March 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

After much study, research and consultation with other

provincial jurisdictions, specifically with Ottawa and the United Kingdom, I am

now ready to make a ruling on the point of privilege raised by the hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl on March 25.

As hon. members know, and it has been said by every Speaker,

I suppose, just about every time he or she makes a ruling with respect to a

point of privilege, that the Chair doesn't rule on the point of privilege,

whether it is a point of privilege, the Chair simply rules on whether there is a

prima facie case, that is, whether the matter is important enough to put aside

everything we are doing and to give it priority and discuss the point of

privilege. It is the House that decides whether or not there is a point of

privilege.

The question of privilege, in this case, relates to

difficulties experienced by the Auditor General in obtaining information from

Memorial University pursuant to Subsection 14(3) of the Auditor General's Act. I

don't think I need to read that - all hon. members know what the Act says.

The Auditor General submitted to the House of Assembly,

pursuant to Subsection 12(1) of the Act, a special report in which she informed

the House that she had retained legal counsel in respect of the matter, that she

had applied to the court for an order declaring that the Auditor General had

authority under the Act and pursuant to a Minute-in-Council to inspect the

accounts of the defendant university. The decision of Mr. Justice Noel, of March

11, 1993, confirmed the authority that the Auditor General claimed but held that

the court was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Auditor

General of Canada versus Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources et al 1989,

etc., which held that the only remedy available to the Auditor General in such a

case is that provided in the statute, a report to the House.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl states in his submission

that the failure of the University to comply with the Auditor General's request,

is an obstruction of an officer of the House in the performance of her duties

and that it is an infringement on the rights of the House and the members who

are being impeded in their ability to examine fully the expenditure of public

monies. The hon. member cites Erskine May's, 19th Edition, Page 136, which

states: 'any Act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of

Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes

any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a

tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a

contempt even though there is no precedent of the offense.'

The hon. member goes on to say, we have a clear breach of the

law, of the Auditor General's Act, which is fundamental to the House being able

to carry out one of its most basic functions.

Hon. members will be aware of the fact that while the

privileges of the House are finite and enumerated, for example, freedom of

speech, freedom from arrest and civil actions, exemption from jury duty,

exemption from attendance as a witness, and freedom from molestation, these are

the enumerated privileges and they are only to be dealt with by the House. They

are necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament. Contempts

cannot be enumerated. They are offenses against the authority or dignity of the

House which are not breaches of the specific or enumerated privileges. In this

case, the Chair has to determine if the actions, or failure to act, by the

University, have obstructed an officer of the House in the performance of her

duties, offended the dignity of the House or prevented members from carrying out

their parliamentary duties. After much consideration and research, as I have

indicated before, particularly with the United Kingdom, and more specifically

with Sir Clifford Boulton, the Editor of Sir Erskine May, the Chair has

concluded that a prima facie case has not been made. While the Auditor General

is an officer of the House, the refusal of the University to comply with her

request for information impedes the Auditor General in the performance of

statutory, not parliamentary duties. The act does provide recourse, in such a

case, to which the Auditor General has resorted in reporting to the House. It is

the opinion of the Chair that an obstruction or impediment to the House, which

would amount to a breach of privilege or a contempt, as contemplated by Erskine

May on Page 136 of the 19th Edition, would have to relate more closely and more

strictly to a parliamentary proceeding and the performance of parliamentary

duties. The failure of a witness to appear when summoned by the House, or a

committee, might fulfil the requirements, for example, or failure of a person to

comply with the request of an officer of the House when ordered by the House to

do so. In this case, the actions complained of are one or two steps removed from

an affront to the dignity of the House, or members, in the performance of

parliamentary duties, although they do represent an obstacle to the Auditor

General in her performance of her audit duties. The House is now seized of the

question as a result of the report of the Auditor General and may take action to

resolve the difficulties which have arisen, however, it is the Chair's decision

that it is more appropriately done through other means which are available to

the House rather than through privilege.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of privilege, Your Honour.

I thank Your Honour for that ruling. Arising from a similar

issue, the House will recall that in December of last year, I made a special

report to the House of Assembly on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee which

is a standing committee of the House of Assembly, and in that report I pointed

out to the House that the University had similarly refused to appear before the

Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee, being a standing

committee of this House, therefore the work of that House is no doubt

parliamentary work, parliamentary business. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

in refusing to appear before that committee, the University is in breach of

privilege of members of this House, in refusing to comply with the requirements

of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, which clearly

state that - and I will in a brief second find the actual Standing Order where

it requires the Auditor General or the University or any agency to appear before

the House of Assembly.

I will find my Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear

with me - Standing Order 31, I think. There is a Standing Order, Mr. Speaker,

but I do not have it with me at the moment -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will look it up (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - which requires any person to appear before

the committee. Your Honour knows the reference, I referred to it in my

submission in December - requires that officer or agency of government to appear

before the Public Accounts Committee.

Your Honour, at that time I asked the House of Assembly to

take action and to direct the university to comply with the demands of the

Public Accounts Committee. The University has failed to do so, the House has yet

failed to take action, the government and the Government House Leader and the

Premier as the leader of the government, have failed to respond to the report to

the House of Assembly of the Public Accounts Committee, so, Mr. Speaker, my

point of privilege is this: that in accordance with the legal opinion given by

Justice Noel dealing with the University, which clearly established that the

University must comply with the Auditor General's Act and the provisions of that

act, clearly established that the University is an agency of government in that

it does disperse government funds and is therefore responsible, as His Honour

put it, to answer to the House of Assembly through the Auditor General, and I

would remind Your Honour in that court order His Honour also pointed out that

the Auditor General, in requesting information, was not requesting it on her own

behalf but in order to fulfil her statutory obligations to the House of

Assembly, and that was the basis for my previous point of privilege.

My point of privilege now, Your Honour, is that the public

accounts committee, as Your Honour has ruled, since the Auditor General is a

step - or removes the university a step away - the Public Accounts Committee is

very directly an agency of the House of Assembly and therefore the failure to

comply with the requirements of the Public Accounts Committee as required under

the House of Assembly Act and under our Standing Orders is a breach of the

privileges of this House of Assembly, and I would ask Your Honour to rule that I

have established a prima facie case.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have two or three brief comments in response, all of which

support my submission that the hon. gentleman has not made out a prima facie

matter of privilege.

First of all I must, with respect, say to him that he has

either misread the decision given by Mr. Justice Noel in the trial division in

respect to the application brought by the Auditor General, or has misrepresented

it inadvertently, and I make no aspersions at all, but Judge Noel did not say

that the University is an agency of the government in the sense in which the

hon. gentleman is using the term. He was using the term in the sense established

in the Auditor General Act. What he did say was that the Auditor General was

entitled to certain information, and that her remedy lay here in the House of

Assembly. That is why he dismissed her application, which is what he did.

The reference to which the hon. gentleman is looking is not

found in the Standing Orders. He need not search any further. He perhaps should

have a look at the House of Assembly Act, which is our statute with which we

govern ourselves. It says that - I am reading Subsection 11.(1) now: The House

of Assembly may command and compel the attendance before the House or before a

committee of a person, and the production of papers and things that the House of

Assembly or committee members considers necessary for its proceedings or

deliberations.

The House, to my knowledge, has not issued any commandment to

the President of the University, or the Chair of the Regents, or any other

person at all. That is why the Public Accounts Committee, in my experience,

speaks of - it calls, but it does not command them. The House may command. The

House has the power to subpoena, but that would require a decision to be taken

by the House, but committees of the House send what are called 'calls'. While I

am subject to correction, because I have not served on the public accounts since

I chaired it in the early eighties, that, I understand, is still their

procedure, and that is the reference that is found in the Public Accounts Act.

I'm subject to correction, the hon. lady for Humber East may have some words

she's given to my hon. friend to the contrary.

Let me come to the substantial point. The Auditor General has

come to the House on two occasions and said that she has not been able to get

information which in her opinion she needs to enable her to discharge the duties

that this House has vested in her by the Auditor General's Act. She has not only

every right to make that complaint, if she feels it's warranted, as she

obviously does, she has the duty to do as she has done. Your Honour has made

that report available to the House of Assembly.

That's no breach of privilege anywhere along the line there.

If the House makes a command and 'tis not answered, then there is a breach of

privilege. That's the famous Kielley and Carson case which went to the Privy

Council about 1832 or 1833. Again, if memory serves me.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? Yes, I may have represented them.

In which case once again I'd be ahead of the gentleman for Burin - Placentia

West who neither represents nor understands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me come back and make the

submission. There is no point of order. The government has announced that we

intend to bring before the House of Assembly legislation that will address this

issue. The House can decide for itself whether it accepts the solution or some

other. That Bill stands at the second reading stage on the Order Paper. The

final draft of it was approved this morning. I understand it's at the printers.

I don't know when it'll be back. It will be distributed as soon as it is back

from the printers. It will be called then for debate in due course.

So my submission, Your Honour, is that the hon. gentleman has

not made even a prima facie case of privilege. All that we have at this stage is

a dispute between the Auditor General and the Memorial University of

Newfoundland. Each of them believes strongly, and with a degree of reason, that

she and it are in the right. It will fall to this House to make the decision as

to what should be done. The government will take the lead as we should, lay a

measure before the House, and then put the matter in the hands of the House

which will take the decision.

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

another submission.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Your Honour. Just a secondary

submission on that. First of all, I remind my hon. friend opposite that I'm

dealing with a breach of privilege relating to the Public Accounts Committee,

not the University. The legislation to which he refers has no bearing on this

particular point of privilege. I would also point out to him once again, as I

did a couple of days ago, that regardless of what this government may be

proposing to bring before the House of Assembly, it is not the prerogative of

government to presuppose or prejudge what the decision of this House will be.

Neither can they pass laws which make something that was illegal six months ago

legal today. They cannot do that retroactively.

What we are talking about is the refusal of the University to

respond in the first instance to the Auditor General and in the second instance

to the Public Accounts Committee, a standing committee of the House of Assembly,

the University has refused to comply. I refer my hon. friend to the Standing

Orders of the House of Assembly, I thank him very much but the reference I am

looking for is in our Standing Orders, Standing Order 84(

e) and I quote; "The

said Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire

into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report

from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders to send for

persons, papers and records, to print from day to day", and so forth. It is very

clear, Standing Committees of the House of Assembly have the power and authority

to send for persons to appear before them. We have been doing it on a regular

basis, we have been issuing legal requests to appear before the committee and

witnesses are regularly appearing before the committee. This is the first case

that I know of, that any agency of the Crown has refused to appear before the

Standing Committee of the House of Assembly, a parliamentary body engaged in

parliamentary duties, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made my

point for me but let me just draw the attention of the House, the Standing Order

uses the words that I used, 'send for.' The Committees have the power to send

for. The Statute says the House of Assembly may 'command and compel.' There is

an obvious distinction between the two phrases, on the one hand, command and

compel and on the other, send for. Only this House may command and compel and

those words have been in the Act since at least 1949 when this Act was adopted

and my - I have not done the research but I will wager, that it goes back to the

original House of Assembly Act back in 1834 when this House first met after the

1833 general election.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the difference between, send for and

command and compel, is like night and day. Send for, is what the committee has

done and the University has not responded to that. They have been courteous,

they have said they are not coming and they have not come, I acknowledge that.

Only this House can command and compel, Mr. Speaker, and that is precisely why I

made my submission that there is no prima facie breach of privilege in this

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard sufficient on this, it

is going to take it under advisement and study it, the same as I did with the

previous one and report back to members as soon as I have done sufficient study.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this

hon. House would want me today, to ask the House to extend the congratulations

of this Assembly and indeed of all of the people of the Province, to Mrs.

Catherine Callbeck who today or yesterday made history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: She made history by being the first woman

to be elected as premier of a province. Now Rita Johnson was the first woman who

became premier of a province but of course she was not elected by the people of

B.C., she succeeded former Premier Vanderzalm and ceased to be premier as soon

as the election that followed was concluded, but Mrs. Callbeck has been elected

by the people of P.E.I. and in fact she won an overwhelming victory. The

opposition was reduced in fact to just the Leader of the Opposition, that

perhaps is an unfortunate result, from two to one, yes -

MR. ROBERTS: Fifty per cent reduction.

PREMIER WELLS: - cut 50 per cent, I suppose, but let us

not look at that. Her victory was overwhelming and it is a major achievement in

Canadian history and I think the people of this Province would want its House of

Assembly to send a formal resolution of congratulations to both the premier and

the people of Prince Edward Island for their having made history in Canada

yesterday and wish Premier Callbeck and the people of Prince Edward Island, the

very best in the next four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

this side, would like to associate with the Premier's remarks in sending

congratulations to Premier Callbeck. We knew there was going to be the first

woman premier elected in Canada yesterday and of course it turned out to be

Premier Callbeck. Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Humber East points to my pin. I

was going to say that some of us on this side, I do not know about all, are

looking forward to the day when we will soon have the first woman prime minister

in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Elected, elected.

MR. MATTHEWS: Elected, yes, elected of course, the same

phrase I say to the Government House Leader: elected woman prime minister, it

will not be long now, but having said that, Mr. Speaker, it was an historic day

for Prince Edward Island and for Canada, and we very much want to be associated

with the congratulatory remarks as expressed by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join with

the Premier and the Opposition House Leader in supporting the proposal that we

send a resolution of congratulations to Premier Callbeck. Of course, for purely

partisan reasons I would have been happier to see a man as premier of Prince

Edward Island today, and ironically Mr. Speaker, after the debate on women's

issues, I think he was declared to be the only feminist in the running for the

premiership of Prince Edward Island. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I, along with

the Premier and other members of the House on both sides, wish to join in the

congratulations to Premier Callbeck and to the people of Prince Edward Island,

in having the first elected woman as a provincial premier and I wish her every

success in her government.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today

the release of the Review of the St. John's Urban Region (Agriculture)

Development Area Boundaries report -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: - as prepared by the Commissioner, Mr. Scott

Simmons.

The Agriculture Development Area of the St. John's Urban

Region (the agricultural zone as it is known) was established almost twenty

years ago to protect the agricultural industry, and more specifically the

agricultural land base, from urban expansion. Although these measures have

provided stability to the agricultural industry, the implementation of the

agricultural zone policy continued to cause many requests, many problems and

appeals to come to my office for decisions. I, therefore, sought and obtained

the approval of government to proceed with the review of the boundaries of the

agriculture zone.

The Commissioner recommends forty-nine changes to the

agriculture zone boundaries. Forty-two of the recommendations are for the

removal of land from the agriculture zone, while the remaining seven

recommendations are for the addition of land to the agriculture zone.

In addition to the forty-nine boundary change proposals, the

Commissioner made forty-one recommendations on the general administration of the

agriculture zone and on the regulations used to control development in the zone.

Some of the Commissioner's recommendations include the preparation of a

strategic plan to guide agricultural development and planning in the zone, the

acquisition of additional statistical information to better measure the

effectiveness of the zone, and the replacement of the existing development

control authority with an appointed board consisting of public representation.

It is the Commission's opinion that if the agriculture zone

is reduced to include only those lands of agricultural importance, then

development control on the remaining agriculturally zoned land should be

strictly enforced to ensure that farms and farmland are better protected than in

the past. The Commission further reports the need to complement the zoning

program with a standard business tax policy, construction of agricultural access

roads, introduction of farm practice legislation and a larger commitment to the

Province's land acquisition program.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks my staff has been

reviewing the individual recommendations, and I will shortly be seeking

government's approval to implement them wherever possible and on a timely basis.

In particular, those recommendations with cost implications can only be

considered as budgets permit.

I am sure that these recommendations deal with most of the

concerns that landowners and others have expressed over the years. On the other

hand, I am also aware that not everyone will be satisfied. However, the report

will help to ensure that the scarce agricultural land on the Northeast Avalon

will be protected in the long term, which is the clear position of this

government.

Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Simmons and his staff. The

allotted time was only four months, and the budget very limited, but the work

was done on time and in an extremely efficient manner.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all, I want to thank the minister for a copy of his

report a few minutes before I came to the House, and I will respond to this

because our critic, the Member for Green Bay, is not here today, and it has

great effect on the district of Kilbride and the agricultural zone.

Mr. Speaker, I say, in starting, that I have not read the

report fully. I have only been able to read the minister's statement, and I will

be going through the report more in-depth tonight and tomorrow, but I say that

this is the second nail in the coffin of the agricultural zone in the Northeast

Avalon. I predict now, that within ten years, there will be no agricultural

activity in the Northeast Avalon. Some people want that. Some people say that

would be a good move. I happen to be one who believes that it will not be a good

move.

We need to protect every inch of agricultural land in our

Province. We can grow food on 2 per cent of our land. We can do anything else in

the world that we want, with 98 per cent of our Province, and Mr. Speaker, we

are giving away our agricultural land - not only in the Northeast Avalon, but

everywhere else in the Province.

If you read the

section of the task force on agriculture

which relates to the protection of agricultural land, again we have another

recommendation by this government which runs completely opposite to what the

agricultural task force recommended.

We have seen two now in the last two weeks, one in the hog

industry and one in the agricultural zone, and it is unfortunate that this

government is looking to get control, some time in the future, over the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, they have complete control of agriculture in this Province and they

are driving it into the ground - I speak metaphorically. They are going to

decimate the agricultural activity in the Northeast Avalon, for sure, and the

Province, generally, if they stay there long enough.

Mr. Speaker, this report, with its recommendations, is not

based on the proper use of land, it is a reaction to those who yelled the

loudest, who were listened to and satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, I just browsed through a couple of the maps

there and I know of two active farms that have been removed from the zone in

this report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East, commenting on

the Ministerial Statement, have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish briefly to address the Ministerial Statement. I have

not seen a copy of the report, but this is obviously a vital document because it

is a most controversial area having to do with individual private rights. First

is the public need to preserve and continue working, as the minister said, the

small amount of agricultural land that we have throughout this Province, and

certainly, on the Avalon Peninsula.

I hope that the report deals fairly with the issues and is

not, as the Member for Kilbride has said, the result of squeaky wheels getting

attention.

I look forward to reading the report, and I hope the report

reveals the direction that provides some commitment to agricultural land

continuing in this Province, and a greater commitment to agriculture than we

have seen from recent statements of the minister and recent actions of his

government, particularly with respect to the hog industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. I noticed in the Weekend

edition of The Telegram that Trinity Brick Products Limited, a company

controlled by Mr. Tom Hickman, is up for sale. I ask the Premier: Is there any

Provincial Government involvement in Trinity Brick, and, if so, what is the

amount and nature of the government's involvement? Can he answer that for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I

will take the question under advisement to determine whether or not there is,

unless the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology may know. I don't know of

any.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, two - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) order.

MR. FUREY: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what transpired.

MR. FUREY: The Premier asked that I respond to the

question.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the minister to take his

place, please.

We have run into dispute before on the transferring of

questions, but, quite obviously, if the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology has the information, and if the House wants it, they will allow him

to answer. I didn't hear any objection from anybody but if there is an

objection, well, then, we will allow the question to be submitted.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe there was a loan made to that company by Enterprise

Newfoundland, two or two-and-a-half years ago. I would have to check the facts

and bring the details back to the House within the next twenty-four hours.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

minister for the answer. I wonder, would the minister, while he is checking out

the answer, if he does not know, check to see if government is involved in

negotiations for the sale now of Trinity Brick and is the sale in any way

conditional on government financial assistance, either directly or through

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? If the minister doesn't have the answer, I

can understand, but would he at least check that?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to check that

and bring it back along with the answer to the first question.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think it was in 1991, around

the month of June, that Trinity Brick, Mr. Hickman's company received a $500,000

loan from Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think, shortly after that

loan was arranged, Trinity Brick closed down. I would like to ask the minister

does he know what became of that loan? Was it repaid, is it still outstanding,

or has it been written off?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get that

answer, as well. I don't have the details on every company. We deal with

hundreds and hundreds of companies every month in this Province. That is just

one of the hundreds we deal with. I will be happy to find the answer for that -

the status of the loan, where the loan is, what the current negotiations are,

and table that, as well.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering

would the minister, while he is at it - I guess he doesn't know the answer to

this either - check and confirm, because I have information that tells me

Enterprise Newfoundland turned down Mr. Hickman's Trinity Brick's loan

application on at least two occasions. Will he find out why the loan was

eventually granted, given the fact that on two occasions that loan was rejected?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that the hon.

member's information is correct. I have no knowledge of every single

application. The hon. member says it was turned down twice but I will have to

check those facts for him. I do know that I met with the union of this

particular brick company and with the member for the area and there was strong

pressure for government to intervene to protect these twenty-five jobs, and I

know that we did everything possible to keep these jobs in place. One of the

major problems this company had, as I recall, was there was a high inventory and

they couldn't deplete this inventory and therefore fire up this company and get

production underway again. I will check, get all the answers, and provide a

comprehensive answer to the House within twenty-four hours.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was for the Minister of Environment and Lands

but, in her absence, I will direct it to the minister responsible, or the

Premier. Is the government aware of any group, agency, or department planning on

establishing storage or destruction sites for PCB's in the Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's absence, I

will have to take the question as notice. I can say that no such application has

come to my notice or, I understand, that of the Premier, just from recollection,

but let the full answer be that we shall get an answer and provide it to the

House as the earliest moment, tomorrow, if at all possible.

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

Capes, a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Let me tell the minister that apparently an

agency has indicated they will establish sites, or they have selected nine

potential sites, and I ask him if he has any indication that an interest has

been expressed in selecting such sites in the Harricott or Trepassey areas of

the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know what the hon. member is

talking about. The Province is not doing it and, as far as I know, nobody has

applied to the Provincial Government for authority. The Federal Government has

been looking at a site somewhere in Atlantic Canada to be a site to establish a

PCB destruction facility similar to that which was established in Goose Bay. I

heard a discussion of the pros and cons of it, I believe, a month ago on CBC

radio and I think they had reduced some 200 possible sites down to nine. I don't

know whether it was nine in Atlantic Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-one in Atlantic Canada.

PREMIER WELLS: Twenty-one in Atlantic Canada, nine of

which were in Newfoundland. The commentator at the time - a CBC reporter, John

Soper, I believe - I recall noting that the bulk of the PCBs to be destroyed in

Atlantic Canada are in New Brunswick and it was most probable that the site

would be established by the Federal Government in New Brunswick where the bulk

of the PCBs were, because this would result in the lowest amount of

transportation involved. There were, however, nine sites in Newfoundland that

were, at this stage, still being looked at, being considered by the federal

authorities.

Now, if the federal authorities eliminate all nine, there is

no question for us to ever consider. If they get down to one or two left in

Newfoundland and say: We are considering putting a PCB site in Newfoundland,

then the Government of the Province presumably would receive a request from the

Federal Government and we would have to establish our position at that time.

That is the only knowledge I have about it and, admittedly, that came from CBC

Radio.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: I thank the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I just ask

him: in the event - the federal Public Works Department, I believe, is the

proponent in this case - in the event they do select a site in Newfoundland,

and, out of the nine, two are in my district, which sort of gives me a one out

of four-and-a-half chance of having it designated, I ask the Premier will he

make sure that proper environmental assessment procedures take place and that

provision will be made for public input?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can assure all hon. members, Mr.

Speaker, that before any action is taken on any such matter there will, of

course, be a thorough environmental impact assessment.

This is a kind of situation where you really only need one in

Atlantic Canada, apparently; this is the opinion of the Federal Government and

they are prepared to see it established somewhere in the Atlantic Provinces.

Now, if every province says: 'No, not in my backyard, destroy my province's PCBs

in some other province,' we are going to be in a mess. The result is, we are all

going to have to have our own. We have a fair quantity of PCBs in Newfoundland

that need destruction, so we would like to see them destroyed, and would like to

see a facility somewhere in Atlantic Canada to achieve this, but I can assure

the House that there will be no establishment of a PCB destruction facility

without a most thorough environmental impact assessment.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister

must know by now that the people of the Province have said loud and clear that

they don't believe the minister's Budget, they just don't trust his Budget. Will

the minister not confirm that this wide-spread mistrust of his Budget and of

this government as a result of their performance in the last four or five years,

particularly as a result of the minister's performance in predicting revenue and

expenditures, which has been a dismal failure - would the minister like to

confirm that this is the real reason that the public sector unions have now also

rejected the minister's proposals? - they don't believe them either.

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

MR. BAKER: The answer to his many questions, Mr. Speaker:

no, no, no, no and no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, essentially, the minister after

only a year or so is learning from his colleague, the former minister, whose

answers were always: yes, no, yes, no. On a rare occasion, we might have gotten

a 'maybe' out of him. Now, the minister is finally catching the 'yes-no'

disease.

This is a very serious problem. I say to the minister that he

has lost the confidence of the people of this Province in his ability to manage

the finances of the Province. How does the minister propose to deal with that?

What is the minister proposing to do to restore confidence, particularly in the

public sector unions? How does he propose to reach agreements with them if he

can't restore confidence in his financial projections?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question,

and one that obviously has no answer. The sky is falling in, therefore what are

you going to do about it? The answer: The sky is not falling in. The people in

this Province have great confidence in our ability to manage the financial

affairs of this Province, unlike the situation when the previous government was

in office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is right, the sky

is falling, but it is falling on this government. This Province is about to

elect the first representative from Grand Falls as the Premier of this Province.

The sky is falling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: If we could ever stir the Premier, if we

could ever get the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: You are not running in Grand Falls because

the people of Grand Falls would not even nominate you, I say to the Premier. He

barely got his nomination in the Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I am totally out of order, Mr. Speaker, but

I am having fun.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not mind a bit of levity but, as hon. members

know, we are not supposed to have debate in Question Period and I would suggest

that what we are talking about are surely debatable items.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will not debate. I will give

facts. The Premier is not running in Humber East either this election.

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister think that public sector

unions are supposed to accept the fact that he has such a financial problem and

that he is going to deal with it? How does he expect them to believe that he is

going to find $70 million or $80 million in increased revenues when the

minister's own economic forecast is predicting some 4,000 fewer jobs in this

Province this year, and all of the economic spinoff that entails? How does the

minister expect anybody to believe his projections?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the projections are based on the

fact that this year we have increased taxes. If the hon. member is not aware of

that, I would like to repeat again, this year we have increased taxes which will

result in an increase in revenue, so it is not very difficult to understand.

That is where the increase in revenue comes from. It is a very small increase in

revenue in terms of the Province's own efforts.

I would also like to point out that the revenues from the

federal government will actually drop in dollar value from this past year to

next year, so that is part of a problem that we have.

As to where the $70 million is coming from, it is coming from

the total compensation package that we pay out. We pay $1.6 billion in total

compensation in this Province, and from that $70 million has been removed, and

we are in the process now of determining the mechanisms to remove that.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be done and the universe

will unfold as it should.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indeed has increased taxes, but you can increase

taxes all you want. If there are less people working, they are going to pay less

income tax. If there is less disposable income, they are going to pay less

retail sales tax and other taxes, so I think the minister's projections are

clearly out of whack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister, based on

his own figures - his own estimate that there will be 4,000 less people working

in this Province this year - how does he predict that he is going to save some

$10 million on social assistance, when we have one Supplementary Supply Bill on

the Order Paper asking for some $20 million, and one just circulated a few

moments ago - a big change in two weeks - that he is now re-estimating another

$2.5 million in social assistance. It is growing and growing for 1992. He tells

us he is going to have 4,000 more people unemployed in 1993, but he is going to

spend $10 million less on social assistance. What kind of a fairy tale is that,

Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the record will show, and if the

hon. gentleman would care to talk to the financial houses in North America he

will realize that they have extreme confidence in this Province's ability to

predict and control its expenditures.

We have been very accurate in that regard in our four years,

unlike what happened previously when the previous government did not really care

about the expenditures once the Budget was in, and just let things simply

balloon. As they got more money from Ottawa - Uncle Ottawa was sending them down

every few months an extra $20 million or $30 million or $50 million, and they

were going merrily on their way, spending all of this extra money, not

controlling expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendous record in Canada and in

North America in terms of being able to predict and control expenditures. The

hon. gentleman should check his facts.

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

West.

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

I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister is

no doubt aware that there is a very serious concern being expressed on the Burin

Peninsula, particularly by the medical profession, as it relates to the

government's acceptance of the Dobbin Report and the potential for downgrading

the medical service on the Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister is aware, the doctors, the joint

town and community councils, several councils on the Peninsula, have expressed a

concern that there may be a downgrading in services as a result of the

restructuring of the boards. Will the minister tell me today if there will or

will not be any downgrading of any medical services at the Burin Peninsula

Health Care Centre as a result of the Dobbin Report?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there will be no downgrading of

medical services anywhere as a result of the Dobbin Report. What the Dobbin

Report does is make recommendations to government as to the boundaries of a

number of regions that we are going to establish to administer health care in

the Province, that we are contemplating rather than that we are going to,

because the procedure is this: We are taking each of the regions, step by step,

and conducting consultations with the hospital boards and the nursing home

boards and whoever is involved there, including the medical people and so on,

and then we will decide just how we are going to put it. What we are really

putting in place are boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member stop

yattering there until I complete my train of thought?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: What we are going to be doing is - and we

have not come to the discussions that we will be holding in the Burin Peninsula

area yet - in due time we will be holding extensive consultations with everybody

involved and then we will decide what we are going to do, but in any event, it

will have no impact on the pattern of health care in that area.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that a lot of the doctors do not share

his view on this and they are especially concerned about the movement that will

take place in terms of surgery which may be transferred as well as obstetrics,

Mr. Speaker.

So the minister says he is going to have meetings with these

people; can he assure me that not only will the health care services that are

now in place be left there, but will he assure me, Mr. Speaker, that the clinics

at Petit Forte and the other communities in the rural parts of the Burin

Peninsula, will continue to operate as they are presently operating under the

present board structure?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member persists in misreading what the Dobbin Report

is about. The Dobbin Report has to do with the establishment of boards to

provide regional services. Up until now, we are dealing with something like

fifty boards, nursing homes and hospital boards and most people are thinking in

terms of the institution they are operating in rather than in terms of the

region, and as a result there is competition when there should not be

competition and there is duplication of various services, not only medical

services but other services as well, and what we are trying to do under this

arrangement, is to set up a structure by which we can get the very best value

for the dollar so that we can deliver better health care, not worse.

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

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: This government certainly has no record to

boast of in delivering a better health care and not worse I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: What does he say to the doctors who

were on radio this morning expressing their concern about having people go to

Clarenville to have babies in the future? Will the minister do what is right,

once in his life, will he do what is right and do what is honourable and that

is, say to the people of the Burin Peninsula, that the hospital board that you

now have in place will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if there is someone the Minister

of Health should not take advice from it is the Minister of Justice, who, when

he was Minister of Health before told the people of the Burin Peninsula that the

best he could get them was an ambulance service to Clarenville.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to proceed with his question.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the Minister of Health, will he do

what is honourable, not what the former Minister of Health did in the Smallwood

administration, will he do what is right and what is proper, say to the people

of the Burin Peninsula the board you have is working well and that we as a

government will ensure that the board which is there will remain there and the

health care facilities at Grand Bank, St. Lawrence and Burin will continue to

operate under that board?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I will ask the hon. member to do is first of all read

the report. Mr. Speaker, it should not be hard, it is only twelve pages.

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

West, a final supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is no joke, I say to the

Minister of Health and I have read the report, and I will ask the minister, I

will repeat again: will the minister tell the people of the Burin Peninsula that

the health care board structure that they now have will remain? That is the

question, answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this government does not take a

back seat to anyone in what we have done and are doing on the Burin Peninsula. I

would like to tell the member that very shortly we will be opening a brand new

health care facility in the Town of St.Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: A tremendous institution which indicates

that this government is committed to health care in this Province, including the

Burin Peninsula!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, and there'll be a fairly lengthy

preamble.

In February 1991 the task force on Agri-Foods, which was

appointed by the Wells administration, recommended that the government close the

Central Swine Breeding Station outside St. John's and terminate price subsidies

for the hog industry. Now, two years later, the government is implementing those

recommendations.

But that task force also recommended specifically that the

government retain and continue to operate the Western Swine Breeding Station at

Pynn's Brook in the Humber Valley. The report cites the Western Stations'

success in artificial insemination and research. Perversely the government moved

the Western Swine Breeding Station to the St. John's facility a couple of months

after getting the report by trucking the animals and equipment from there to St.

John's.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is: will the government now act on

the recommendation of the task force report about the Western Swine Breeding

Station and reinstate the research facility at Pynn's Brook?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible). You should worry about your

nomination!

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

The question and answer is being shared between the Member

for Humber East and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I hear other

responses going on, so much so that I can't listen to the main participants.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, what the House of Assembly and

the people of Corner Brook in particular should find interesting is that the

Western Swine Breeding Station was closed, as the hon. member said, in 1991.

This is the spring of 1993, and that's the first time the hon. member brought up

this issue in the House of Assembly. That comes to me as a major surprise.

The Hulan task force on agriculture is a Royal Commission

report to this government the same as any other Royal Commission report to any

government. We're implementing what we think is appropriate. I made it very

clear when I first received the report that the recommendations that carried

high price tags, such as the building of a new abattoir - I think it's

recommended for somewhere on the east coast - would have to be put on hold until

we were in a position to do it. So we're implementing the recommendations of the

agricultural task force on a timely basis and in a way we think makes most sense

for this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Why are you attacking (Inaudible)?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is waiting to recognize the hon.

member but there are other questions being asked. Of course, they've not been

recognized. The Chair is going to recognize the hon. member momentarily.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to the

Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. If he checks Hansard he will see that I've

asked questions and presented petitions calling for the reinstatement of the

Western Swine Breeding Station. I refer him to Hansard for the fall of 1991.

I repeat my question. Will the government implement the

recommendation of the Agri-Foods task force report specifically calling on the

government to retain and continue to operate the Western Swine Breeding Station

at Pynn's Brook? Will the government now reinstate that excellent research

facility at Pynn's Brook?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, the government won't be

considering reimplementing the, or.... The service provided by the Western Swine

Breeding Station is now being adequately provided by the Central Swine Breeding

Station, which as she is aware is about to close, and I think will be closed by

June 30.

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

Humber East.

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

Premier. Given the status of the Island of Newfoundland as having no swine

disease and being one of the few places in the whole world with a swine disease

free environment, given the fact that your own Task Force on Agri-Foods praised

the success of the Western Swine Breeding Station at Pynn's Brook, the

artificial insemination and research done there for many years from the mid-70's

until the summer of 1971, given the fact that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows very well that questions are not

supposed to be prefaced with long

preambles and the hon. member has been given

some flexibility. I ask the hon. member please, to get to the question and

observe the rules of the House.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: will

the government as recommended by the Task Force Report on Agri-Foods, continue

to operate swine breeding and research and will the government reinstate the

research station at Pynn's Brook in the Humber Valley?

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

Agriculture?

MR. FLIGHT: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the answer is

no. Mr. Speaker, the government has just announced publicly and in the House of

Assembly, that we are intending to close the Swine Breeding Station in Portugal

Cove within the next six or seven months or however long it takes to wind it

down on an orderly basis. So, Mr. Speaker, it obviously would not make sense

even to the member, even to that member, Mr. Speaker, to consider re-opening the

Swine Breeding Station on the West Coast.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture: why did the Task Force on Agri-Foods call for the

government to close the Central Swine Breeding Station outside St. John's but to

retain and continue to operate the efficient and successful research station at

Pynn's Brook? Given the rationale stated in the report, will he not reconsider

and continue a small efficient successful swine breeding operation in the

Province and locate it where the Western Swine Breeding Station operated so well

for so many years, in Pynn's Brook?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, in view of the decisions

made and publicly announced with regard to the governments involvement in the

hog industry in Newfoundland, the government has indicated publicly in the

Budget, I have said publicly here in the House of Assembly and everywhere, Mr.

Speaker, that the government of Newfoundland is withdrawing its support to the

hog industry and as such, we will not be undertaking any obligations to the hog

industry in as far as providing breeder stock, experimental or research.

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

short question.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I ask

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing comes under his agency, his department, Mr. Speaker, the Budget

indicates that $1.7 million has been taken from Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing for staffing and operating costs. How many full or part-time jobs will

be eliminate and where will these cuts come from within the system? Where are

they going to be doing the lay-offs, Mr. Speaker?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon.

Member for Fogo came to that conclusion because I have not necessarily arrived

at that conclusion yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Under

Section 13 of the Internal Economy

Commission Act, I table the Report of the Commission of the Internal Economy for

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that it is

required, but out of an excess of caution, let me give notice that I shall on

tomorrow move that the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West be appointed a

member of the Public Accounts Committee. I think it can be done by notice but I

can't find the Standing Order offhand. So, just to make sure that we do

accommodate the Opposition on it, to bring the Committee up-to-date, let me give

the notice.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I believe that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair should have done this under

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, but if the House will

permit, I will submit it now. It is under the authority of

Section 3 of the

Electoral Boundaries Act. I take pleasure in announcing the Chair's appointees

to the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. The members of the Commission

are, Mr. John Nolan of Topsail Pond, Ms. Dorothy Inglis of St. John's, and Mr.

Ray Baird of Corner Brook.

Further, in accordance with the provisions of the act, the

Chief Justice of Newfoundland has appointed Mr. Justice Mahoney, of the Court of

Appeal, as the Chairperson of this Commission. The Chair would like to say that

there is supposed to be an appointee for Labrador but, of course, since the

legislation is before the House, the Chair will wait until the House approves

the legislation.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure I rise to present a petition on behalf of

1,057 residents of the Province who direct their petition to the members of the

House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament

assembled: 'We, the undersigned, urge the government to reinstate the necessary

funding to keep in operation the facility, the Daybreak Parent Child Centre

located on 3 Barnes Road in the city of St. John's. It is critical that their

service be one of the options available for families who need child development

and parenting support and other specialized service.' What is unique about this

petition is it is a petition from residents from all over the Province including

Labrador City, Corner Brook, St. Anthony, Baie Verte, Mount Pearl, St. John's,

Grand Falls, Windsor and other areas throughout the Province.

The comments of the Premier and others on the government side

of the House with respect to the fact that this is a service only available in

St. John's and therefore ought to be closed, or something to the effect that if

we couldn't have one everywhere we ought not to support it in St. John's - the

residents of the Province who signed this petition don't feel that way. They

believe this is an important service being provided to children and they, no

doubt, will agree with the statement made by Joe Whittaker, a junior high school

teacher, who says that our teachers, guidance councillors, educational

therapists and administrative staff spend endless frustrating hours trying to

solve problems which could have been dealt with much less expensively and more

effectively early in the child's life by a group like the Daybreak Parent Child

Centre. Mr. Speaker, it is acknowledged by professionals in the educational

field, the importance of this early childhood program at Daybreak, and I say, it

is recognized by the community outside of the educational field, Mr. Speaker.

Catherine Gregory, the President of the Basilica Catholic Women's League says

they believe that Daybreak is a crucial element in attempting to ensure that

families become stronger and eventually more productive members of our

community. That is a strong statement in favour of the centre and I think it is

useful to quote as well from a letter to the Premier by a well-known

Newfoundland author, Helen Porter, who has written to the Premier and talks

about the centre, which used to be called Teach-a-Tot. She says, 'On my visits

there and in my chats with Ms Rabinowitz and other members of the staff, and

some parents, I have been struck by what a positive influence Daybreak has been

in our community and in our Province. What bothers me more than anything else in

the world is the fact that so many children, through forces beyond their

control, and often beyond the control of their families, are doomed to lives of

physical, social and emotional impoverishment. What has been accomplished at

Daybreak has done more to enrich and influence for good the lives of so many

children and their families than any other agency I know of. I simply cannot

believe that you and your government can even consider destroying such a

positive force.

Instead of abolishing Daybreak, why don't you and your

government investigate setting up similar services in other parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador? Is there any way to convince you that you would be

getting a huge bargain, just as you are now getting a bargain in the vital

services Daybreak provides to the community?'

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it could be put better than it

was by Helen Porter, a recognized and well-known author and poet living in St.

John's.

The parents and staff of Daybreak have been carrying on a

valiant effort since the Budget was announced, to continue to pressure this

government to change its mind. I know that the families and support group have

been sitting in the galleries of the House of Assembly ever since this decision

was made, and will stay here until the decision is reversed.

I hope that the government side is listening, that the

backbenchers have been able to discuss this matter in caucus, that the

government has seen the error of its ways, and will announce soon -hopefully

within twenty-four hours - to the public and the parents and the workers of

Daybreak that this service will not be destroyed by an uncaring and insensitive

government.

I ask that that decision be announced as quickly as possible

because this has gone on long enough. It was a bad decision. It is time for the

government to recognize that it was a bad decision and to reverse it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member for Burin

- Placentia West, I would like to call to the attention of hon. members that it

has been told to us by our technician that it seems to be a practice of some

hon. members, when they are standing over their desks, to hold on to the

microphones, or when they are speaking to move the microphones back and forth.

The microphones, in their present positions, can pick up the sound. It is not

necessary to move them around. And every time that happens and the damage is

done it costs three hundred dollars. We would advise hon. members not to tamper

with the microphones.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition

of 1,057 people from this Province who, like everyone else in this Province,

support the continuation of the Daybreak Centre.

It appears that the only people in this Province who don't

support, or didn't support, the continuation of the Daybreak Centre were the men

and the woman who sit on that side of the House of Assembly. For some reason,

they decided it was time to attack certain groups in this Province, it was time

to drag the money from people who were indefensible in this Province. That is

what the Premier and his Cabinet did when they decided to put together this

Budget.

It is time that the Premier and his ministers be brought to

their senses. It is time they realized that there are people in this Province

who need the continuation of the Daybreak Centre. It is time they recognized the

significant contribution that the Daybreak Centre has made, and now it is time

that these men and woman not only recognize that the decision they made was a

bad decision, like most of the decisions they made regarding the Budget, but it

is time they recognized that the decision must be changed. It is time they

admitted, What we have done has been a tremendous blunder. The mistake is a

terrible mistake - that we, as a government, as a Cabinet, have attacked people

in society today whom we should not be attacking, by withdrawing half-a-million

dollars from a several billion dollar Budget.

MR. HARRIS: Let's debate it tomorrow, Private Members'

Day.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is not a bad suggestion, I say to

the Member for St. John's East. Why does this government, who tomorrow has

Private Members' Day, not lay upon the Table the Private Members' resolution

that would debate the pros and cons. I know where the cons would come from, Mr.

Speaker, but I would like to hear the defence from the members opposite as to

why they scuttled that budget. I would like to hear the Member for

Pleasantville, who, in a wishy-washy way, didn't have the courage to stand up

and support it, like a man should in the Legislature if he believed in what he

was doing. Instead of that, he put on some sort of a 'banana' statement

regarding Newfoundland's stature in Confederation. What the Member for

Pleasantville should have done was brought in a private members' resolution and

asked this House to debate cutting half-a-million dollars.

MR. HARRIS: We can still give unanimous consent.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. No problem with this caucus in giving

unanimous consent, and the member can speak for his. No problem at all, Mr.

Speaker. We can do that.

But government have to be brought to their senses, they have

to be brought to their knees. I am surprised when you see people who were

educators, former educators like the two ministers up there, who sat around the

Cabinet table and decided to slash half-a-million dollars from Daybreak. It is

hard to believe that these two people, who were former presidents of the NTA,

who were out there day-in and day-out promoting and defending the rights of

education, when yet, the two of them could sit around the Cabinet table and cut

from the Budget some very valuable money as it related to the operation of a

very important educational group in this Province.

I don't expect the Minister of Education to know the

difference, because he hardly knows his name, let alone the contribution that

Daybreak has made to society. No one should be surprised by that. As a matter of

fact, it was only a couple of weeks ago the Premier had to bring in the former

Minister of Education to help solve a problem within the education system. So

what confidence do we expect the people of this Province to have in the Minister

of Education, when the Premier had no confidence in his minister and had to go

out and bring in the former minister, who resigned, I would suspect, over a

disagreement with the Premier?

In any case, this petition that was brought in by the Member

for St. John's East is something we should all support - fifty-two members. I

only hope and pray that the Premier and his Cabinet have listened to the pleas

from the people of the Province regarding Daybreak - not just the Member for St.

John's East and the Conservative caucus, not just us. All we are doing is

defending the cause here in this forum as we were elected to do.

The people of this Province have spoken loud and clear, have

sent a message to this government that what they have done is wrong. All we are

doing here, our caucus with the Member for St. John's East, is putting forth the

arguments that these people have asked us to present in the House, which we have

a responsibility and a duty to do. And, not only should we do that, we believe

very strongly in what we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: We hope and pray that it will have some impact

upon this callous, uncaring government. For God's sake, get your act together.

Announce today that Daybreak will continue and recognize the tremendous value it

has been to this Province.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition

here on behalf of some 219 residents of the community of Cormack in the district

of Humber Valley.

The petition says: 'To the hon. the House of Assembly of

Newfoundland in legislative session convened,' and so on. 'The petition of the

undersigned, the people of the community of Cormack, that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador reinstate the electrical power subsidy that was

eliminated in the Budget of March 18 1993.' It goes on to say: 'with regards to

your petitioners, and so on, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever

pray.'

The petition is signed by some 219 residents of the community

of Cormack, a small community comprised of some 760 residents. They do have a

stadium. They have a recreational complex there in the form of a stadium. it

doesn't have artificial ice like the other bigger centres in the Province. It

has a nice little stadium there, one that the people are proud of. It was put

there with very little government funding in the past number of years. The

children in the community and surrounding areas use, Mr. Speaker, especially

from about December month to April in the winter months of the year, to keep the

children in the community busy for one thing and to make them active in skating,

minor hockey, broom ball and so on. One of the things the government did in last

weeks Budget, the Budget of March 18th, Mr. Speaker, was cut the electrical

power subsidy for recreational facilities in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that community received last year, there

was always a maximum up to some $10,000 but that community, I think, received

something like $5,000-$5,500 back last year from the Department of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, a great sum of money in a small community such as that. A

community that is operating a facility without artificial ice, therefore it does

not consume as much electrical power as places like Deer Lake, Corner Brook,

Stephenville or bigger centres in the Province. Members opposite, the hon.

Member for the Straits of Belle Isle, St. Anthony has been hit very hard with

this one. Hawkes Bay has been hit, White Bay, La Scie, Baie Verte, Bell Island,

Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Hampden, all those communities, Mr.

Speaker, have been hit.

The big thing with it is this, the bigger centres, Mr.

Speaker, can pick up the shortfall, they always have it a lot easier to pick up

the shortfall than those smaller communities. They have absolutely nowhere to

go, only back to the same people that are paying their fees and so on in the

communities. That is indicative, Mr. Speaker, it is what has been happening

through this department ever since they changed the MOG system back in 1989, it

is indicative. A complete and consistent trend of downloading on the smaller

municipalities in the Province. They have nowhere to pick it up, no other

avenues to raise the money except for cutting out some minor hockey and programs

to the youth in those particular areas. This is a program that was much needed

and is much needed in the smaller centres in the Province. In a small community

such as the one I am talking about, namely this one, the community of Cormack.

I am sure that there will be other members bring petitions

forward over the next while, although we may only have another few days in this

session, but I am sure we will be back, I suppose, the latter part of April.

Other members will have the opportunity to bring in petitions on behalf of their

municipalities. I know that other municipalities in the districts of members

opposite are taking up petitions. Although the minister is not here, there are

other ministers here who sit around the Cabinet Table with this particular

minister, the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I

am sure that they will express to him the concerns that I have pertaining to

this particular petition and this particular subsidy being cut, as will members

opposite. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the only one cut in the

Budget but I am talking about this one because the petition directly talks about

the electrical power subsidy that has been eliminated.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the next one to be eliminated

will be the recreation director subsidy of some $4,500-$5,000 over the next

little while. There might be more to come but I caution members opposite that

this is striking right at the heart and soul of communities in this Province

when it comes to recreation for the youth. This is something I think that they

should look at and if at all possible, make some recommendations to their - even

the backbenchers, to their members in Cabinet, to their Cabinet colleagues, to

reinstate this power subsidy and to let the people and volunteers in those

communities get on with the excellent job that they have already been doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition put forth by my friend for Humber Valley on behalf of the residents of

the Cormack area. It is a crying shame, Mr. Speaker, that this administration

has now seen fit to download to the municipalities again, Mr. Speaker. The

member alluded to the fact that there is only 500, 600 or 700 people in Cormack

and a $10,000 electrical subsidy is a lot of money for a small community like

Cormack. He said that this is the only recreational facility in town from, I

think he said from December up until April, it keeps the people active for a

difficult time during the winter. I have never visited the stadium in Cormack

but back in 1975 or 1976, I visited Hampden, another community in the member's

district, Mr. Speaker, and I was amazed at how well a natural ice surface worked

in these towns. I think they were probably pioneers in this Province in the

establishment of enclosed outdoor rinks originally, that they converted into a

kind of stadium except that it did not have artificial ice.

$10,000 is a lot of money to small towns like that. More

importantly, since recreation commissions and stadiums and so on operate as

agencies of the municipality, these budgets have all been completed for months,

and now, right in the middle of the stream, despite the fact that the minister

promised that municipalities would have no more surprises in store for them,

that what we found happening last year when we eliminated the road component,

that would not occur any more, and we find in this Budget again, on the 18th of

March, another attack has come on municipalities, the recreation in the

communities by taking away several thousands of dollars from some small

communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's might be able to

absorb it and the City of Corner Brook might be able to absorb these kinds of

losses. For the 500 or 600 people who live in the Town of Cormack, it is an

almost impossible task for them to raise that money. That is a lot of money,

that is probably half what they can raise locally in that stadium for the year,

and this $10,000 that is going to be eliminated might be the straw that breaks

the camel's back and means that they will either have to have reduced operating

hours or perhaps not be able to operate at all.

We find as the impact of this Budget starts to sink in

throughout the small communities in Newfoundland, we find it out in Twillingate,

we find it out in Lewisporte, we find it in Gander and so on throughout the

Province, and the smaller communities with a finite capacity to generate money,

there is not a whole lot out there. We spend all summer at festivals and special

events trying to raise a few dollars to keep them going during the winter and

now to find that $10,000 has just been taken away, is unfair -

AN HON. MEMBER: In some cases they only use five, they do

not use ten.

MR. WINSOR: - in some cases they only use half of it, Mr.

Speaker, probably because a facility like Cormack that does not have to have the

expense of an ice machine going year round to keep the artificial ice there

because it is natural ice, nature takes care of it, and to take that $5,000 or

$6,000 or $7,000 or one dollar from a municipality which has contributed so much

to recreation and not asked government for anything is uncalled for and

unnecessary. It is a good facility, it is worth maintaining and this

administration should reverse the steps that it took in the March 18th Budget

and restore the electrical subsidy to the people of this Province.

It is too bad the minister is not here to respond and I am

kind of amazed that a minister who spent so much time supporting recreation,

supporting the cause of recreation in this Province, could now sit idly by and

let the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, strip away things

that he knows to be true. Maybe it is the Premier who does all that, Mr.

Speaker, maybe if it was for skiing or yachting this subsidy would be

reinstated, but for rinks where thousands of children enjoy the benefits, we

cannot find support from this administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition concerning the

schools. I have two petitions with basically the same prayer and because they

are the same, I would like to present both of them at the one time.

Mr. Speaker, one petition concerning 1,333 names from St.

Michael's parish on Bell Island and one from Holy Family parish in Paradise,

concerning 643 names. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker: We the

undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for children of our

Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same

way we support the rights of others to have schools they desire; we also support

co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service

schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in

our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representative, not to tamper

with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I speak very freely and very readily in support

of these petitions. I'm very pleased to say that I was proud to be here on the

day that the Premier made his ministerial statement in the House of Assembly.

Proud because at the same time he was delivering his statement he readily

admitted that it was a joint statement. One that was being presented by him in

our hon. House, but one that was supported by the leaders of the various

churches which were represented here on that day. Very clearly in that statement

being made by the Premier we showed that we concurred with their thoughts. We

showed that we were committed to a committee being made up of the churches to go

back and bring recommendations forward to our government.

In the prayer of the petition I think there's a line and

sentence that really sums up what I personally believe and what I personally

support. It says: we also support cooperation between the churches in education.

I think that those who drafted the petitions, and those who put them together

and asked people from across the Province - and in particular in this case from

my own district, from Paradise and Bell Island - that they were saying that that

is of importance to them. That shared services should be used where they are

needed.

That in itself is a recognition of the kinds of times that

we're living in in our Province and also a recognition that our Province has

come a long way in not just the maintaining of our religious beliefs, but the

willingness to share our facilities with other Christians.

In a letter sent to me by one of the priests in the parish he

said, very quickly, that he believed that this is a principle. But he said in

his letter, concerning the petition, that the names on the petition include both

Roman Catholics and Christians of other sister churches. I think when that was

stated he is also saying that in the community people are saying as well that

the dollar that government has to commit to education must be taken as far as it

can. They are saying in their petition that cooperation between churches is

essential.

I support the petition. I support it because I come from that

system myself. My early schooling took place with the Presentation nuns and my

high school with the Christian Brothers in Corner Brook. That system is one that

has augured well for all of us in the Province, whether it was Roman Catholic or

other denominations. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have added my name to the

petition and that I support the prayer of the petition and all those who have

signed it. It's a pleasure for me to present them on their behalf today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again it is

a privilege for me to rise in this hon. House on behalf of 677 adults in the

area of St. John's South commonly known as Shea Heights. Again it is on behalf

of the great move by this government in protecting the denominational education

system throughout this Province.

Let me read to you, Your Honour, the prayer of the petition:

whereas the education of our children is utmost in our minds, and

whereas the

right to have a Christian education is already entrenched in our Constitution,

we the undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for the

children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep

them, in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they

desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education,

especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in

our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper

with the rights we have under the Constitution of Canada.

Now like the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, the

Minister of Tourism and Culture, I was extremely fortunate to grow up and be

educated in the denominational education system. I do not know of any member in

this House, and it shows day in and day out, on both sides, the quality of the

individuals who have been brought up in denominational education. It is seen

every single day. It is seen with the respect that hon. members have for you,

Your Honour, and the Chair. It is something that has gone down for 500 years,

and I think we all understand, but in saying that I think we also understand

that over the years we have seen a tremendous amount of duplication and waste,

if you want to use that word, in our system.

I think the Williams Report in some way enriched and

enlightened us all to look at ourselves, to look over our shoulder and have a

look at the system of education and try to refine it to give the taxpaying

people of this Province the best system of education for the tax dollars that

this government has to collect.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need, because I think it was adamantly

said by the Premier of the Province in his statement, reaffirmed by the Minister

of Education, and again reaffirmed by I think it was Pastor King who represented

the churches. I think I can remember with some degree of accuracy what Pastor

King said, that he was extremely pleased that this government had the foresight

to protect the denominational education system. However, he also agreed that

there was room for improvement to get the most for our educational dollar.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I stand in this

hon. House on behalf of 677 adults in my district and present this petition.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

You called Orders of the Day, which is what brought me to my

feet. Could we begin, please, with the second reading debate on Bill No. 20? I

wonder if one of the Pages - I only see one in the Chamber - would be kind

enough to let the gentleman from St. John's East know that we are going into

this, because I understand he has an interest in it. If you would be good enough

to call Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

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

Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 20).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, this is a very straightforward

Bill and I shall make a very straightforward speech. The Electoral Boundaries

Act that has been in force since 1973 provides for the appointment of a four

person commission every ten years to review the electoral boundaries of the

districts into which the Province is divided for the purpose of electing people

to the House of Assembly, and then making recommendations to the House. The

commission as we know does not set the boundaries.

Your Honour, in whom the appointment is vested by the

statute, and wisely so in my judgement, earlier today appointed the four members

required by the present Act. Required and authorized. There is a belief that we

should have a fifth member. Your Honour indicated earlier that should the House

authorize the appointment of a fifth person you would be minded to appoint

somebody who lives in the Labrador portion of the Province. I obviously

subscribe to that and as a member of the government am happy to bring forward a

government bill which would provide for the increase of the commission from four

to five.

That's the only thing the Bill does, Mr. Speaker. In my

judgement it's a worthy aim. With that said I will commend the Bill to the House

of Assembly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of

the legislation that would change the electoral boundaries commission act to add

a fifth member to the commission.

In doing so I'd like to take the opportunity to say how

disappointed I am in the government when given an opportunity by the ten year

examination of electoral boundaries not to have taken the opportunity to do

something that is long overdue in this Province. That is, to take action to

ensure that we have in this Legislature an equal number of men and women.

The House last year debated on Private Members' Day a

resolution put forth by this hon. member to propose the setting up of a

committee to study the way in which the House of Assembly Act could be amended

to decrease the number of districts from fifty-two to twenty-six and provide for

dual representation. That each district would return to this House two members,

one man and one woman.

We had a full debate on this issue in this House. I recall

the feeble arguments made by the representatives of the government, and back

bench and front bench, as to why they couldn't go along with this. Why they

couldn't ensure that we would have the kind of affirmative action necessary to

make sure that this House had amongst its members an equal number of men and

women.

I don't recall them all now. Most of them were fairly

trivial. I think one of them was you can't tell people who to vote for. What we

were proposing was a method to allow people to have a choice of voting in their

districts twice. Once for a man and once for a woman. Or I suppose if you are

the type of male chauvinist who didn't want to see any woman in the House of

Assembly you wouldn't have to vote for a woman at all. You could vote for just

one man.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You could just vote for one man. So the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island wouldn't be forced to vote for a woman

because he could exercise his franchise in such a way that he only voted for the

man of his choice. If he didn't want to have any women in the House he could -

MR. WALSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture on a point of

order.

MR. WALSH: I'm wondering would the Member for St. John's

East allow a question? I ask the Chair if we could ask him a question? I'm just

wondering why in the past, if he has such a desire to see women in the House,

why he would -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: - why he would challenge women for the

nomination on a number of occasions and defeat them, and actually run against

them publicly to defeat them? I almost won in the Bay of Islands in 1979.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There's no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure whether the Member for St.

John's East yielded the floor for the question, but just to tell the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'd remind hon. members that when the Chair is speaking hon.

members should be listening.

The hon. member rose on a point of order. It wasn't a point

of order. He was trying to get the floor. The hon. member should ask: would the

hon. member permit a question? If the hon. member yields, well, that's fine. If

the hon. member doesn't yield, well then, he just has to take his place and

remain silent.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the Liberal members, whether back bench or

front bench - I think maybe the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island was a back

bench then; now he is in the second row, so perhaps he is moving up to the front

bench, but one can see by the kind of comments and questions that particular

member makes, how trivial they see this issue and how much they are prepared to

trivialize the important issue of the representation of women in this House.

That is how important the hon. member thinks this question is.

For example, the gross distortion and deliberate

misrepresentation of the facts by the hon. member certainly indicates how he

regards this issue. He may know that the New Democratic Party - I know he ran

for the NDP at one time back in 1979 and -

MR. WALSH: 1971.

MR. HARRIS: 1971 was it? I am sorry. So some time ago he

ran for the New Democratic Party. It is a shame he did not stay in the party and

learn from the other members of the party, particularly the women in the party,

the importance of affirmative action. If he had, he would not be trivializing

the issue right now.

He may know that in 1987 when I ran for federal office there

was a contested nomination, a first for our party, I may say, in the federal

field in this Province when there were two candidates seeking to represent the

same district. I was one of them and I happened to win the nomination. That was

my first time seeking the nomination as it was the other person who was

involved.

I suppose the problem of nominations is really one of the

problems that has traditionally made it difficult for women to be candidates.

What my proposal would do would be to ensure that we would not have to, and

parties would not have to, pick and choose districts for affirmative action, but

that each district would be an affirmative action district. Each district would

be certain to have a woman representing that district as well as a man. I think

that is a far more desirable approach.

Mr. Speaker, I say I am disappointed because that was the

best argument that government came up with. I believe the Minister of Finance,

the current Minister of Finance who was then Government House Leader, had

another problem. He said they would be quite willing to support the proposal -

all Liberals on that side of the House would be quite willing to support that

proposal - if, in fact, it had just provided for two members. That is, if the

resolution itself did not say that there must be one man and there must be one

woman. If it just provided for dual membership, or dual ridings, and leave it to

the parties to make that decision, they could support it, he said. The

government members could support that resolution if it had provided for dual

ridings and let the parties decide on representation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I made the suggestion that if that is the

case - if the government members could support that particular part of the

resolution, then they simply had to amend the resolution to delete the

requirement that there be one man and one woman, and leave it up to the parties

to ensure that in all of these dual ridings that we would then have, there would

be a party responsible for ensuring that they had one male and one female

candidate, thereby ensuring representation of 50 per cent women in the House of

Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the response to that suggestion, that they

should amend the resolution, by the Minister of Finance, the then Government

House Leader, was that no, no, the government caucus had taken the position that

they would never amend Private Member's resolutions from the opposition side of

the House; that they either would support it in its entirety or if they could

not support it in its entirety they would vote against it. This was the

statement of high principle from the Government House Leader of the day, the

current Minister of Finance, and he was stating presumably the policy and the

principle of the government caucus with respect to Private Member's resolutions.

So that was how they weaseled out of that one that day.

Now a couple of weeks later the Member for Torngat Mountains

made a Private Member's resolution to the House and that resolution was to

change the name of the Province from the Province of Newfoundland to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and seek appropriate constitutional

amendments. Well, just to show you how consistent were the principles of the

government caucus and the government House leader I ask you what do you think

the government did in response to that resolution? You do not have to go back to

Hansard. I guess most hon. members will remember what they did. The government

amended the resolution which was supposed to change the name of the Province

from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador and they amended it to set up a

committee to study it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened to the principle which said

several weeks earlier, on an important resolution having to do with the

representation of women in this House, when they said it was not their policy

and they had taken the position that they do not amend Private Member's

resolutions? A very flexible principle, Mr. Speaker, especially when on the

second resolution, the resolution regarding the name of the Province, all hon.

members on the government side and on the opposition side indicated they were in

favour of the proposal, but the government did not want to do that, they wanted

to set up a committee so that the Member for Eagle River could bounce around the

Province during the summer months collecting opinions from people in Labrador

and Newfoundland on the name of the Province.

That is what they did, Mr. Speaker. So much for the principle

that the government would not amend Private Members' resolutions. It was a

weaseled principle designed by the government members and by the front bench of

the Liberal caucus to weasel out of the very fine proposal for affirmative

action to ensure representation of women in this House of Assembly would be on

an equal basis, that there would be twenty-six women and twenty-six men, half

women and half men in this House regardless of the number of seats.

Now the New Electoral Boundaries Commission was the perfect

opportunity to enshrine this principle into law, the perfect opportunity to get

the new Electoral Boundaries Commission to take the number of seats, divided it

not into forty-two new seats as the legislation now proposes, but to divide it

into say twenty-one to twenty-six, or twenty-one to twenty-five seats, each to

be represented by two representatives, one man and one woman. Now, if government

wanted to weasel out of the affirmative action side of it and leave it up to the

parties as they suggested in the House, they did not have to say there must be

one man and one woman, they could still have dual ridings.

We had an election last night in Prince Edward Island where

for the first time in Canadian history a woman was elected Premier of Prince

Edward Island and in that province they have thirty-two members of the Prince

Edward Island Legislature and they represent sixteen districts. Simple. They do

not have any problem having dual ridings in Prince Edward Island. Two

representatives are returned from each riding every time they have an election

and it is up to the parties there whether they run one man or one woman.

If the government believed it was possible to allow the

parties to exercise an affirmative action in the area of representation by each

party nominating a man and a woman for half the number of seats we have now this

government could have done it. They had the perfect opportunity and they turned

it down. I want to go on record as saying how disappointed I am that the

government, after having indicated itself when this private member's resolution

was before the House, that they could see, and they could go along with having

dual ridings, but not with the Legislature insisting on one man and one woman.

But just dual ridings and that the parties do it.

They have not taken this opportunity that they now have to

redefine the electoral boundaries in such a way so that we have half as many

seats with dual ridings, dual representation, two people representing each

riding, each voter to have two votes in each district, Mr. Speaker, with an

opportunity to have affirmative action, equal representation of men and women in

this House for a period of time to ensure that that would be considered the norm

in political life in this Province.

I am disappointed and I think that the government in failing

to take this opportunity has revealed their real position on the issue of

affirmative action. They aren't interested in equality of representation in this

House. They aren't interested in ensuring that there are half women and half men

in this House. They aren't interested in taking measures that will ensure that

Newfoundland and Labrador women are represented in this House in proportion to

their representation in the population.

I will support the addition of one more commissioner to see

that the people of Labrador are represented on this commission, but I'm bitterly

disappointed that the government has failed to take principled action and ensure

that we will have equality of representation by men and women in the next House

of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to have a few

words on this Bill. People present for the debate of the Private Member's motion

of the Member for St. John's East on changing the district boundaries to have

half the number of seats with a man and a woman representing each district will

recall that I supported that motion.

I've seen for many years now affirmative action for men in

politics. The present Minister of Justice and Government House Leader has been

the beneficiary of affirmative action for men. He was appointed to the Cabinet

from private life and served in the Cabinet for many months before he finally

earned election to the House of Assembly and was able to sit in this Assembly.

Others of his generation were the beneficiaries of affirmative action for men as

practised by the late Premier Smallwood. If women are ever to catch up we have

to have comparable conscious efforts for women.

I supported the motion of the Member for St. John' East, as

did some of my colleagues in the official Opposition, the Member for Grand Bank,

the Opposition House Leader, among them. So I share the disappointment expressed

by the Member for St. John's East in criticizing this Bill, in criticizing the

failure of the government to bring forward a reform to the electoral boundaries

legislation to provide for the innovative approach suggested by the Member for

St. John's East to instantly achieve equality of representation of women and men

in the Province.

As for the content of the Bill, which is a simple measure to

increase by one the number of people on the boundaries commission, let me say

that I don't see that it's necessary to increase the size of the commission and

the resulting cost to have balanced representation by geography, by sex, and to

ensure that we have a representative group. I do think it's extremely important

to select for the commission people who, together, have a comprehensive

knowledge of the geography of the Province.

I have to say that the last electoral boundaries commission -

the commission that worked in 1983 and reported in late 1984 - sadly lacked a

good knowledge of the geography of western Newfoundland. They proposed

boundaries for districts in the Humber area that really make no sense. Their

recommendations indicate that they really didn't know where people live in that

region. Apparently, they didn't realize that people live in a community called

Humber Village or that people live in a community called Hughes Brook.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Justice is asking where Humber

Village is. It is in the Humber Valley across the river from Little Rapids.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should get outside the overpass once

in a while.

MS. VERGE: But Little Rapids and Humber Village are now

in different districts. Hughes Brook is on the North Shore of the Bay of

Islands, actually, across the Ballam Bridge, named after one of the early

colleagues of the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes, Mr. Ballam was elected to the National

Convention and then was elected as the first member for Humber after

Confederation and served for many years as the Member for Humber. After the

Humber district was divided into West and East, he was elected as the Member for

Humber West, which comprises the present ridings of Humber West and The Bay of

Islands. He continued until Premier Smallwood ordered him to retire in 1966,

because Premier Smallwood was getting nervous about rising PC support in the

Corner Brook area and decided to go to Humber West himself. He then practised

affirmative action for males in politics by pointing to a young Liberal, Clyde

Wells, who was a lawyer in Humber East and anointed him his running mate. So, in

1966 we had Premier Smallwood running in Humber West, succeeding Charlie Ballam,

who was put out to pasture, and Clyde Wells running in Humber East.

But I digressed. I was answering the Minister of Justice's

question about the location of Humber Village and Hughes Brook. Hughes Brook is

on the North Shore of the Humber Arm of The Bay of Islands. You get to Hughes

Brook after you cross the Ballam Bridge named after the late Mr. Ballam. It is

immediately before the communities of Irishtown, Summerside, now amalgamated -

amalgamated by choice but sadly disappointed by the lack of funding from this

government.

At any rate, those communities, Humber Village and Hughes

Brook, are not in the same districts as their neighbouring communities. Humber

Village is in the district with Deer Lake, in Humber Valley district and Hughes

Brook is in the district with Deer Lake, Humber Valley district - crazy - and

that is because the people who made up the last Electoral Boundaries Commission

were from Eastern Newfoundland, from the Eastern part of the Island of

Newfoundland, and were not familiar with the geography of the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for trying to

ensure that the new boundaries commission is made up of a group of people who

have, among them, a full knowledge of the geography of the Province, a total

knowledge of where people live, where communities are located, which communities

naturally and logically should be grouped together in the one district. But

frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't see that it is necessary to increase the size of

the commission or drive up the cost. After all, this is a time when we have to

pinch pennies. We have to question every proposal for expenditure and instead of

spending more for this boundaries commission, I would propose giving the money

to the Daybreak Child Parent Resource Centre and the Dunfield Park Child Parent

Centre in Corner Brook. There are better uses for this money. It may be a small

sum for the government but it can be important to many needy people in our

Province.

So, on those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I personally do not

support this bill. I agree with the objective voiced by the government but I

don't think it is necessary to increase the size of the commission or drive up

the cost, to achieve the goal of having a commission with comprehensive

knowledge of the geography of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now, he will

close the debate.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to speak on the debate?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I do.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, sure of course.

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

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

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 20, "An

Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act," Mr. Speaker. My understanding of

this bill, Mr. Speaker, would be to amend Bill 62 to allow a larger number of

people to be appointed to the boundaries commission. Specifically, the Minister

of Justice spoke earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, and he suggested that what

the government intends to do, is appoint a resident of Labrador to the

commission. Now, they are to be commended for having representation from

Labrador on the commission, and I want to thank them for that.

Mr. Speaker, again though, we are seeing what this government

does. They want the people of this Province and, more specifically, the people

of Labrador, to feel that they are going to be gaining something by having a

representation on the commission, itself, while, in point of fact, with the

implementation of this commission the intent of this government, is to reduce

the elected representation to the House of Assembly. So they have been devious

again, Mr. Speaker, this government is being devious again, and they are

attempting to hoodwink the people of all of Labrador and the people of this

Province, by suggesting that because Labrador will have representation on the

Electoral Boundaries Commission, then they are going to get full representation

and have a fair hearing and we will probably retain our four elected

representatives to the House of Assembly,

whereas we all know that the stated

intention of the Electoral Boundaries Act, was to save money.

To save money they suggested, is why they would pass this

act, but, Mr. Speaker, while I, as many people in this House, feel that that is

honourable, that we should be attempting to spend money very wisely, I don't

think we should necessarily do it by cutting down the representation in this

House from Labrador, and that is what is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What else is said?

MR. A. SNOW: We have heard the Premier suggest that it

would be undemocratic to have anything other than representation by population.

We have heard the Minister of Justice suggest the same thing, that we should

have representation by population. According to an interview that I read in a

Labrador newspaper - and I assume that it was correct, I didn't see anything in

subsequent newspapers denying that he had made those remarks, so I assumed it

was correct what they had said, that it was the Minister of Justice who was

speaking to the paper, to the editor and suggested that.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that geography and other aspects

have to be taken into consideration when you are considering representation from

areas, and distance from the populated areas, distance from the capital - those

things should be taken into consideration. I firmly believe that we should not

have any split seats in Labrador and I want to be on record as saying that I am

opposed to any split seats. I think what we need is what we have there today,

where we have the districts defined geographically if you will, recognizing

Labrador's unique geographic position. Mr. Speaker, it is not to be tied with

the Island portion of the Province, and I think is what should be kept. Of

course, we know that it was a Progressive Conservative Government that brought

in legislation previously that guaranteed Labrador four seats. Again, I want to

emphasize that while I commend the government for its efforts to amend the

legislation or propose new legislation that would allow it to have a Labrador

representative on the Commission, I feel that it should also amend the

legislation to allow Labrador to retain its four seats.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closes the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I

would like to respond to the comments made by the members who have spoken. Let

me first deal with the gentleman from Menihek, who just finished his remarks.

He said that it was the stated intention of the government to

reduce the number of seats from Labrador. Now, given his habit of sending out

Hansard to his constituents, let me ask him to include this statement with his,

that his statement could not be more incorrect. The government have no stated

intention of reducing the number of seats in any part of the Province. We asked

the commission to recommend how one could divide the Province into between forty

and forty-six seats, if recollection serves me correctly, and then we have laid

down some special rules that will, in my judgement, benefit the true and proper

needs of the people of Labrador, as well as the people who live in other rural

or geographically distinct parts of this Province.

I don't want to go over the debate we had in the House before

Christmas but I do not want to let my hon. friend's remarks stand unchallenged.

I would say to him that rather than simply make his remarks here in the House -

and I don't, obviously, begrudge him making these remarks, I welcome him making

them - he should also make representations to the commission. I cannot do so as

a minister of the Crown. I hope there will be wide-spread representations from

throughout Labrador and throughout the Province, because there is an interest in

Labrador and there is an interest in the rest of the Province in these points.

I hope people will make the representations to the

commission. That is where they should be made, not simply here in the House

where we are all open to the suspicion we are simply making them for partisan

points. Now, I don't fault that - this is a partisan process - but I say to my

hon. friend for Menihek, he should be organizing himself to make representations

to the Mahoney Commission.

Let me make a reference to remarks made by my friend, the

Member for Humber East. She, I think, has underscored the wisdom, if I may, of

Your Honour's approach to this. You have named three persons: Mr. Baird, who sat

in this House - Ray was elected in 1979, 1982 and 1985?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Three elections. He served as a Table

officer. He was Deputy Speaker, if memory serves me. I wasn't in the House after

1985, but I was here after 1979 and 1982. After 1993 I expect to be here, as

well. We will see about that. Ray Baird sat at the Table. He was Deputy Speaker

- I'm sorry, Deputy Chair of Committees. He was elected three times.

John Nolan sat in the House. He was elected in 1966, lost by

a hair's breadth in 1971, was re-elected in the 1975 election in the new

Conception Bay South seat, had an unfortunate accident in the 1979 election and,

I believe, tried his hand in a by-election and didn't win. John Nolan served in

the House with distinction and in the Cabinet.

Dorothy Inglis, although she has never served in this or any

other elected Legislature, to my knowledge, has stood for election a number of

times and has a deep knowledge of the political process. Judge Mahoney, who was

appointed, one assumes, because he was a judge, also was a member of this House,

served from 1966 to 1971, and was briefly a member of the Smallwood

administration.

Let me talk about the three Your Honour has appointed. All

three have an intimate knowledge of the political process. In my view, that is

what the Electoral Boundaries Commission should be made up of. I suspect it is

no accident, Your Honour, that these people represent the various organized

political parties in this Province.

Finally, the remarks of my friend from St. John's East - we

have dealt with these in the House before. I don't need to repeat what was said.

We do not accept his point of view.

MR. HARRIS: I don't accept yours.

MR. ROBERTS: He does not accept ours. Fine, we will have

to agree to disagree. Your Honour, I would ask that the bill be now read a

second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries

Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

now, by leave. (Bill No. 20).

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. ROBERTS: If my friend for Eagle River would take the

Chair, or the member for - maybe the Member for Menihek should take the Chair.

No, I mean, any member may take the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Dumaresque): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill

No. 20)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: 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 Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole

have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill

No. 20 without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries

Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill No. 20)

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, could we go into Committee of

Supply, and let me say it is our intention not to ask the House to sit beyond

the time when the supply is adopted. If it is adopted by 5 o'clock as we hope

may be the case then I shall move the adjournment at 5 o'clock until tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I am in the hands of the House as always,

Mr. Speaker. It is not our intention to ask the House to do any other business

today. When the Interim Supply debate concludes today I will move the

adjournment of the House today.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Not quite yet, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole on Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 12.

The hon. the Government - Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are on

the Interim Supply debate, as I understand it. That is twice now, both the

Speaker and now the Chairman have introduced me as the Government House Leader.

I do not want to accept that position quite yet but in thirty or sixty days,

perhaps. Who knows what the crystal ball may bring forward? You never know. I

want to follow on a line that was taken yesterday by my colleague the Member for

Burin - Placentia West when he was talking about municipal capital grants

funding.

He expressed some concerns he had about one particular

community in his district and I want to talk about a community in my district,

the town of Garnish. We have now been six or seven years installing a water and

sewer system for the town of Garnish and there is about $3 million in the ground

now. Some of the system is functional and operating. Some of the householders

there are accessing water through temporary lines. They have run their own hoses

into the system. One

section of town that is not done has received a very high

ranking from the Department of Health. There are very serious health and

environmental concerns there. Another area of the town that needs to be done is

where the school is located, which is not yet serviced, but we have run into a

problem this year. Every year for the last six or seven years there has been an

allocation of money to continue with the water and sewer system at Garnish but

this year under the government's water and sewer capital works program so far

there is not a penny that has been allocated or budgeted for the town of Garnish

and I find that most regrettable and disappointing, Mr. Chairman. The residents

of Garnish, particulary the town council who have done their utmost to manage

that small community very, very well, I have to say.

They have been very prudent, always present balanced budgets,