questions, because I have in the last few moments been able

to determine the answer to the questions raised by the Member for Humber East.

It is a matter of such importance, bearing in mind the nature of the allegations

contained in her question, that I feel it is important that it be addressed

immediately, and I am prepared to do so now, with the consent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. Members that

this is a major matter. The privileges of the House may well have been breached.

It is a major matter and if the hon. Members opposite are interested in truth,

instead of hiding the truth, they will agree. If the hon. Members opposite are

interested they will agree, and I again ask the members for consent.

MR. SPEAKER: If an hon. Member rejects, of course, the

Chair has no choice but to say that there is no consent.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Point of

Privilege, and I want to lay out the basis for the Point of Privilege. I will be

asking Your Honour to address a Point of Privilege: that the Member for Humber

East has abused the privileges of this House by making statements that are most

inappropriate. Making allegations by any member of this House, let alone a

person trained and knowledgeable in the law, let alone a former Minister of

Justice, to make the kind of allegations that she made today, which I have found

to be completely without foundation, and I am able to advise the House that the

basis for my Point of Privilege is her allegations that there was political

interference in the administration of justice and in the direction of public

prosecutions, that the first time any minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The record of Hansard will speak for

itself, she alleged that there was political interference, and the Point of

Privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that members of this House, including the former

Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber West, the Member for Bonavista South,

and the current Minister of Justice, who is not yet a member of this House, and

myself, because she made the allegation specifically against me, alleging that

there was political direction to prevent the prosecution of a person because he

was a member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: That was the specific allegation. All of

us heard it. Mr. Speaker, I want the Members of this House to know that the

basis of my Point of Privilege is that there is no substance whatsoever to this.

The first that anybody on this side of the House knew about it was March 4, this

current month, and the first anybody knew about any allegation that the police

were not acting properly was on March 4 when the Minister of Justice received an

official complaint from Mr. Cle Newhook who is sitting in the House today. The

Minister of Justice wrote Mr. Newhook and to his credit, and I stand here and

give him full credit, he acted responsibly and he accepted the answer given in

the letter, and I have no doubt that in due course the Minister of Justice will

release the letter. Now, to Mr. Newhook's everlasting credit he responsibly

accepted the letter. The former Minister of Justice, now the Member for Humber

East, not only did not act properly, she acted quite improperly and went to the

Director of Public Prosecutions. She went herself to the Director of Public

Prosecutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: She should resign.

PREMIER WELLS: She should not, Mr. Speaker, bypass the

Minister of Justice. The Director of Public Prosecutions told her that it was

improper for her to be doing what she was doing and directed her to the Minister

of Justice. She never addressed or spoke to the Minister of Justice about it.

Instead she stood here today in this House and castigated the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask hon. Members to please restrain

themselves. According to the Premier he is establishing a Point of Privilege and

the Premier should lay what the Point of Privilege is rather than getting into

debating the details of the issue, because the Chair will decide whether or not

we allow the debate to continue, where we can establish a prima facie case.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, to establish the prima

facie case of privilege in the allegations, on March 4 the Minister became aware

of it and that is when he told me about it. Now, that is my first personal

knowledge of the allegation made by the Member for Humber East. The Minister of

Justice, being the proficient, capable person that he is, went immediately -

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't know about it, you said. A

couple of hours ago (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No. I said I knew about it just a few

weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Hansard will speak for itself. Indeed it

will. Hansard will speak for itself.

The Minister of Justice, being the proficient and capable

person that he is, did that which he was supposed to do when there was an

allegation of some failure on the part of the police to properly investigate. He

asked immediately for a police report. Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be improper

for me to detail the report, but let me say to the House that here is the basis

that will establish clearly that the allegations were so offensive and improper

that the hon. Member should be censored by this House for having breached the

privileges of the whole House and at least three members of the House, Mr.

Speaker.

An initial complaint was made on August 23, 1990, and I say

an initial complaint, I do not say that it was the matter alleged by the hon.

Member. As a matter of fact, it was not the matter alleged by the hon. Member,

but it would be inappropriate for me to say what it was. Steps were taken

immediately, meetings were held with the lady who made the complaint, further

meetings and discussions were set up with the lady who made the complaint

between September and October and she failed to keep numerous appointments, one

on November 6, one on November 7, and one on November 15.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by her lawyers.

PREMIER WELLS: She failed to keep the appointments made

by the police.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just let me tell hon. Members how wrong

that Member is and how inappropriate and offensive her action is.

MR. SIMMS: How many times did she meet with them?

PREMIER WELLS: Several times.

On November 21, 1990, the police concluded this: On the basis

of the information then provided, the policemen responsible expressed the view

that there were insufficient grounds for a criminal investigation, let alone the

laying of a charge, insufficient grounds to open a further investigation beyond

that. A further appointment was set up with her and she failed to keep that

appointment.

MR. SIMMS: Did they tell her?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes. In December she was told again and a

further meeting was held with her and, at that time, she advised that she was

preparing a statement with her lawyer and the same would be provided to the

police when it was completed. The police heard nothing more until October 29,

1991, Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, and an investigation, on the basis of the

complaint then filed, was opened and is still open.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of doing or saying

anything that would, in any manner, prevent the proper carrying out of the

administration of justice and the proper prosecution of anybody, if a

prosecution should be had. But we will not allow this Government to be

railroaded or browbeaten by the Member into persecuting an individual who may be

innocent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the Point of Privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I will be asking Your Honour to rule on

that Point of Privilege and will be prepared to make the necessary motion to

follow up after, and will, Mr. Speaker, be taking whatever other action is

appropriate to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the Member for Humber

East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

All I say, Mr. Speaker, is, how quick one's memory can

recover, when at two-thirty or so today the Premier had not heard anything about

it. Now he tells us that the present Minister of Justice informed him of it on

March 4. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a debate

with the Premier over that. It is up to Your Honour to judge whether or not the

Premier has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Because there is no Point of Privilege I

say to the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is right.

MR. MATTHEWS: We can understand the defensive attitude

opposite, Mr. Speaker, because I think that the Government has been disclosed in

something that they are ashamed of. They have been caught out. They thought that

it would go away for at least another month or two, and then if it broke they

would not have been as sensitive about it, I say to Members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MATTHEWS: Then they would not have been as sensitive

about it because things that they were hoping would happen would happen a bit

later on in the Spring.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to submit to Your Honour that

there is no Point of Privilege put forward by the Premier, none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will reserve its decision on this.

The hon. the Member for Humber West.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not in the House to hear the Member for Humber East's

allegation. I picked up the tail end of it and overheard part of it. I want to

speak to the Premier's submission that there has been a breach of privileges of

the Members of this House which goes to our performance of our parliamentary

duties. I submit to Your Honour that that includes a performance of one in the

portfolio of any of the Cabinet duties that are now in this Province.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is substantive

matter here, and that is that the hon. Member, I take it, and I have not yet

seen a transcript of her remarks in Hansard, alleges that there has been

interference.

Now I want to say two things, Mr. Speaker. The first is that

for the time I was Minister of Justice I had absolutely no information

whatsoever, nor did I have any suggestion or rumour that there might be a

complaint laid against the Member for Naskaupi, the former Minister of

Environment and Lands. I had absolutely no knowledge, and I was there until I

resigned on November 5.

So in point of fact I can say to this hon. House and to

whoever else may hear of this that I personally had no knowledge whatsoever that

there was any investigation. I therefore find it rather appalling that the

Member would suggest without even asking that there was in some sense any

interference.

The second thing that I find equally appalling is the hon.

Member's obvious lack of knowledge as to how the system of justice should

operate, and perhaps it reflects on her administration of justice. But the

police in this Province operate independently of any political interference, and

during the whole time I was minister I can say two things: One is that I was

never on any occasion directed by any member of Cabinet or approached by any

member of this House, least of all the Premier, who in fact made quite the

opposite point, that I was fully independent in all my duties, and that not only

should I not listen to any advice from other members, but should at all times

maintain my complete and utter independence.

Now I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition is laughing at

that. Well perhaps he and his administration ran it differently, but for those

of us who have operated with the Premier, and I know I speak very strongly for

myself, there should be in the minds of the people of this Province absolutely

no question whatsoever of the complete and utter independence of the system of

justice. And I find it very offensive that the hon. Member for Humber East, if

she thinks that is the case now, I think it says more for the manner in which

she operated this system.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of personal privilege

that the police in this Province will operate independently. There is absolutely

no knowledge at the ministerial level in the Department of Justice that there

was any charge. The police in carrying out their duties at all times were

directed to do so independently, and the decisions to investigate and lay

charges are undertaken separately from any decision to prosecute. So in point of

fact and in point of theory and in point of principle, the Member for Humber

East is utterly wrong, and I think has affronted us all by her allegations in

this House.

I would say further, that every member who makes an

allegation of this sort has an obligation to put before the House the basis on

which that allegation is made. What I find most appalling is that she offers no

substantiation whatever for a bare allegation of political interference. And I

can say categorically that while I was there, there was none in general or in

particular. So I fully support the Premier's position in this matter. I believe

it is offensive to us all as individuals, and particularly those of us whose

administration is called into question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I am only going to

have a few words to say on this because clearly it is not a valid Point of

Privilege. The Premier is merely using the opportunity to try to respond to a

question that was asked earlier today, and that has happened before I guess, and

it is not unusual. So I would argue and submit that it is not a Point of

Privilege for all the reasons outlined in Beauchesne's, but having heard the

comments of the Premier and the comments of the Member for Humber West, Mr.

Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say what could be a breach of privilege

is if a member on this side of the House was not able to stand in this

Legislature, based on representations received by constituents or people in this

Province, who feel they have been wronged by the justice system or by the

Government. Then that would be a breach of privilege in my view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East

had a meeting with this individual, spoke to this individual, heard the

individual's case, spoke to the Director of Prosecutions and has done as much

research as she can without - obviously she is not in the position to have the

answers. So she has the right to ask questions in this House on that or any

other matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: She has the absolute right! Her first question

today to the Premier was: how long was he aware of it? That is a simple

question. He has turned this into something other than what it was meant to be

today. She asked sensible, reasonable questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Cover up! Cover up!

MR. SIMMS: Now.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got caught!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, we got caught. If the Premier is offended

by the question, that is one thing. That's too bad if he is offended by the

question. But there is nothing in parliamentary procedure or the rules of

procedure that says you cannot ask a question that might be termed offensive by

the Members on the Government side. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has given his

explanation of what had transpired. That is fine. We will read it when we get a

copy of the Hansard transcript. We will judge it. We will decide if we will

pursue the matter or not, whether the matter will be pursued elsewhere. The

press have it, no doubt. The people will make a judgement on what was right and

what was wrong, and you can attack the messenger all you want. But the issue is

what is important, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I won't rehash. I just wish

to respond to one point that may bear on Your Honour's determination of whether

you consider this a breach of privilege or not. This was the suggestion by the

Leader of the Opposition that somehow a Member has a right and a duty to go to

the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Member does not. And any Member,

particularly a Member who was a Minister of Justice in this Province, would know

that that Member has no right to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions to

try and pressure or -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not!?

PREMIER WELLS: Because it is improper!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Because it - the Member knows....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't (Inaudible) understand

that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I know they do not understand, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I know they do not understand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I refer all hon. Members of

this House to the text written by Professor J L L J Edwards, who was a Professor

of Criminology at the University of Toronto, Professor of Law at Dalhousie. He

has written the definitive works on the office of Attorney General and Solicitor

General and what responsibilities are, and the appropriate position for

governments to take in the conduct of the administration of justice.

Now let me say to all hon. Members now, in case anybody has

any doubt in the future, it is improper for any Member on any side of this House

to go and pressure the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is totally

improper!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I have great fears that the chemistry might become

combustible. The Chair is asking all hon. Members please to restrain themselves,

and asking the Premier please to quickly sum up his few remarks.

PREMIER WELLS: Justice is normally administered, Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of a complaint being made to the police. The police

conduct the investigation. It is the police, not the Director of Public

Prosecutions, who decide whether or not to lay a charge. Now occasionally the

police may want legal advice. If the police want legal advice they would

normally consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he would give the

advice. Then the police, and only the police, decide whether or not to lay a

charge. The sole role of an Attorney General is to make sure only that the

Director of Public Prosecutions or the police properly perform their duties.

They have nothing to say whatsoever with whether any charge

should or should not be laid - ever! It is not proper for an Attorney General to

do it.

MR. SIMMS: She did not ask him that (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: But what the hon. Member has done, Mr.

Speaker, and what the Leader of the Opposition is now saying, is that it was

quite proper for the hon. Member to go to the DPP. My point to you is that it

was not, Mr. Speaker, and the actions and the allegations of the hon. Member, in

going to the DPP, and then instead of doing what the DPP advised her, going to

the Attorney General, she stood in her place in this House and performed in the

most despicable manner as any member performed in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, and I will,

I want to remind hon. Members that a Point of Privilege - sometimes the line

between the debate in establishing the Point of Privilege is very delicate and I

want to remind hon. Members that for the past little while we have been into the

actual debate, rather than establishing the Point of Privilege and the Chair

does not want to prolong that. I will take one further submission from the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not prolong it

either and allow Your Honour the opportunity to consider the matter no doubt,

but I do have to respond to what the Premier had to say.

Mr. Speaker, any member of this House as I understand it, has

a right to approach any person in the bureaucracy, don't they? I mean if you

have a question to ask of somebody in whatever department, Justice or whatever,

are you not allowed to approach a bureaucrat to discuss a matter or to ask a

question? Now maybe, Mr. Speaker, under this regime it is not permitted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - but I can tell the Premier this, that it has

been permitted in the past and will hopefully be permitted in the future for any

elected representative of the people to approach any bureaucrat, any member of

the bureaucracy whether it be the Crown Prosecutor or whether it be the Director

of Recreation or whatever, Mr. Speaker. So, the Premier's weak attempt here this

afternoon to try to deflect from the real issue and the real truth is what is

most despicable, Mr. Speaker, in this House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, charges have been

made in this House by the Member for Humber East; charges that Members of this

House, and by her allegations I suppose she smeared at least four individuals,

that certain members of this House have been interfering with the DPP in terms

of prosecution or with the police or whatever. Certain very serious charges have

been laid by the Member for Humber East, Mr. Speaker.

I can perhaps understand right now, after listening to the

Leader of the Opposition, why perhaps the Member for Humber East did not realize

what she was doing. It seems to be perfectly okay for the Leader of the

Opposition, and maybe that is the way he operated when he was in government, it

seems to be perfectly okay for him to go and influence the DPP who, according to

him is like any other director in government. He is just an ordinary civil

servant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is the way they operated that does

not mean that it was right. That is the way that they have said they intend to

operate in the future, but heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker, that they ever get the

opportunity to do that again. Mr. Speaker, the privileges, the ability of these

members to do their jobs as Members of the House, is impaired; they are now

under a cloud and a very serious cloud. They have interfered in the Justice

system, they are now under a cloud.

The Minister of Justice, a former Minister of Justice and

Member for Humber West, was in the position, and obviously the Member for Humber

East is somehow trying to get at that Member for Humber West, to interfere with

his ability to do his job as a member by laying very serious charges in this

House. Now, Mr. Speaker, something has to happen; we cannot allow this kind of

scurrilous, slimy attack to happen. Something has to give otherwise this House

will degenerate, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that never has in the past and

should never become, and, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask Your Honour to take

the matter under advisement, to have a look at other cases and check the other

jurisdictions.

But this is a very serious matter. Where charges of that

nature are laid against individual members without any supporting information,

simply to interfere with their role as an MHA in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that this does constitute

a breach of privilege. I suggest that at that point in time a full investigation

is going to have to be done as to the supporting evidence that the Member has in

terms of her allegations, that a complete investigation in natural course will

have to be done. If members routinely believe that they should interfere with

the duties of the DPP, then that is something that should be made clear in this

hon. House, as to that position. Members who do interfere, Mr. Speaker, have no

right to sit in this House because it is an interference in the process of law

in the country, and they should not do that.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we have entertained enough arguments

from both sides, but I think it is only right and proper to hear a few remarks

from the hon. the Member for Humber East. I remind the hon. Member that I would

like for her to keep her remarks brief.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The emotional outburst by the Premier and the Government

House Leader are rather pathetic attempts to divert attention from a very

serious issue. I raised the issue in a series of prepared questions earlier this

afternoon. I asked the Premier to state how long he has known about the

complaint of a woman that the Member for Naskaupi, then a member of his Cabinet,

had sexually assaulted her. He avoided giving a straightforward answer to that

question. I then recounted the developments and asked the Premier how he could

explain how the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary lost a file on a Cabinet

Minister.

I then, Mr. Speaker, in a rather lengthy

preamble, said that

this woman has concluded that the RNC are not that incompetent as to have

accidentally shelved the file, and as to have failed to resolve this

investigation after a year and a half. But instead she is left feeling that

there has been political interference in this police investigation. Political

interference calculated at stalling the matter, perhaps first hoping that she

would go away, but now hoping that it will drag out until the Member for

Naskaupi qualifies for his severance pay and resigns from the House, opening up

a seat for the present Minister of Justice.

I then asked the Premier why he would not meet with the woman

when she asked to see him, and after she went to his office and waited for a

couple of hours. My final question, Mr. Speaker, is one that I would like to

reiterate now. My final question was: Would the Premier immediately appoint a

senior judge to conduct an impartial inquiry into this matter? I think after

this emotional debate under the guise of a question of privilege, the need for

an impartial investigation is very clear.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I received a call from this woman about a

week ago. The very next morning a few hours after I received the call I thought

about whom I could go to. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we still had an Ombudsman I would

have certainly gone to the Ombudsman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, if the Wells 'Real Change'

Administration had appointed a Police Commission for the constabulary, I would

have gone to the Police Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, if the report of the Hughes

Commission had been publicized, I would have consulted that document.

So what was I to do, Mr. Speaker? I went to see the Director

of Public Prosecutions, an official I worked with whom I trust. Mr. Speaker, I

simply recounted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in his office what the

woman had told me the previous night. I simply laid it out for him.

I realize the nature and function of his position. It is

different from that of other bureaucrats. I did not put any pressure on him to

reply to me. I said: I don't like having to come to you. I wish I could have

gone to an Ombudsman. I wish I could have gone to a Police Commission, but I

trust you, and here is what a woman said to me on the phone last night. You

should know this. He indicated to me that he was aware of the investigation

suggesting that he had only known about it for a short time. I left his office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to say whether charges

should be laid. That is not the point of my bringing this to the attention of

the House of Assembly and the public, but it is a matter of public concern that

a sexual assault allegation has not been investigated by the police after a year

and a half. It is a matter of public concern that the Constabulary lost the file

and did nothing on it for a year.

It takes a lot of courage for a woman or a child to disclose

sexual assault and go to the police, and people should not be treated the way

this woman has been treated. The police should have dealt with that matter

expeditiously, independently, impartially, and should have resolved the

investigation one way or the other a long time ago.

I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister has a new submission,

something the Chair has not heard, then the Chair will listen for a short

period.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, I would like to state what my actions were

with respect to this particular matter.

When I became Minister of Justice and Attorney General -

AN HON. MEMBER: Acting.

MR. GOVER: Yes, acting. The Premier advised me to read

Professor Edwards'

article on the role of the Attorney General. From that

article I understood that my role as Attorney General was distinct and

autonomous and separate and independent from any of my Cabinet colleagues, and

as separate, distinct, autonomous and independent from the Premier himself who

appointed me.

At no time during my role as Attorney General did I receive

instructions from the Premier or from any other of my Cabinet colleagues with

respect to this matter or any other matter.

At no time while I was Minister of Justice or Attorney

General did I interfere with the discharge of the duties of the Director of

Public Prosecutions.

If hon. Members take the time to read Professor Edwards'

book, they will discover that the initiation of the investigation and all steps

up to and including the laying of the charge are quasi-judicial functions

performed by the police. It is not the role of the Attorney General to interfere

in those quasi-judicial functions, and at no time did I.

I would just like to state that for the record, Mr. Speaker,

because aspersions have been cast on me, as well as the Member for Humber West,

as well as the current Minister of Justice, as well as the Premier. I can assure

the House that at no time during my tenure as Minister of Justice and Attorney

General did I interfere or cause to be interfered with, the legitimate discharge

of the duties of the Director of Public Prosecution or the quasi-judicial

functions of the police in conducting their investigation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank hon. Members for their submissions.

The Chair is going to reserve its decision to give it the appropriate study that

I think it deserves.

It being just a couple of minutes before 4:00 p.m., if hon.

Members would permit I will read the questions that I have received for the Late

Show.

From the MHA for Harbour Main who is dissatisfied with his

answers on questions related to health care. To the Minister of Health.

The second question from the Member for Fogo stating his

dissatisfaction with answers from the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations concerning his questions on workers compensation.

The third question is from the Member for Menihek stating his

dissatisfaction with answers to questions regarding Churchill Falls - Hydro

Quebec, in questions he was directing to the Minister of Mines and Energy today.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Your

Honour that there is a report on a Supply Bill that should be done before we go

on to the next step.

We are in the process of reporting back to the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply has considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report a

certain resolution carried and ask that a bill be introduced to give effect to

same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

reports that it has considered the matters to it referred, and has directed him

to report that it has adopted a certain resolution, and recommends that a bill

be introduced to give effect to same.

RESOLUTION

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1991 the sum of

$135,084,900.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1991, And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second, and third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper

MR. BAKER: Motion 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, there is not a great deal that

can be said about this piece of legislation. We are pleased to see that the

Province is supporting the Gander Masonic Memorial Complex which is a great

initiative being undertaken by the people of Gander, and also, I think, was

largely involved with the families of the people from the Arrow air disaster. I

think they have been asked to contribute heavily. There was a tremendous amount

of support coming from that area. It is just an opportunity for us to say that

it is a tremendous project, we support it, and we are pleased to see that

Government has used the Loan Guarantee Program to assist in that. The Fogo

Island Co-operative Society, of course, is a good initiative that has been in

place for some time and this is obviously just another loan in support of that

society. I suspect over the next twelve months we are going to see many loans

for fishermen's societies, at least I hope we will, as that will mean that they

are still alive and working and that the Province is providing a measure of

support to them, and the balance, Mr. Chairman, are simply extensions of

existing loans that were in place, so we have no real problems with this

particular bill, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of

questions, and one brief question actually that the Minister of Finance might

want to address. I notice in Clause 4(

a) of this bill, it refers to the Fogo

Island Co-op Society Limited and the guarantee has been reduced from $3 million

to $1.3 million, and in another area of the bill, Mr. Chairman, it also gives a

loan guarantee for A L Stuckless and Sons Limited that has been increased from

$500,000 to $650,000, and it gives the proper Order of Council, but yet in

Clause 4(

c) it points out that the loan guarantee's expiry date, the loan amount

guaranteed for the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative Society will expire on

December 31, 1991 and it is reduced to $995,000 and broken down into two

different groups. What was it before is what I am interested in? What did it go

down from? Was it over $1 million or $2 million before? Is this loan guarantee

being reduced through agreement with the Petty Harbour Fishermens' Co-op? I know

I have attended their annual meeting for the past six years, and they have

always had problems with operating money every year. But they seem to come out

at the end of the year fairly good in their operations.

I just want to ask the Minister what the loan guarantee was

last year before December 31, before it expired, and it is brought down now to

$995,000.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question

right away as to what it was before. I could find out what it was. It is just

not something that I carry around in my head. But your concern that - whether it

was by agreement. It is my understanding that the reduction was acceptable to

the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative Society. That particular guarantee

has now expired, and I believe we are either presently or have recently

addressed that problem.

The normal procedure in these cases is that very often groups

come and suggest that they need a certain figure. When we look at it rather

carefully we try to keep the loan guarantee down as much as we can to protect

Government's position rather than to guarantee things which may not be needed.

It may very well have occurred in that case that we may have done some chatting

back and forth in discussing it. But be assured that the appropriate needs of

the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative will be met and have been met in the

past.

I do not know if the hon. Member wants me to find out the

information but I can, and let him know privately or I can let him know as soon

as I can right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."

(Bill No. 3).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Motion number 3, Bill No. 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 4. "An Act To Amend The Local

Authority Guarantee Act, 1957."

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we are asking for

here is authority to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act to include a number

of guarantees to a number of municipal councils for work that has been proposed.

These are listed in the schedule. I do not think I will take the time to read

them.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have

just a few words to say on this. This loan guarantee bill I guess is the one

that provides the different towns and communities throughout our Province with

the funds that they have to put in their water and sewer projects throughout

their communities. These loan guarantees I would imagine have some affect on the

60-40 road program or upgrading of roads in the different municipalities in our

Province. I just want to suggest to the Minister that - and I guess it should be

the Minister of Municipal Affairs dealing with this, although I know the

Minister of Finance does the loan guarantees.

But a town such as Whitbourne with an $850,000 loan guarantee

which has an amortization of twenty years, I believe, of that $850,000. I would

just like the Minister to explain to us how does a town - this is just one loan

for the Town of Whitbourne of $850,000. I do not imagine that is the only one.

But the Minister might explain to us how a town such as Whitbourne would finance

and pay back a loan of $850,000 over a twenty year period. How much is the

Government paying on behalf of the Town of Whitbourne on this $850,000? Maybe in

his files there he has some other information of what the debt load might be for

the Town of Whitbourne, how much more money might be accredited to the Town of

Whitbourne in different loans. This would be only one for this twenty year

period.

There are many other examples here. The Town of Twillingate,

a $552,000 loan. I would like to know how many other loan guarantees a town like

Twillingate might have besides this $552,000. I ask the Minister to explain to

the Members of this House how a town such as Twillingate - with a fishery now

that is in desperate trouble, with a lot of people in all of these smaller

communities that have loan guarantees, going to have a hard time to find

employment for this year, and probably for the next four or five years if we do

not do something drastic with our fishery - how are these towns expected to pay

back that money with the loans that are outstanding?

I would imagine their mil rates are set, knowing what rate

they have to pay back. I know at one time it used to be they had to pay back

somewhere around 23 or 25 per cent of the money that they collect, of their

collectibles. Not the money they do collect, but their collectibles that are on

the books. They had to pay back 28 per cent of that if their debt load was more

than 28 per cent of their collectibles. I think that is the way it worked.

I believe that has been changed some since. I believe

Municipal Affairs has changed the grant system and the loan guarantee system. So

that there are different formulas in place now than what I was familiar with

when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs for only a few days. Well, a month and

ten days, I guess it was.

But I would like the Minister to explain to us. We have some

loan guarantees here for the City of St. John's. One of them is $1.4 million,

which is a ten year loan guarantee. He might want to explain to Members of this

House the difference in what the St. John's Municipal Council pays back to the

Provincial Government and the Department of Municipal Affairs or the Department

of Finance in their loan guarantees, the difference in what they pay back and

the difference in what a town such as Whitbourne, with an $850,000 loan out, or

a town such as Twillingate, with at least - well, one of them here is for

$552,000.

I believe the Minister in his explanation should point out to

the taxpayers of the City of St. John's that they are footing 100 per cent of

the loan guarantees. They are paying back every cent that is guaranteed by this

Provincial Government. Actually, I would say that if the City of St. John's was

left on its own, it does not need the Provincial Government to guarantee its

loans. The City of St. John's, for what loans it has, would probably be

financially strong enough to guarantee its own loans.

Now when they get a loan guarantee from the Province, does

the City of St. John's have to pay the 1 per cent or 0.1 per cent commission? I

forget what you call that. A guarantee fee. Yes. Does the City of St. John's

have to pay that guarantee fee when they get their loans from the Provincial

Government? Because if they do, they should not have to come to the Provincial

Government for permission to loan, or for -

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Point of order?

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It has nothing

to do with the Bill. I have noticed this from time to time, and I would like the

Chair to clear this up for me. I notice right now that the Member for Humber

East, who is still on the floor of the House, is talking to somebody in the

gallery. Now, this is constantly going on. I would like, Mr. Chairman, an

interpretation, because it goes on constantly. To my understanding it could be

deemed and classified as being a stranger in the House, and I need to know. I

think it is wrong. I don't think, if the hon. the Chairman stands up and talks

about decorum -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in debate. Sit down, boy!

(Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Linda Hyde might get your leader.

I would like that cleared up, Mr. Chairman. I think it has

gone on too long. It is constant. If it is proper, then I would ask the Chair to

say it is proper. If it is improper, then I would like it cleared up.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Just to speak to the point of order raised by the Member for

St. John's South. I mean, on any number of occasions, His Honour has reminded us

about decorum, and he specifically mentioned going to the rail with your back

turned to the Speaker or the Chair. We are all aware of that. I do it on

occasion, and after I do it, then I realize that I should not be doing it, and I

catch myself and come back.

The hon. member has made a point that the Speaker has brought

to our attention on a number of occasions. It is like any number of other

situations in this House when it comes to decorum.

I want to suggest to the Chair and to the member that if you

want to run this place like Sunday school, then we will all be up every day on

points of order about members doing this and that - talking to one another, not

paying attention, and chewing gum, or whatever. I think the member has made a

point that the Speaker has reminded us about a hundred times already. So, I

think I have to say in all sincerity to the Member for St. John's South that

what annoyed him was the member who was speaking to the gentleman in the

gallery, and the party which the gentleman in the gallery represents. I say that

in all sincerity. I am sure, if it were some other member talking to some other

person, the Member for St. John's South wouldn't have uttered a word. There is

no point of order, none whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will take under advisement the

point raised by the hon. member, and report back to the House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I just want to get back to the Minister of Finance and the

point that I believe St. John's City Council would be financially strong enough

to be able to float its own loans without the guarantees of the provincial

government, particularly if the City of St. John's and all municipalities have

to go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to borrow. And, if the

City of St. John's has to pay the guarantee commission of 1 per cent of the

guarantees, I think it should be left to the City of St. John's to get their own

loan so at least they could save that 1 per cent of the guarantee.

I understand, the City of St. John's pays back 100 per cent

of all of these loan guarantees - one of not very many municipalities doing

that. I think, at last count, there were twelve or thirteen municipalities in

the whole Island who actually paid back 100 per cent of their loan guarantees

arranged through the Department of Finance and Municipal Affairs.

If any of these twelve municipalities - I believe it is

twelve, now - have to pay this 1 per cent loan guarantee commission, they should

be left to borrow their own money so that they would only pay the interest rate,

which they could arrange, and not have to pay back, to the provincial

government, at that, the 1 per cent guarantee commission.

I know the Town of the Goulds was not an overly financially

secure town, but when it did exist, before the hobnailed boots were brought out

and it was squashed and squat and put into the City of St. John's against its

will -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jumped in it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, jumped into the ground, Mr.

Chairman, and then pushed into the City of St. John's. The City of St. John's

didn't want them, and they didn't want to go in there, so I don't understand and

I will never understand why it was done.

I do know that the Town Council of the Goulds, when they were

in existence, went to a private bank - they desperately needed money for water

and sewer. They need a lot of infrastructure put in that town, but the

infrastructure that was to be put in the town would have paid for itself because

of the development of the land along where the infrastructure would have gone.

I know the Town of the Goulds did go to a private bank here

in the city, or in the Town of the Goulds, actually, it was, and they put their

financial position on the table before these private industry bankers and asked,

'If we were to come to you looking for a $1.5 million loan to do some water and

sewer work in the Goulds, do you think that this plan would allow us to get a

private loan without a guarantee from the provincial government?' That was

ongoing for four or five months. The bank checked it out. Certainly the bank in

the Goulds could not approve a $1.5 million loan, and I don't think the parent

bank in St. John's at the time would be allowed to approve that. So probably

that request went to Toronto for consideration.

After four or five months, the bank came to the conclusion

that with the payment

schedule the Town of the Goulds wanted to put in place,

which would have been an assessment on every lot developed in the town to go

back towards that loan, that the town could definitely afford this $1.5 million

loan.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Town of the Goulds can afford that,

certainly the City of St. John's can afford it, and I would say a lot of other

towns and cities in the Province would certainly be able to afford also, Mr.

Speaker, to get loans without having to be guaranteed by the Province.

One of the reasons why the Province wants this control over

the municipalities is to keep them from borrowing too much, I would imagine, and

then coming back to the Province in five or six years time and asking for a

bailout. Mr. Speaker, I think for the municipalities that pay back 100 per cent

of their loans, we should have a good look at them and have them off the books,

we will say. Let them get their own loans and let them pay back their own loans.

They might save the commission. If the loan guarantee commission is charged to

those places, at least they will save that. Now, if there is an advantage to

having the Province guarantee these loans, such as a lower interest rate, then

maybe they would have to look seriously at continuing this. But I would like the

minister to explain what advantage the City of St. John's might have in getting

loan guarantees, being forced to have loan guarantees put in place, rather than

going out and borrowing some of these funds for themselves.

There is one loan guarantee here for $180,000 for twenty

years for the City of St. John's. I can't foresee the City of St. John's taking

out a twenty-year mortgage for $180,000. It doesn't make sense to me, because

they will pay a lot of interest on that before it is paid for. It probably would

have been better to deal with it fairly quickly. I can see the $1.4 million and

the $1.5 million and another $1.7 million, you certainly might want to spread

them over a longer period of time.

Mr. Speaker, there are other communities here that we are

guaranteeing loans for. The Town of St. George's out on the west coast has a

$200,000 loan guarantee spread over a twenty-year period. I would like the

minister to explain to the House how much of that loan will actually be paid off

by the Town of St. George's. Are they one of the towns that pay back 100 per

cent of their loan guarantees? I don't think they are, but I am not sure. They

have another smaller one for $40,000 spread over a twenty-year period. It

doesn't seem very sensible for a town, a municipality, to take out a $40,000

loan and pay it back over a twenty-year period. You are paying interest on this

loan for twenty years for a small amount of money like that. It would seem to be

more practical for them to get rid of it fairly quickly and not have this

twenty-year loan hanging over their heads. What they would save in interest

rates, if they pay it all off - now, it might be to their advantage to spread

this over twenty years and not pay very much on it, depending on the rest of the

debt load they have. It might be to their advantage to have it, because maybe

they won't pay a cent of it. Maybe after the twenty-year limit -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Time is up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't intended to speak in

this debate but the hon. the Member for Kilbride, in the course of his comments,

brought up a town in the district that I represent, wondering where the town

would get the money to pay back the $850,000 it received in water and sewer.

As a point of clarification, I guess, three years ago when I

was elected as the Member for Bellevue, the Town of Whitbourne was about to

disappear off the face of the earth. Of course, it was put there originally

because of the railway, it was a railway town, and over a period of seventeen

years it seemed that everything there was about to move out. The roads and the

water and sewer put in there years ago had deteriorated. As a matter of fact, at

one time I think there was some dispute about the - when the contractor of the

day put the water and sewer in there and the way it was done, I think there was

an out of court settlement awarded to the town because of the way that things

operated there.

The $850,000 that we see in this loan guarantee was $850,000

that was provided to put the water tower in the town of Whitbourne, and I guess,

next year we will see another one for $850,00 to put in a sewage treatment

plant.

A lot of this expenditure was incurred because, by putting

the youth care centre in Whitbourne, the service had to be upgraded to

accommodate this public building. The public building, the youth centre in

Whitbourne, of course, is a great drain on the water and sewer system in the

town of Whitbourne. These people, the citizens of Whitbourne, of course, pay up

to $300 per household on interest on the water and sewer loans they have through

the Municipal Finance Corporation.

We hear talk of the City of St. John's, the fact that they

provide services to provincial buildings and the amount of money that it costs

to provide services to provincial buildings. In the town of Whitbourne, we have

the youth care centre, which is a fairly large facility. We have the medical

clinic, which is a government-owned and operated facility. We have senior

citizens' apartments, operated through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation. All these are provincial buildings. The Town of Whitbourne provides

the municipal services - the water and sewage, garbage collection and other

things - to these provincial buildings. Actually, we are quite glad to do it. As

a matter of fact, if there was a move to move Confederation Building to

Whitbourne they would be all in favour of it, or the Motor Registration Division

from Mount Pearl to Whitbourne, where it probably should have gone in the first

place. We would be glad to have it, since it would be more centrally located.

Also, in addition, the volunteer fire department in

Whitbourne provides fire protection for these government buildings at no cost

whatsoever to the provincial government. I think the government should be

pleased to subsidize the loans on the water and sewer.

The other question that the Member for Kilbride brought up

was: How can a community like Whitbourne or Twillingate or any other community

in Newfoundland ever expect to pay back the monies that are owed? Thank God, we

are the government now, because if he continued on to be the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, we wouldn't have water and sewer in any small community in

Newfoundland. How are we going to provide the services to rural Newfoundland and

the communities in Newfoundland? This government is committed to providing

services to rural Newfoundland, and the only way we can do it is by subsidizing

the interest on the capital cost, and through the Municipal Finance Corporation.

The people of Whitbourne are paying their fair share. They

pay $300 per household towards their debt, and with the amount of industry, and

the amount of employment in the town of Whitbourne, where the average income is

probably $7000 or $8000, I think they pay a significant share of their

disposable income in terms of servicing their debt. If you were to compare it

with the residents of St. John's, and I am sure the residents of Mount Pearl, if

you look at the average income, if you average the income within these

municipalities, you will know they will pay just as much property tax as the

city residents or the City of Mount Pearl.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on

Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report

that they have adopted a certain resolution, ask that a bill be introduced to

give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to

sit again on tomorrow.

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

guarantees of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by, or loans advanced

to certain corporations."

On motion, Bill No. 3, read a first time, second, and third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The heath care system in Newfoundland and Labrador is in a

shambles and the Minister of Health continues to whistle past the graveyard, Mr.

Speaker, hoping every single day that somebody is not going to die before they

can get a chance to get into a hospital. Doctors are telling people all around

this Province that the situation is so unbelievably bad that they, themselves

have to determine who is going to live and who is going to die, based on who can

get into a hospital, and the minister continues to ignore what is going on.

Doctors and nurses in the Province are at the breaking point.

They can't cope with what is happening. Nurses are actually taking out full page

ads in "The Evening Telegram" - they did a few days ago -urging the government

to do something about what is rapidly becoming a very, very dangerous situation

in the Province.

The only solution that the Premier can offer is to quote some

cold bureaucratic statistics. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a little bit of

information about what the Premier was talking about today, and how deceptive he

was today in dealing with this particular issue. The Premier stood in his place

today and quoted from the Fraser Report, the Fraser Forum, and these are the

statistics he was quoting, saying, Newfoundland is among the best in Canada in

terms of waiting time. What the Premier did not say, is that what he is

factoring in here are plastic surgery and things like that. We happen to be the

lowest, as a matter of fact, in urology and ophthalmology, the waiting time to

get in to see an urologist or an ophthalmologist.

What the Premier didn't say is that we are the highest in

such areas as coronary artery bypass. Do you want the statistics for that one,

Mr. Speaker? Do you want the statistics for coronary artery bypasses and the

five provinces that were surveyed?

MR. MATTHEWS: Tell me about it.

MR. DOYLE: Newfoundland's waiting period for an

individual who wants to have a coronary bypass done is fifty-two weeks. The

average for the four other provinces is fifteen weeks. Fifty-two for

Newfoundland, fifteen for everywhere else, we wait 350 per cent longer for a

coronary artery bypass.

But what about the other types of heart surgery? Of the five

provinces which were surveyed by the Fraser Forum, Newfoundland's average

waiting period for open heart surgery and other types of heart surgery, was

thirty-three weeks. The average of the four other provinces was sixteen weeks,

Mr. Speaker. We wait 200 per cent longer, and the Premier of this Province has

the nerve and the gall to stand in his place and quote one little narrow part of

the Fraser Forum. How can the people of this Province believe this Premier, when

he stands up there to talk about anything? How can they believe him when they

quote statistics like that, taking ophthalmology and plastic surgery and

urology?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another cover-up.

MR. DOYLE: Another cover-up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde slide.

MR. DOYLE: Clyde slide, right, Mr. Speaker. But he

doesn't quote the most important ones like coronary bypass surgery, he doesn't

quote open heart surgery, in which we are 350 per cent longer waiting and 200

per cent longer waiting. And what about general surgery? Maybe the Premier was

referring to general surgery from the Fraser Forum.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: You are certainly right, he wasn't quoting

from general surgery, because we happen to be the second highest in all of

Canada in our waiting for general surgery. So how can you believe this Premier?

He stands in his place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: - every single day making these types of

statements.

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

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me put the whole thing

in context. The hon. the Member for Harbour Main asked me a question today about

an individual case, about a person who allegedly was trying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Get control of your caucus (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: - about a person who couldn't get into a

hospital. I answered that question by saying that it is not my policy or the

policy of government for the Minister of Health or any other elected member of

this House, to try to pull strings to get someone into a hospital. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is what I said, and I could not understand why the hon. member was

dissatisfied with my answer, and if I had left the House after that question, I

probably would still have not understood why the hon. member was not satisfied

with the answer.

But later in the day, as the events unfurled in this House, I

came to understand why the hon. member was dissatisfied with my answer. Because

he doesn't understand how to operate in a system where you would want a

professional health care system, where you run professional engineers in the

highways, this sort of thing; because he served in a government where its

present leader stood up in this House and said it used to be perfectly correct

for members of government to go to the Director of Prosecutions and say,

prosecute so and so, don't touch this guy, he gives a good donation to the

party. That is the way they ran this government for seventeen years, Mr.

Speaker. Furthermore, the leader of that party said: Let the people of this

Province know that if ever we get in government again, we will again interfere

with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is why the hon.

member does not understand why he is not satisfied with the answer to my

question, because he is used to a system, where the Minister of Health would

phone and say: Poor old Harry, down the road - he doesn't really need this

surgery, but could you pull a few strings to get him into the hospital? That is

the way they ran the hospital system. That is the way they ran the hospital

system. That is the way they ran the highways. Let's pave that road because

that's in a Tory district. Let's not pave this road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wasn't certain of what it heard, but I just want to

remind hon. members, I just wondered, on a couple of occasions, if I heard

somebody saying 'a lie' or 'it's a lie' or 'somebody lied'. I don't know whether

I did. It might have been a word rhyming with it, but I just want to tell hon.

members that it is unparliamentary to use that word, and the Chair will check it

out in Hansard to see if it came through. I just want to remind hon. members

about that.

I will ask the hon. the Minister of Health to clue up,

please.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not satisfied

with his answer because he is used to operating in a government where elected

members pulled strings and said who gets to see a doctor, or who gets into a

hospital, or who gets paved roads, or who gets water and sewer projects. The

hon. member might as well get used to the system in which we live.

MR. FLIGHT: Or who gets prosecuted.

MR. DECKER: Or who gets prosecuted.

We live now in an age in this Province where we have a

government for the first time in seventeen years which is dealing with matters

on fairness and balance. We make money available to the hospitals, and it is the

professionals -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. DECKER: Do I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Number two is the hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's see if we can get some order back here. I wish the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would pull some strings on the

Workers' Compensation Board to see if he can speed up the process to alleviate

the suffering of all those thousands of Newfoundlanders out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: This has been an ongoing issue. I have raised

it with the minister before, and I have to say that next to requests from

constituents with the Department of Social Services, it is the Workers'

Compensation Board which gets the most requests that I have to deal with.

This weekend, on one occasion, three individuals, one after

the other, called. I had an occasion, and I think it is worthy of note, of a

constituent who has had a foot injury for a year-and-a-half. He went to St.

John's some time ago and got referred to rehab, but he can't do rehab because

his foot is not in position. I called the doctor's office yesterday to see if

the report had been sent to Workers'. The secretary who spoke to