November

21, 1994

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 65

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to provide hon. members

with an update on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's financial

position for the 1994-95 fiscal year.

Real economic growth of 3.4 per cent is now expected in

Newfoundland this year, instead of the 0.6 projected in the Budget. This

improvement, which is mainly attributable to higher than expected levels of

activity in the Province and related Hibernia project work, is having a positive

impact on our financial position for 1994-95. A more dominant factor, however,

is the continuing growth in the national economy.

The total budgetary requirement, that is the amount we are

spending in excess of our revenues, is now expected to be $151.1 million, a

reduction of $45.6 million from the original estimate of $196.7 million. On

current account, we now anticipate a surplus of $13.7 million, instead of the

$24.6 million deficit.

Current account revenues are expected to be $67.3 million

above Budget, due to higher current and prior years federal fiscal transfer

entitlements, as well as higher sales tax revenues. These improvements are

partially offset by increased expenditures of $29 million.

Mr. Speaker, while it is encouraging to see the improved

fiscal performance this year, we must recognize that our economy and our

financial position will continue to be strained in the short term. The

groundfish crisis will continue to impose economic and fiscal constraints, as

will increased federal restraint on social, economic and fiscal transfer

programs. Sound fiscal management is essential if we are to strengthen both our

long-term economic prospects and our ability to provide a sustainable level of

public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly pleased to see

that the Province's financial position has improved and that there is some real

growth in the economy; obviously, as the minister points out the real growth is

due to Hibernia rather than any effort on the part of this government to

stimulate economic development in the Province, but regardless of that, we are

certainly pleased to see that the position has improved.

I note however, that the position has improved primarily

was only a $10 million increase in retail sales tax and I think, $1.7 million in

other provincial revenues, and on the retail sales tax less than half of one per

cent of the overall revenue from that source. That is not a tremendous increase;

it shows some increase, primarily again, due to the strengthening of the economy

due to Hibernia, so, Mr. Speaker, you know, our real concern here is that it

shows a strengthening of the government's position, it does not show the real

position of the people of this Province. The people of this Province are still

suffering -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WINDSOR: - under severe economic constraints, Mr.

Speaker, is the minister going to use or (inaudible) the deficit has been

decreased -

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

The hon. member's time has expired (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - eliminated. Is the minister going to use

some of this surplus to create some jobs in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Premier. I am sure

the Premier is aware by now that there has been a strong, negative reaction all

over this Province to the cancellation of mandatory inspections for private

motor vehicles. People, under normal circumstances like to save money, but in

this particular case they are genuinely concerned that the cancellation of these

inspections will result in more accidents, more injury and possible death on the

highways.

Now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation either

refuses or is unable to refute these particular concerns. I would like to ask

the Premier, would he ask the Cabinet to suspend the cancellation of inspections

and undertake a review of this decision himself?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the House that

when the matter first came before Cabinet some time ago, I think most members of

Cabinet had essentially a similar reaction. What? Why would you do that? Then

the minister came forward with irrefutable logic. Irrefutable logic, from the

minister. Our immediate reaction was with scepticism, the same as anybody who

can make the case if they do not look at the real merit of it.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about reaction around the

Province. The only significant level of reaction - there may be some reaction

from a variety but the only significant level of reaction appears to have come

from garage owners and people who have been involved in the inspection

certificates and doing work.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, that is what I am hearing as a

significant level of reaction. That is not to say there isn't some in other

quarters, there may well be. But the minister satisfied Cabinet - a sceptical

Cabinet to start with - that in fact all the inspection is really doing is

causing some people to pay more money than they should otherwise pay in motor

vehicle repairs that were, largely speaking, unnecessary.

MR. TOBIN: Based on his own experience, he said, in

Marystown.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, maybe, based on his own experience,

but the minister went further and produced the record of performance from other

provinces - and I have forgotten how many now, the minister can give the detail

- other provinces where exactly the same course had been followed and there has

been no level of deterioration in the safety level, no increase in the number of

accidents and people involved saved a significant sum of money that appeared to

be unnecessary. On that basis, Cabinet approved it, so I see no reason to

suspend the proposal in any way or do any further review at this stage.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier used a similar

approach and similar words in defense of his Hydro obsession trying to explain

it away but I can assure him that the concern that has been expressed doesn't

just come from the dealers and service station operators. The general public has

a deep concern about this particular issue and that is what is so interesting

about it.

Now, we have also heard, Mr. Speaker, that the decision to

cancel the vehicle inspections was made without thorough consultation with the

Safety Council, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or any reputable authorities

on highway safety. I want to ask the Premier, shouldn't any matter that involves

public safety be subjected to the most thorough scrutiny by experts? Doesn't the

public - don't the people of the Province have a right to know from the experts

that their safety has not been placed in jeopardy by a decision such as this

one? Doesn't the Premier believe that?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not correct when

he is presenting the information to this House that proper consultation was not

made. Full consultation was made with people concerned about the safety of

vehicles and safety traffic. We also checked, Mr. Speaker, with seven other

provinces in Canada who have the same regulations as we do now here in this

Province: The Province of Ontario, the Province of Alberta, the Province of

British Columbia, the Province of New Brunswick, presently looking at it, the

Province of P.E.I. presently looking at it, so we are quite satisfied. The

decision is made and we are quite satisfied, with full consultation with the

necessary groups across this Province and across this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the

Premier, the leader of the government, on this particular issue because the

minister didn't answer the question. He evaded specifically the concerns that I

expressed in my last supplementary question.

We also understand that the government not only didn't

consult with the safety experts that I talked about, the RNC and the Safety

Council, it didn't even ask the insurance industry if there would be any impact

on premiums for automobile insurance. A spokesman for that industry, Mr. Nolan,

has publicly said - and he is the spokesman for the Insurance Bureau of Canada -

he has already said that auto insurance is likely to go up, not only because of

the potential for accidents; now, we hear that the mere fact that the rules have

changed from mandatory to voluntary inspections could be enough to drive up the

rates.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier once more: Will he

suspend this decision, the cancellation of inspections, until the full impact on

insurance rates can be fully documented and explained to the public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as it

was when he asked the question the first time. There is no change in the

meantime.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what we have to say

or do to convince the Premier that there is a real concern out there that this

decision will reduce safety on our roads and highways and will drive up

insurance premiums.

The other point is this: This is a regulatory change. This

matter will not even be subject to debate in this Legislature, in the people's

House. Could I ask the Premier this: Would he consult with the minister with a

view to asking the minister to hold public hearings so that the public will know

if there is any basis for their fears before he proceeds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to do

that. Based on the evidence and information that the minister brought before

what I tell you was a very sceptical Cabinet when the proposal was first

broached, the information that was put -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If the member wants to answer the

question, she can do so, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

the Minister of Justice about the documents he tabled on Friday on Hiland

Insurance.

Ten months ago, on 18 January, the minister received a

written report from his Superintendent of Insurance containing alarming

information about Hiland. The minister got the report after several individuals

had communicated to him grave concerns about Hiland. His supervisor's report

substantiated those concerns by pointing out the following: Number one, Hiland

had operated for the first eighteen days of the new year without adequate

reinsurance and still didn't have adequate reinsurance; number two, during 1993

Hiland took on more than double the liability projected in its business plan on

which the Department of Justice licence was based; and number three, continued

operations might result in the company's capital being reduced below the

required $1 million minimum.

I would like to ask the minister: When you got this

devastating report from your superintendent, why didn't you immediately suspend

Hiland's licence and alert policyholders? Isn't that what any prudent regulator

would have done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into the

kind of rhetorical claptrap that the hon. lady specializes in but let me try to

answer the question.

First of all, she said when I had heard from several

individuals about concerns. The only individual I heard from, and the documents

make it clear, is Mr. Hutchings at Metro General Insurance Corporation who wrote

to me, and the letter was tabled, on 14 December. I acknowledged his letter on

15 December. On 15 December, I asked the superintendent for a report which I

received on 4 January. I subsequently sent that report with one sentence changed

- and both versions are here, and the reason for the deletion of the sentence is

here - I sent that to Mr. Hutchings on 14 January and I concluded by saying - I

said: Here is what the superintendent tells me about Hiland. Now, I'm talking

about the reports from outside, to deal with that part of the hon. lady's

question first.

I concluded by saying: Here is what I'm told. I said: I've

reread your letter in the light of Mr. Tapper's minute and I can see no cause

for further action on my part, as Mr. Tapper, in my judgement, has answered your

concerns fully. I see nothing untoward - and I'm leaving out reference with

other company; I will go on - in the licencing or supervision of Hyland

Insurance Company - interesting that I misspelled Hiland. Nobody picked that up.

I would be glad to discuss either of these matters further if you wish to do so.

Please let me know. I would be happy to hear from you again if I can be of

further assistance with any other matter.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman responded, addressing the letter

to Robert M. Roberts. I'm not the only one who makes mistakes of sorts. He says:

With regards to the -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady wishes to ask

a question, she should. If she wishes to answer it, she will have to get elected

to sit on Your Honour's left.

MR. WINDSOR: She will shortly.

MR. ROBERTS: We will see about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The difference is the hon. lady was there

and got slung out on her butt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like for the hon. gentleman to get to the answer.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me go on. Here is the

answer that Mr. Hutchings made to me on February 2: With regard to the Hiland

Insurance we will have to agree or disagree. I think he probably meant to say

agree to disagree.

I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, at that stage of a letter which

he had sent to the superintendent, interestingly enough, and the letter to the

superintendent was also tabled and in that letter -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member for a supplementary.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me finish, my answer, if I may?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. member has had ample time

to answer.

MR. ROBERTS: I only wanted to point out that in that

letter Mr. Hutchings said: Thank you. The only information that I have is

hearsay. That is how strong the information was that came to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that Mr. Hutchings' letter wasn,t the

only warning he got about Hiland because his own superintendent in a report

dated January 18 said concerns about Hiland have also been expressed to you by

other individuals in the insurance industry. I would like to ask the minister

about the ten month gap in the documentation he tabled in the House on Friday.

After the scathing January 18 report from the superintendent there is no further

report until the very sketchy memo from the superintendent to the minister dated

last Friday, which obviously was prepared because of Opposition questions in the

House. Why the gap, minister? Were you asleep at the switch for ten months, or

were you protecting the interests of Mr. Gillingham and his backers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that is a despicable suggestion

and I reject it out of hand. It is a despicable suggestion and there is not a

shred of evidence to support it.

Now, let me deal with the hon. lady's question. She asked,

what did I do with the January 18 memorandum? I responded to it on the 21st:

Thank you for your minute about the situation with Hiland Insurance limited. I

share your concerns. My instructions are simple and straightforward, please do

whatever is necessary to ensure that the interests of those who placed business

with Hiland are protected properly and fully. The company must maintain

an adequate capital base and it must secure adequate reinsurance. We

shall have no choice except to suspend its operations at once should it fail to

meet both requirements. Please keep me informed of the developments as they

occur.

I heard nothing further from Mr. Tapper and I have no cause

to go back to Mr. Tapper. In the second paragraph on Page 1 of his January 18

memorandum he says: Concerns about Hiland have been expressed to you by other

individuals. I have no record of what those were. I have no recollection, and I

say now, as I have said publicly, anybody who raised concerns about Hiland

please come publicly and say so. The only one that we have any record of are the

letters from Mr. Hutchings. There was a letter from another insurance company in

St. John's complaining about the suggestion that we raise the $1 million capital

requirement to $3 million, but I say now if the hon. lady has any information

let her bring it out and we will deal with it.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note the minister never did answer for the ten month gap.

I now have a question for the Premier. I want to ask the

Premier a question on behalf of the thousands and thousands of insurance policy

holders throughout the Province. Will the Premier, if not the Minister of

Justice, immediately order a full independent enquiry into his provincial

administration's insurance regulatory system to determine what went wrong, it is

obvious it has been a colossal failure, and to improve consumer protection in

the future?

I say to the Premier that a full enquiry is absolutely

necessary now, and can proceed without conflicting with any police

investigations into Hiland.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House,

on behalf of the government, that we shall order a public enquiry should it be

necessary to do so.

MS. VERGE: It is obvious that it is necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, what is obvious to the hon.

lady is not obvious to a wide variety of other people, including the law

officers of the Crown on the criminal side. We cannot order an enquiry or take

any steps with respect to this matter until the police have completed -

MS. VERGE: Yes, you can.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will take the advice of my

criminal law officers against the hon. lady's advice on any legal issue one

million times to one, and I will be right.

PREMIER WELLS: With a great deal more confidence.

MR. ROBERTS: With a great deal more confidence. When it

comes to lawyering, the hon. lady should perhaps look at being a seamstress or a

politician, but not a lawyer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, let me say again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: She can be a seamster if she wishes. I can't

speak for her on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, the point I make is that we

cannot, and therefore we shall not, order any public inquiry until the police

investigations have taken their course. When the police have come to a

conclusion on this, they will come to their judgement. They will decide whether

charges will be laid or not. If charges are laid, fine. If they are not laid,

that is the police decision. We will then decide whether any other form of

inquiry is necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

a question for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, dealing with the

situation regarding Sual Fisheries, Frenchman's Cove, on the west coast. The

Premier is aware there is a lot of concern coming out of that community,

demonstrations out on the west coast today about the situation. I am wondering

if the minister could inform the House whether or not he is reconsidering his

department's decision not to issue a processing licence to Sual Fisheries of

Frenchman's Cove?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: I suppose I could give a very short answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Yes, I hope you have your dog leashed in the

proper place.

Mr. Speaker and members of the House, considering the serious

problem we have in this Province with regard to the processing sector, there

will be no change of mind with regard to issuing a new primary processing

licence at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Leader.

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

I say to the minister that it is time for him to deal with

the processing sector now and put that to rest. It is his responsibility and he

should deal with that, but in light of the fact that there is a new resource,

sea urchin resource off the west coast, Mr. Tobin, the federal minister, has

issued harvesting licences. There is a plant prepared to process this new

specie, with private money. There is a workforce; it will create from 75 to 100

jobs. Won't the minister take this matter under serious consideration and

provide this employment opportunity for the residents of Frenchman's Cove? Will

he not do that?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: It is under serious consideration, it has

always been, as far as the issue with regard to the processing sector. But I am

a bit amazed that I should get a question from the other side on this issue,

considering the fact that during the eighties the licences were given out

helter-skelter, with no consideration to the resource availability. That is why

we have it today; that is why we have the problem we have today, and therefore I

would ask this hon. House to let me take my time and do it properly, and not

make the mistakes that we did in the eighties.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the

minister is coming from, or where he is going. I am really not sure. This

government has given out twenty-seven new, additional, retail processing

licences since you came to office in 1989, I say to the minister.

Now, this is a new opportunity, a new specie. We are not

saying that you should not be concerned and sensitive to processing capacity

that is in the Province. We know that, and it has to be dealt with, and you

should deal with it - not anyone else; you should deal with it - but in light

that there is a new opportunity, a new fishery, won't the minister seriously

consider this application, or reconsider it, so that those people can be

employed and this new venture can go on and hopefully be prosperous?

With the new resource that has been identified, harvesting

licences issued, a plant established by private money that will provide

employment opportunities, why wouldn't you allow this venture to proceed, I say

to the minister? It is new. It is the way we should be going, I say to the

minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I will repeat that considering the problems

that we have in the processing sector that have to be addressed yet, I refuse to

add to the problems that were caused by the members of the opposite side in the

early 1980s to give us the problem that we have today.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

House ader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary to the minister.

Will the minister give this House an undertaking today that we will not see this

opportunity taken from the people of Frenchman's Cove and established somewhere

else in this Province? In particular, the minister's district, which there has

been high suspicion about, that the real reason why there has been a delay here

is that the minister has been trying to encourage this opportunity away from the

people of Frenchman's Cove and located in his own District of St. George's. Will

he undertake to the House that that won't happen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I really don't like to be

insulted that way because there was never any suggestion that the licence should

go to the District of St. George's. If the hon. member wants to carry on with

innuendos like came out of that meeting and I've addressed before, then I

welcome him to do it. But please remember your hon. position.

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

West.

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

regarding the situation in Marystown. The Premier in a letter of October 25 to

Mr. Ken Hull from HMDC said: "[The] people cannot see the logic in moving the

contract to Saint John. I cannot explain it to them because, as I indicated to

you in our last meeting, I do not understand it either." Let me ask the Premier

if he understands it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is a pretty

simple question. It doesn't have much merit but it is fairly simple so I should

try and give a simple answer.

MR. TOBIN: You wrote it, I didn't.

PREMIER WELLS: I didn't write the question, the question

is the hon. member's.

Mr. Speaker, I've seen nothing or heard nothing that has

changed my view. I still believe that the work can be done at Marystown but HMDC

doesn't. What the hon. member doesn't seem to be able to grasp, or at least

doesn't seem to want to grasp, is that there is a difference in whether or not

Marystown can do the work or the question of judgement of whether or not

Marystown can do the work, and the question of who has responsibility for the

ultimate decision of agreeing to let Marystown finish the work or diverting it

somewhere else. That rests solely with HMDC and the government is not prepared

to do anything that will interfere with that or cause them to displace their

judgement and so have the government end up with responsibility for the

consequences of that decision. We want to make sure that we build a solid future

so that we can get jobs in the future. We don't want to destroy Marystown's

prospects for future development and future work by having the government seek

to intervene, whether it would be successful or not.

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

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Premier, I can

grasp who has ultimate responsibility for the people of this Province, and I can

also grasp the fact that we want jobs in the present as well as jobs in the

future.

HMDC has taken an action that has not been challenged by the

Premier of this Province. There is total confusion and outright refusal to

accept the reasons given by the Premier from the people of the Burin Peninsula

to the extent that the mayor of Marystown has now gone into the council chambers

on a hunger strike to try to get some response, some answers. In a letter today

to the minister the mayor asked that an all-party legislative committee be

struck to revisit the decision made by HMDC and government to remove the drill

modules from Vinland to Saint John, New Brunswick.

Let me ask the Premier if he will, as the government, put

this to a select committee of the House, giving them full authority to subpoena

individuals, have them sworn before the committee, and hopefully then we can get

the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says no. Let me ask

you, Mr. Premier. There is only one conclusion that one can come to with your

outright refusal, and that is, sir, you've something to hide. Let me ask you

now: What are you hiding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Nothing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Social Services. On November 2 the minister held a press

conference at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre in Whitbourne regarding

a serious incident that happened at that institution and the many allegations

that were brought forward.

The minister stated that all those concerns were simply

rumours and innuendoes. She stated that no action was necessary. I would like to

ask the minister if she has changed her mind about that, and if there is an

in-house investigation presently underway?

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

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I would like to say to the hon. member that I have met

with the union which represents the staff at the Whitbourne Youth Centre, and we

have agreed that at this point in time, there is no need for an investigation.

We are quite pleased with the progress we have made regarding the issues that

have been brought to us; I met with some of the workers last week and they say

they are quite pleased.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that is not the impression I

got when I talked with the President of NAPE today, I was of the understanding,

Mr. Speaker, that there was something going on out there and there was an

investigation being carried out; he was not sure how involved it was or who was

involved, so I would like to ask the minister, if she has not already started an

investigation, if she would start an investigation and have it done by an

independent assessment, and make the people aware, those who will be taking

part

in that investigation, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no repercussions for

coming forward and stating their positions and they will not be faced with a

dismissal charge like we have just witnessed in the past?

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

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there is no need at this time for

an investigation and if the need arises for one, I will certainly consider it,

and as for people being dismissed for speaking out, I think that is a lot of

hogwash from the member on the opposite side and he knows that.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, earlier today, gave us a statement which is somewhat

encouraging, in that he showed the financial state of the Province has improved

somewhat as I indicated in my response to him that says nothing about the state

of the economy as it relates to private individuals.

We have something close now to a 21 per cent unemployment

rate in this Province, in spite of the fact that we have lost something like

19,000 jobs or there are actually less people in the workforce today and in

fact, if those who are on the fisheries compensation package were included, we

would probably be talking a real unemployment rate of about 30 per cent. Will

the minister tell us and as a result of the improvement in the financial

position, is the minister proposing to do anything? Is he proposing to work

together with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations for example, to

create some short-term jobs? We are pleased to see that the long-term position

is starting to improve somewhat, but what are we going to do about those who

have no food to put on their tables tomorrow?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that

there are some tremendous difficulties in this Province, primarily at this point

in time due to what happened to our groundfishery and we are trying to address

these problems jointly with the federal government in terms of what to do with a

lot of people who, seemingly at this point in time have no future in an

occupation that had been carried out in their families for generations. There is

a serious problem, Mr. Speaker, and we are trying to deal with it in a sustained

manner and not simply using a Band-Aid approach as the hon. member suggests. I

would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have a pot of money at

this point in time, we are still spending this year $151.1 million more than we

are taking in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have done that for twenty years, debt

has accumulated and, Mr. Speaker, we must get to the position where debt no

longer accumulates. We are still seriously in the hole and going deeper and

deeper and deeper each year. We must stop that because that is the only way to

provide security, long-term security for the people in this Province, is to get

out of this mess that we are into.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 1,069

residents of the District of Port au Port and the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

District of Port au Port humbly swearth;

WHEREAS the Blue Beach Road provides access to the best

harbour on the Port au Port Peninsula;

AND

WHEREAS many fisherpersons from the District of Port au

Port travel to this area each fishing season to pursue the fishery;

AND

WHEREAS this road provides access to a large track of

excellent agricultural land;

AND

WHEREAS this area has much potential for the tourist

trade since it was an integral part of the early french history of this area;

AND

WHEREAS this road is in such poor condition that it is

virtually impassable for certain periods of every year;

WHEREFORE we respectfully request that the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation assume responsibility for this road from the

Department of Fisheries;

AND FURTHER that the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation undertake, at the earliest possible date, a major upgrading of

the Blue Beach Road and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the road in this particular area of my district

- at one time that area did contain a number of people who lived there year

round. The settlement itself disappeared during the '60s under the infamous

resettlement program at that time.

In recent years a harbour was developed down in that area.

Anyone who is familiar with the District of Port au Port will realize that we

were not blessed with natural harbours and the only harbour that exists in the

district is one that was created down in the Blue Beach area by opening up a

salt water pond.

In years, when the fishery was really going well, there would

be in excess of 100 people engaged in the fishery there during the peak part of

the season. The big problem is that in the spring of the year and this time of

the year, you almost need a helicopter to get down to the harbour itself the

road is in such poor condition.

It is interesting to note - I visited the area just yesterday

or on Saturday when I was in the district - presently there is in excess of

$150,000 being spent on harbour repairs. Dredging was completed there just

recently so there is a fair amount of money still being spent towards the

ongoing development of the site but until such time as we do and are able to

make some major improvements to the road we will not be able to fully realize

the potential of this area.

The stretch of road in question is some 10 kilometres in

length, it could be done at a reasonable cost. All the people of the area are

talking about is a year round gravel road. I certainly call upon the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation to take a hard look at this. The Department

of Fisheries have been very generous, in the short time that I have been here,

in making money available from the very limited budget that they have to go

towards ongoing repairs. Unfortunately, the difficulty is that in the fisheries,

the budget for fisheries access roads, there are insufficient funds to undertake

the kind of upgrading that is required there. In my opinion and in the opinion

of these 1,000-plus residents of the District of Port au Port, the only way that

the matter can be resolved is if there is an agreement whereby the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation agrees to assume responsibility for the

stretch of road and very shortly tries to find money to engage in a major

upgrading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I am always allowed to speak, it is you who

is not allowed to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: You should not be allowed to speak but this

is a democracy, Mr. Speaker, and I will defend your right to speak.

Now, I fully support the petition put forward by the Member

for Port au Port who is seeking to help people in his district in an area that

quiet conceivably could have the best harbour in his district - a petition

signed by 1,000 people for a ten-kilometre stretch that could be accessible

year-round. The member mentioned earlier about the budget not being there in the

fisheries department, and he is asking Works, Services and Transportation if

they would accept that responsibility.

The area has a lot of tourist potential. It is steeped in

history from an old French culture. I know about the - we had the French in our

way, too; over 300 years ago they were present. I tell you, the agricultural

property up in that area of the Port au Port is good land and it should be

accessible the more we utilize our properties. Because it is not all a windswept

rock, as some romantics would have it said. I congratulate the member for

bringing this forward today, and I fully support the people of that area getting

an access road year-round. Thank you.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The responsibility of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation is not only to maintain the roads in the Province but to build

new roads. There are about 9,860 kilometres of road in the Province. I recently

had the opportunity to discuss this with the officials around the Province and

to ask them to give me a full report on the needs that are out there. I have had

that submitted to the department and it would cost in the hundreds of millions

of dollars, if you had it at your disposal, to build and maintain the roads,

because of the geography of the Province and the scattered population.

I had the opportunity to visit this particular area, with my

friend and colleague, the Member for Port au Port, and to have a look at the

road in question. And it is quite correct, it is the responsibility of the

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. Realizing that the Department of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture now does not have the money within its budget to

maintain this road, I've asked officials to take a look at the cost, firstly.

Secondly, it has to be considered under next year's capital works budget.

Until the Minister of Finance comes forward with his Budget I

will not know what monies I will have in the capital program next year. In the

meantime, we will do a full investigation and hopefully next year we will be

able to address some of the concerns, at least the top priority concerns, that

we have in the Province. I assure the hon. member that we will give every

consideration to this piece of road as we will all other priorities around the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: I rise to present a petition on behalf of

the constituents of Baie Verte - White Bay. I will read the prayer.

We, the undersigned residents of the district of Baie Verte -

White Bay, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately implement an emergency employment

program. With the economic conditions which exist, we find ourselves in a

desperate situation. We ask the minister and his government to show compassion

and understanding in this urgent matter.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week I presented a first

petition on behalf of constituents in my district. We have asked questions in

the House of the minister and of the Premier on this particular matter. Since

then, and over the weekend, the list has grown, the number of phone calls has

grown, and I should mention, too, that I also had calls after the press release

went out, from other districts in the Province represented on both sides of this

House of Assembly. I can tell you that it was not a fabrication when I said that

there are people all around this Province in desperate need.

I listened to a few comments made by the Premier this morning

on Open Line , and people talking about an emergency response program, and

basically the indication was, there would be no immediate response to such a

program, they were waiting on the Federal Government to assist and get in on the

game. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, many people in this Province didn't

take very much comfort in that statement by the Premier. The grim reality is

this, that right now as we speak today on 21 November, and tomorrow, Wednesday,

and Thursday, there are more and more people who cannot feed their families, and

if you think that is a fabrication, I think some members on both sides of this

House will be getting calls soon, because I am asking anybody in this Province

to get in contact with their MHAs so that members on both sides of this House

will press the government, press this minister and this Premier, to act

immediately.

We have a situation in this Province that is crucial and if

there was ever a time when this word, emergency response, the word is

`emergency', Mr. Speaker. The quote that echoes that same sound, the one quote I

have that lingers with me still, is the man saying: `I realize as the Premier

says, this is not the answer to our long-terms solutions, but it is an answer

for my supper table tonight.'

Mr. Speaker, there are people in this Province who are having

great difficulty in finally accepting that in two or three days, and that is how

close it is, two, three, or four days, they will have to go to the Department of

Social Services and request welfare for the first time in their lives. They are

proud people who have served with dignity, and to feed their families, have

managed - I know we don't like to use the words, but they managed to get their

twelve stamps. Well, Mr. Speaker, they can't get them today.

I have a list here of 250, and that is only a small portion.

I have had a list since, but the first list I had from the development

association in my district was a list of 250 people who need two, three, or four

insurable weeks to qualify for UI this year. It's not TAGS - we are not talking

about the fishery response program which some people referred to earlier. I am

talking about the construction worker, the person who works in forestry, who

have eight or nine stamps this year but can't get the eleventh and twelfth, the

agricultural industry - we are talking about all these people - the seasonal

workers, Mr. Speaker, who fed their families with a bit of dignity, but they are

finding this year, for the first time in their lives, that they will have to put

their hand out for welfare.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking all members of this House of

Assembly to realize the situation we find ourselves in today. The situation is,

these people don't want to turn to welfare, and if they do, that is another

strain on this government's Finance Department. That is not the answer either,

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, to turn them into welfare recipients. What

they would like to do, and we don't expect it to be the long-term solution that

we still have to work on, yes, we realize that, and there will be long debates

on social reform in this country.

We all know and understand that, but we do need the support

of every member in this House of Assembly, every member of that Cabinet, and

especially the support of the Premier to realize and to show some compassion to

the average Newfoundlander out there who has never turned to welfare before, who

has gone around the Province and tried to work. I have people in my district who

go to PEI to cut wood. For the first time they went all the way to PEI and got

five weeks work but they are still two insurable weeks short. What does he do

now, Mr. Speaker? This is the person who has tried. He has tried to feed his

family and tried to keep his dignity.

I am glad that the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member

for Twillingate, supports me in this - he has in public. I ask every hon. member

over there. He knows, as I know, Mr. Speaker, it is true that in rural

Newfoundland we are really feeling the pinch right now, more than I have ever

seen, and I believe it is more than a lot of members here in this House of

Assembly have seen in years.

Within the next two to three weeks, if we can get the

statistics on it, we will show that there will be more people turning to welfare

in this Province for the first time - not the second, third, or fourth time -

for the first time in their lives having to turn that way. Mr. Speaker, the

calls I received this weekend since this release has gone out, and, or course,

before that, these people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a cry that I hope this government will

respond to, and respond quickly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I just came back from a weekend

visit to my district and having talked to a large number of people who find

themselves in a similar situation as that described by my friend, the Member for

the district of Baie Verte - White Bay, I think I would be remiss in my duty and

responsibility to them if I were to allow this opportunity to pass without

making further representation on their behalf.

I have written the minister pointing out the problems. I have

made public statements and I am taking advantage of this petition today to again

bring to the attention of my colleagues on this side the need for some kind of

program. Mr. Speaker, the situation in my district, and having talked to a large

number of my colleagues, I don't think Twillingate is alone in that respect, I

can tell you that in my district things are desperate. In many respect things

are desperate.

A large number of our people in Twillingate district are

receiving TAGS or some kind of government assistance. But, Mr. Speaker, there

are in Twillingate district, and I suspect the same can be said for all or most

of the rural districts in the Province, hundreds of people who have literally

fallen through the cracks. They are not eligible for any kind of assistance,

unemployment insurance, TAGS or anything else and now, in many cases, for the

first time in their lives, they are forced to accept social assistance. Mr.

Speaker, the people that I represent, a large number of them who are in that

position, do not want to accept social assistance. They want an opportunity to

be able to work for what they get.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I join my friends opposite, and

I know, my colleagues on this side of the House, a lot of them feel as I do, in

asking that some kind of program be put in place - and we don't have very much

time. In fact, it is getting quite late now to undertake certain types of work

that no doubt would be incorporated in any kind of a program. But, Mr. Speaker,

I can only tell you again, Sir, that there is an urgent need for action,

immediate action, on the part of government.

Now, I know the minister has indicated publicly that he is

going to be talking to his federal counterpart but, Mr. Speaker, I do not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: - quite frankly, I couldn't care less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Yes, if we can manage to get a cost-sharing

arrangement with the Federal Government, great, that is a bonus. But I can only

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if that does not happen, and I suspect it will not,

then I believe it is incumbent on this House and on the government to come up

with a program that will at least, in the short term, fit the needs of these

people. Because I can tell you, in a great many respects in my district,

children are doing without, parents are doing without and, Mr. Speaker, in many

cases, it is going to be a very bleak Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition presented by the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay and also to respond to some of the comments made by

the hon. the Member for Twillingate. Mr. Speaker, Twillingate, Bonavista South,

Baie Verte - White Bay is no different from Bonavista North, Terra Nova, Trinity

North, Harbour Grace or anywhere else out there in rural Newfoundland. People

out there, Mr. Speaker, today are hurting, and hurting like they have never hurt

before. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is aware of it. I have

contacted the minister myself -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister is aware of it, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I think I believe him when he told me his concerns were brought to

Cabinet. I am not so sure the people in Cabinet realize it, or else, want to

make the decision that is needed out there today to support rural

Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker, in being able to hold their dignity and go out and

support their families.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, $12 million was put in place

through an emergency make-work program. Last year, half of that amount was put

in place, $6 million. Today, with more unemployed than we have ever seen before,

Mr. Speaker, not one penny has been brought forward. It amazes me to see the

members on the opposite side get up and tap their desks. We are happy over here

when we hear the Minister of Finance get up in his place and say, `We are doing

very well, we have more revenue coming in then we ever expected.' Well, Mr.

Speaker, now is the time to show some compassion and put this money out in rural

Newfoundland to help the unemployed, help the people out there to maintain their

dignity and put bread and butter on the table.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about people moving away to other

places, lots of work in Alberta or lots of work in British Columbia, but, Mr.

Speaker, when somebody calls me complaining about not being able to find work,

I, for one, cannot find it in my heart to tell them there is work in British

Columbia. That is not an option for everybody out there. Mr. Speaker, not

everybody can go and afford the $2,000 to go up there looking, on speculation,

to find a job. Many people out there, who have been involved in some of the

make-work programs, I suppose, over the year and have been allowed to work and

get their unemployment insurance to feed their families, many of them have never

been outside this Province, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect them to

go now. I think we should be more responsible than that.

I call on the minister - because I am sure he is getting

calls from his district as well - I call on him to continue to go back to

Cabinet, don't wait for the Federal Government to respond, Mr. Speaker. We have

seven members in Ottawa and I am sure they are hearing the same messages as we

are hearing. The message they are getting is no different from what the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations is hearing, and no different from what I am

hearing. They want funding put in place so that we can get those people to do

something to support their families, to go to work in the morning - have a

reason to go to bed and have a reason to get up in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, the member shouts out across the floor and says

the member's time is up. Maybe he doesn't wait to hear this, maybe he doesn't

want to hear those kinds of things. But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, when we

come here and gather as fifty-two representatives from around Newfoundland and

Labrador, and talk about some of the issues that this minister brought forward

as their priority legislation and see what the people are going through in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador today by being unemployed, unable to find work, it

questions the integrity of the whole process.

Mr. Speaker, the people we hear from are not people who want

to go to the Social Services offices; they are not people who want to move away;

they are people who want to get up in the morning and go to work and do

something productive. Maybe it is a situation where many people on the other

side don't know what it is to be without; maybe they have never experienced

that; maybe it was always a situation where they were very well looked after.

They could get up in the morning: `Here is the money for your recess and here is

the money for your Reebok joggers, here is the money for your new suit,' but I

can assure you that not all of us came from those roots.

Many of us, Mr. Speaker, have experienced the struggles that

those people are going through in rural Newfoundland today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is very easy to come in here and

forget, forget the people we represent, but I call on the people on the opposite

side, I call on Cabinet -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to be responsible and act, and respond

to the needs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Member for Placentia have a petition?

MR. CAREEN: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You have heard it, you will hear it, and you

will continue to hear it, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, who, only a few months ago, last year, pretended he was

interested in the fishermen but when he got back into Cabinet he threw them all

out the window. Now, you listen about people.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to be able to stand here on a

petition put forward by residents in the district of Placentia. The petition

reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of

Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, ask for the House of Assembly to

accept the following prayer: We the undersigned do hereby request of the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency

funding to generate desperately-needed employment in our communities.

This small petition I have here, of fifty-four names, was in

a small store in Dunville - just the community of Dunville alone - one store has

another petition circulating throughout the district - two-and-a-half days, a

small store, fifty-four names. The calls I get, the conversations - people stop

me about the need for work. Other members have said, and I was glad that the

Member for Twillingate had the courage to stand here today. I dealt with that

man before when he was the Member for St. John's West, a man who found a place

to stand - found it and stood there, and the members over here so far. And to

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, you have my support, Sir.

Now, the other Cabinet Ministers won't listen to the likes of

me but hopefully they will, to the likes of you, when you continue to plug at

some of these Cabinet Ministers, and the Premier, those people who don't have to

scratch for a living. Other members have said they know people who, never having

been on social assistance before, are winding up there. There are people other

than TAGS - what about me? They all have a right to eat. They are not eating

adequately, minister; they are quite hungry, quite frustrated and quite

frightened. They are frightened, Sir. There are a lot of pressures out there in

our communities, our rural communities, our urban communities. Grandparents,

some of their old age pensions, in lots of cases, are being utilized to help

their offspring and their grandchildren get over the hump. Time is of the

essence, and every day counts. Why wait until the new year? Is it another form

of resettlement? Is it another way of getting people out of this Province, in a

desperate and frightening way? I say it is wrong, that people should be so

treated, and there should be an emergency response put in as soon as possible

for the people of this Province.

The welfare office in Placentia, Social Services, needs a

revolving door. In the Placentia area alone, and that doesn't include Long

Harbour or the other end of the district to Southern Harbour, Fair Haven or

Little Harbour, but in the Placentia area alone unemployment is hovering at 70

per cent. Now,that isn't an exaggeration, I say to the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation; that is a fact. So people, indeed, are worried.

In St. John's, I heard the other night, a taxi driver of

Jiffy Cabs, in consultation and work with other groups in St. John's, are

getting coats delivered around the city for adults, so they will have something

warm on their backs when they spend their bit of money for their children. It is

a sad commentary on it all when this government, over this past year, spent $10

million to rid ourselves of Hydro when there is not one cent being put in for an

emergency response for people. Your priorities are wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments, because I understand exactly what hon.

members opposite are saying, and hon. members on this side, and I understand

what the hon. the Member for Twillingate is saying. I know full well what is

taking place at my office from all over the Province, from Labrador and from the

Island portion of the Province, that there is a tremendous number of people out

there who are looking for some kind of an emergency response program to honestly

top up and get their twelve weeks so they can draw UI, as we have historically

done, not through any fault of our own, but we have historically done it for the

last dozens of years - a dozen years, anyway. But let me say that in other years

there wasn't the type of attitude towards addressing the horrendous amount of

deficit in Ottawa.

We have to remember that, and I say to hon. members, we are

still in the process of negotiations.

MR. HEWLETT: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: We are still trying to do something, I say to

the Member for Green Bay, if he would give me a chance. There is no sense in

shouting out. We both have the same problem, I say to the member - your

constituents, my constituents - all hon. members. We are facing a situation

where the Federal Government are looking at Newfoundland and saying to us: You

pay in $1 and you take back $3.58. We have to go to Ottawa, and I am, as the

minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations, going before the end

of this week to sit down with federal Cabinet Ministers to identify the need of

the seasonal workforce in this Province.

Now, I say to the hon. member, we are prepared to set an

example. We are prepared to set an example, but don't take out of our hands the

ability to sit with the people who respond to UI, and that is the Federal

Government.

I know it is late, I understand all of that, but at least

give this minister and this government an opportunity to talk to our friends and

colleagues in Ottawa - and I say that because let's hope they are our friends

and colleagues in Ottawa - so that we can come together and find something as

soon as possible to address the problem.

If hon. members want to stand up and make heart-throb

explanations, that's fine. It is their right to do it, and their responsibility

to do it. I only say to you, in all honesty, that we are addressing this problem

from the best approach possible that this government can. So give us an

opportunity to talk to our friends in Ottawa, as I said. Let's put our position

on the table, let's hear back from them, and let's dialogue this situation, and

hopefully, within a week or so, we will have some kind of solution to the

problem. If not, you heard the Minister of Finance today when he talked about

the improving economy. He didn't say this was wine and roses but he said the

economy is improving. He talked about current account, but in the same breath,

he talked about $150-plus million on capital account.

Let's not fool ourselves here. Let's try to do our best for

the people of the Province - that's what we are here to do. I will do that.

Hopefully, this time next week, I will have some idea as to what will transpire,

and I will be more than happy to tell all members and all the people of the

Province.

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

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

my colleague, the Member for Placentia on the petition seeking emergency

employment for people who are in dire need.

I'm sure the minister and this government realize that there

are 12,000 fewer people in the workforce today and 19,000 more unemployed people

than there were four years ago. When you average out statistics for this year,

up to the end of October, the most recent statistics, it shows that 20.5 per

cent is the average unemployment rate in this Province, the highest it has ever

been in recent years and maybe in all history. And that is not counting the

people who are on TAGS program and the other fishery programs prior to that,

prior to May 15. That amount factored in, add those people who are receiving UI

there, add this to the total, and we would have an unemployment rate in excess

of 30 per cent in this Province. That is the highest unemployment rate we have

ever seen in this Province.

The government doesn't see the need. Maybe the minister

couldn't sell it to his Cabinet, the need for assistance, I don't know. If he

couldn't sell it to his Cabinet I don't see how he is going to sell it to Brian

Tobin and Ottawa who are looking to strip out the social security system and the

social safety net in this country. It is just not going to work.

The minister stated in the House last Thursday: This

government at this particular time is not prepared to have a stand-alone

emergency response program. In other words, we won't do it if Ottawa doesn't do

it. He went on to say: I am not going to take any approach, I say to the

members, that is going to impact upon and/or negatively affect the Federal

Government's negotiation with this Province in addressing the whole social

program.

MR. TOBIN: Who said that?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. I think that is pathetic, that he is not going to do anything that

the Federal Government doesn't want him to do. He should be up fighting to make

the Federal Government recognize the needs of unemployed people in this

Province, due to no fault of their own, but because of failure of this

government to respond in creating employment in this Province.

We have less employment in this Province today than we had

when that government took power back in 1989. They have reduced the workforce in

this Province, they have increased the unemployed, they have failed to put in

place programs to meet the needs of people in this Province. They failed on the

Hibernia one. They've indicated they weren't ready, they weren't prepared, to

have trained people there in this Province. They said: We don't have enough

employed people here with the skills necessary to do the job. They failed in

training people for Hibernia. They didn't react to the future employment needs

that we would have in this Province and now we have seen heading off to Saint

John, New Brunswick, jobs that could be performed here in this Province. The

skilled labour wasn't there, is what the minister indicated.

We have, in addition to this government's failure to meet

needs - and people's needs now are not those that are looking for projects every

single year. I'm sure members realize, the majority of people out there today

that couldn't qualify for UI are people who were never in the situation before.

There are people who were laid off with ten and eleven weeks work, mostly

because the federal government increased the requirements to meet the UI

benefits. Not only that - and this hasn't surfaced either; most members don't

know this, and I want to make this point because most people are not aware - if

you file up now on twelve weeks unemployment insurance, the commission could

disqualify you for up to eight weeks even though you meet the requirements.

These are regulations that came in on April 1, and people are not realizing it

now because they haven't filed up for UI.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you say that again?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will repeat it again. People who file up

on UI, with the minimum required weeks of twelve, who may have had ten last

year, maybe ten the year before, they now go back for 104 weeks, and you have a

weak employment history, they tell you, and even though you qualify for UI, you

are not going to be able to receive it now; you could be disqualified for up to

eight weeks because the unemployment situation is so atrocious in our area they

are going to nail you again for another eight weeks and disqualify a person from

receiving benefits.

This hasn't even been circulated to the public; the public

doesn't even know it. I found it out a few weeks ago, accidentally, and kept

inquiring and kept getting bits of information, along with the cutthroat

regulations that stripped it last year. If there were employment opportunities

in this area, I would say, sure, reduce it; but there are none, and you cannot

treat Newfoundland the same as Alberta and British Columbia, Ontario and other

more prosperous parts of the country. If the government is not going to

recognize the disparities and the high unemployment rates in different regions

of the country, there is no sense in being as a country to try to promote

equality and so on, and eliminate those.

Nothing has been done by this government except increase the

unemployment rate since 1989, decrease the number of the workforce in this

Province since 1989, and most people, maybe, in government over there don't

realize that if you don't get $50,000 of a salary, or $10,000 a month from a law

firm, most people never realize, they are never in the position of need to

understand the importance of depending on those few extra weeks work to be able

to put food on the table and be able to buy a Christmas gift for their kids.

People who were never in that situation don't understand it. This government

doesn't understand it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: They have a current account surplus. They

don't understand it, and that minister didn't understand it when he was there

either, except to pass around a few political dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has called for order, but hon. members are ignoring

the call. If this persists, the Chair will have to take whatever action is

necessary to ensure that there is order in this Chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: I apologize.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition.

My petition is related to jobs, too, Mr. Speaker, not so much

about the need for an emergency jobs program to help those who have absolutely

no prospects at the moment, but to salvage some existing jobs in a small cottage

industry, an industry that has tremendous potential for growth. The prayer of

the petition is:

We, the undersigned, request that the House of Assembly

instruct government to take such steps as are necessary so that moose antler can

be obtained legally for use in the craft and souvenir businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I have a small business in my district, in the

community of Beachside, run by the Foote family, that produces souvenirs made

from cured moose antler. They were originally located in the Venture Centre in

Pasadena, but have recently relocated to their home town in the Beachside area.

The problem that they are experiencing is that they have a

company that was basically fostered into life by the federal and provincial

governments through various assistance programs, financing programs, et cetera,

over a period of the last five years, knowing full well, both levels of

government basically, that the raw material used in their business was moose

antler which, over the last five years or so, they have been purchasing from the

general public, from hunters, from school children no less, who pick them up,

shed antlers in the woods, and use them as school fund-raising projects, et

cetera. The problem is that one of the principals of the company has been

charged with illegally obtaining moose antler and that matter is now before the

courts. I am sure the wildlife officer concerned considers that it was a

legitimate charge and I have no doubt that my constituents have their views on

the matter but we will leave that, Mr. Speaker, for a judge to decide in due

course.

What we are talking about now is not the law as it is really,

what I want addressed is the law as it can be, as it should be, as it could be,

if the Wells Administration would move on this matter. Mr. Speaker, what we have

is a legitimate growing business and in order to really establish themselves and

to legitimately meet their market demands they have to have a credible source of

raw material and right now the only way they can legally and legitimately obtain

raw material is to have moose antlers donated to them by bona fide hunters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you are to maintain a reasonable base of

raw material for a business activity you need to be able to purchase your raw

materials. Certainly the business plans put forward to Enterprise Newfoundland

and Labrador and to ACOA all had sections in them indicating the amount of money

to be spent on the purchase of raw material. Seeing that we are into the antler

souvenir business it does not take a great genius - for any people in the

government to realize that these people have been purchasing antler for years

and have built a legitimate and growing business in that regard. Now they are

faced with not being able to buy their raw material. They have on hand at their

local shop, nearly $20,000 worth of partly processed products made from antler

which they worry would get them in further trouble with wildlife authorities.

They are not really sure what to do and we have a government that basically so

far, has not addressed the matter because there is a legal case pending.

One of the principals of the company put it to the Premier on

the Open Line this morning, he expressed some concern and sympathy for

the people. I am aware that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and

the minister responsible for wildlife are very much aware of the situation. I

have written them on it and I have no doubt that since this morning maybe, the

Premier's staff have been in contact with them as well.

What is needed, Mr. Speaker, is the political will to act, to

do something either regarding a change in the law for tomorrow and the weeks

after, some sort of commitment not to lay further charges until the current

court case is done with. The law can be changed or some commitment not to go

enforcing the law as it has not been enforced for the past five years until

recently. It is not enough for this new company to basically have to exist on a

wink and a nod as it has done for the last number of years. They need something

a bit more solid, a bit more legitimate on which to base a business plan, a work

plan. They have trade shows to attend, that sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, and they

need to be able to go forward and make commitments to people who buy their

product based on the sure and certain knowledge that they can obtain the raw

material and obtain it legitimately and legally without facing charges under the

Wildlife Act.

The Wildlife Act allows for the purchase of moose hide, the

question is, why can't we have an allowance for antlers as well? Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words in support of the petition

presented by my colleague from Green Bay. I did not see the story, I did not it

realize until now, I did not see the paper today but I have had questions put to

me in the past three or four years as it pertains to the same problem. In fact,

only two or three weeks ago I spoke with officials of the Department of Wildlife

and so on and tourism, as it pertains to this problem and it is a real problem.

I did not realize until then, what was being done around the

Province, especially with the crafts. I have gone into numerous establishments

across this island, even in the past year, and you can pretty well go in

anywhere and pick up something made out of a moose antler. They even got salt

and pepper shakers, they got little key chains, they got book stands, there is

everything. Buttons is a big one now, especially in the past couple of years.

Really they did not know they were doing something illegal. It is rather stupid

I suppose in a sense. You can issue a license to an individual in the Province,

to go in the woods and shoot an animal, you can bring it out and use the meat,

and you are supposed to leave everything else there although there is a need for

it. We are always talking about underutilized species, we are always talking

about secondary processing, we are always talking about waste in every other

sector as it pertains to the fishery, agriculture, forestry. We are always

talking about utilization.

To me the minister after today should take something to his

Cabinet colleagues and get this addressed and addressed soon. I can take the

moose antler, if I kill the bull today, I can give it to my buddy, no problem.

The minute they put it into something, or you sell it, you get it for $5 or $10

or whatever, it is a crime. We shouldn't be in the habit of criminalizing

people. That is what is happening. We are making criminals out of people who are

good, law-respecting citizens and so on.

I suspect that one of the things that caused this is that a

few years ago they had a real problem with the bear body parts and the bears

across Canada, and all through North America, especially as it pertains to the

bladder. They used to issue export licences for bladders and other bear parts to

send to other parts of Canada and outside of Canada. I think it was last year

the government stopped doing that. I sort of go along with what you are doing.

Because I know that licences were issued in the spring of the year, the spring

kill and the fall kill, primarily just to get that. As far as I'm concerned I go

along with it.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, and the minister.

The new ski lodge in Marble Mountain. To give you an example, they wanted to use

our own resource and something that would tie in with the environment and tie in

with our wildlife sector and so on as it pertains to tourism and what have you.

They wanted twenty-six sets of caribou antlers and twenty-six of moose. What

they wanted to do - this was fifty-two sets of antlers - was to make chandeliers

for the new ski lodge in Marble Mountain. When they approached certain

individuals this is when we found out and got into the problem with the

regulations and so on. That they were not allowed to buy.

For instance, in Labrador, where there is such a high caribou

kill, there is no trouble at all to get twenty-six sets of antlers of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mealy Mountains.

MR. WOODFORD: Especially the Mealy Mountains herd, as my

colleague who sits next to me is after talking about for the last couple of

years.

That is an example of money lost, chances lost for small

business to take advantage of, and so on. Not only that, but as far as I'm

concerned, to add to the whole Marble Mountain complex and any other tourism

facility around the Province. Just because they couldn't buy them they couldn't

get them. There were several individuals asked to - I don't know what would have

happened if I came in and donated one to them. I don't even know, I don't think

they are even allowed to have that up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Really.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not to sell.

MR. WOODFORD: If there is a dollar value at all attached

to it.... I think, Mr. Speaker, this is a time when the minister could act and I

think that everybody being reasonable about it, if he brought it to his Cabinet

colleagues I'm sure that there is not a Cabinet minister over there who would

not support something as rational as that, and that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few words on this

case, but few words, because it is a case before the courts and I'm not going to

get into great detail on the case that is before the courts.

The law has been broken. In Newfoundland and Labrador today

it is illegal to buy, it is illegal to sell, moose antlers or caribou antlers.

That is illegal today. There are legal means available to obtain either the

moose antler or the caribou antler but it has to be free and it has to be from a

legal hunter. That can be done and has been done. I'm not going to get into the

details of the history of this particular case. I have a lot of detail on the

history of this particular case that goes back to the Venture Centre but I am

not going to get into that detail. I do not think it is appropriate to get into

the detail here, but as long as it is illegal nobody in this Province should be

buying or selling moose or caribou antlers.

I want to say a few words about why this regulation is

presently in place. It is presently in place because we have had a problem and

it is not a problem that is unique to Newfoundland and Labrador, but a problem

in the world, of the buying and selling of big game parts, and the black market

in big game parts all over the world. The last time I stood in response to a

question in this House I mentioned a couple of examples in this Province

recently, where this fall three black bears were found south of Gander Lake,

probably with nothing gone except their gall bladders because there were three

full carcases. A huge bull moose was found dead south of Millertown in central

Newfoundland with nothing gone except the crown, nothing gone except the antler.

Now, I will go back and give some more examples, a little

more historical. Yearly for the last few years we found examples of black bears

that have been killed for nothing except their gallbladders. Two years ago a

truckload of moose antlers were confiscated trying to cross the gulf at Port aux

Basques. Somebody was trying to carry on an illegal trade. Now, how many of

these sets of antlers came from moose that were killed by poachers for no other

purpose but to get the antlers and sell them? I do not know, but the reason for

the regulation is that there is, and has been, an illegal trade in big game

parts.

Now, to get down to the details, sure, there are ways besides

what I just described for antlers, where things are done legally. For example,

with moose there are restaurants that have licenses to purchase big game. Others

can then sell to these establishments but they must get a permit from the

wildlife office to sell their big game and it can only be done in season, or

within seven days of the end of the season. That can be done and it can be done

legally.

In the meantime because of all the concern about big game we

have been reviewing these regulations for some months. It has nothing to do with

this particular case. There may or may not in the future be some changes made,

but certainly, I, as a minister am going to make sure that as long as I am

responsible for it we are going to do everything to protect our big game.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure if we would ever

get there. I wonder if you would be good enough to call Motions 3 and 4? We will

do two first readings.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

to introduce a bill, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Entered

Into Between The Government Of The Province And Corner Brook Pulp And Paper Mill

Limited," carried. (Bill No. 42)

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

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission

Act," carried. (Bill No. 43)

On motion, Bill No 42 and Bill No. 43, read a first time,

ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we call Order 9, that is

the adjourned debate on the Works, Services and Transportation Departmental Act?

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday when I was so rudely interrupted by the noonday

bell I was just starting to get into stride and talk about signage on the

highways of our Province. I will not go through all that I said on Friday. Just

to reiterate what I had established was that there are really two sides to the

argument and there has been over the years. I will not go over all the details I

went through on Friday.

There has been two sides of the argument. There has been the

tourism industry versus the environmentalists, and the highway safety group, I

suppose, if you want to take it from three points of view; from a highway safety

point of view, you do not want to take away from public safety by erecting signs

that are distractive to drivers that may in any way cause a highway accident and

that is always a concern, so we must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that highway

safety is paramount here and must be considered. Obviously, that is why the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation has a responsibility for

dictating where these signs may or may not be located and I assume that won't

change.

The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note simply

says: to allow a broader range of signs to be permitted. I am assuming that

there is no change in the policies that the department has in place for

designating where signs may or may not be located. The conflict here, Mr.

Speaker, again, is one between the desire to have signage from two points of

view; one from the tourism industry wanting to promote their product, and not

only the tourism industry unfortunately, but there are many industries that

would like to promote their products and on the other hand, there is the

competitive aspect of it and on the other hand, there is the tourist who may be

looking for information or the consumer, be it a tourist or be it a consumer of

any other goods or services.

Now as I understand it, in the last couple of years the

signage policy has been relaxed to the point where certain tourist related signs

had been permitted. Prior to that, we essentially approved no signs whatsoever,

but the issue goes back quite some time and I say to the minister that it has

been an issue that has been addressed. One of the ministers suggested last week

that the previous administration did nothing to address it and that is not true.

You may not agree with the approach that was taken and I would readily say that

there are certain aspects of it that I was not totally happy with either, but,

Mr. Speaker, there was a policy put in place I would say ten or eleven years

ago, where we generated the blue signs that are still in place on the highways.

Now that was not an attempt at a compromise between having a

proliferation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, may I have some quiet here?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I am having a heck of a job competing here

with some of my colleagues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your own buddies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry colleague, sorry.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you.

It was an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to try to deal with the

request for proliferation of signs to be placed on the side of a highway and I

think it was agreed at that time by everybody involved that, that was not in the

best interest of the Province, so we attempted to reach a compromise by erecting

these blue signs where, primarily the tourism industry, but the service industry

at least could advertise their goods and services in an organized and controlled

manner on signs constructed and owned by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, but you paid a fee for that, so whether you were a gas bar or a

restaurant or a hospitality home or a hotel, whatever the service might be, you

could purchase a small space and you could put a logo, so if it was a service

station, the major oil dealership logo would be identified there and it would

basically say, you know, such and such service station, one kilometre or two

kilometres or whatever the case may be.

So that was a compromise to let people know that services

were available, it did not meet the desires of industry, of the various

companies involved to promote their products in a manner that they would want to

promote it, but it did eliminate signage of promoting a lot of goods that were

not, from the simple point of view of promoting a product rather than a service

that is available within a particular distance, so you eliminated the great

signs on the side of the highway, and I referred to it on Friday to what I call

the Florida-style sign, which in the middle of nowhere advertises a product that

has nothing to do with the particular location in which you happen to be. It is

simply advertising for the sake of promotion rather than advertising for the

sake of advising the travelling public of what goods and services may be

available in the immediate area.

So that was an attempt and I think it did to some degree,

serve the requirement but it does not meet the requirements of the tourism

industry who want to promote their services in a little more visible manner and

it probably does not meet the requirements of the tourist who wants to be led by

the hand, basically, to goods and services that are available.

The information was always available and the concept of that

signage policy was that the tourist would use his highway map as provided by the

Province. He would go to tourist chalets and get the host of information that is

available there, brochures and everything else, and that he would use some of

the signboards that were erected as well on the side of the highway. We had

lay-by areas on the sides of the highway, particularly the Trans-Canada Highway,

where huge billboards were located, where businesses could purchase advertising

space as well. I must confess, I was never a great supporter of those billboards

and they are no longer with us. I've yet to see very many tourists,

particularly, who were going to stop in basically what was a gravel pit on a

side of the highway and read a billboard to see what services were available.

I don't think they were ever very effective and I was never a

great supporter of them even back in the days when we were putting them there.

It was considered to be part of the overall package, and I guess for the cost

that was involved it was worthwhile attempting it, giving it a try, but they

were not overly successful.

Nevertheless then, we are down to the question now of how do

we deal with the continued request from the tourist industry. I have a lot of

sympathy for that particular industry because I believe they do need to

advertize. I would say to the minister that - he doesn't tell us, and I don't

think in his opening statement he told us a great deal about the types of

signage that would be available, and as the act says, "to allow a broader range

of signs... by regulation." I would like to see those regulations. Perhaps the

minister would be good enough to table them for us if he has them or otherwise

to give us an outline of the types of - how broad is this policy going to be?

What types of signs will be advertised?

I would hate for example to see signs on the side of the

highway that are advertising beer or alcoholic products or men's clothing or

women's clothing or automobiles or anything of that nature, which is simply

consumer advertising. But I have some sympathy for, under strictly controlled

conditions, on the side of the highway allowing some advertising relating to

services in the immediate area, so that the tourist is given the opportunity to

choose between restaurant establishments, food service establishments, hotels,

motels, bed and breakfast operations, tour operators, particular tourist

attractions that are being developed in this Province, camping grounds. These

types of things that the travelling public needs.

In other words, I guess what I'm saying in a nutshell is that

I can support advertising that is directed at the travelling public to assist

that person in knowing what is available and to assist the local area in

promoting the kinds of facilities and services that are available to the

travelling public. I have a problem to see advertising on the sides of our

highways that is aimed simply at the consumer. It is consumer advertising,

general type advertising, rather than specific to a particular area. I hope we

would not see that.

I would like the minister when he closes this debate

eventually if he would address the question, which again is not addressed here,

of where will these sign - I talked a moment ago about the regulations that will

be applied in locating these signs. Would the minister tell us: Is he proposing

to put these in designated signage areas? Because we had some discussion on that

for many years. In other words, there would be a section, a kilometre or two

prior to a major municipal area, where signs under controls would be spaced

properly. The size, the style and the content of those signs would be strictly

controlled by the department. In other words, it would be an information area on

a good straight stretch of the highway where signs a certain distance apart

could be located so that that information is available just outside those areas.

I hope we are not going to see somewhere along Birchy Narrows

a sign advertising what is available in downtown Corner Brook by way of an

eating establishment, for example. Outside of Corner Brook, so that the

travelling public knows: Here is what is available to me up ahead - and I guess

conversely too that this service is not available for another eighty kilometres.

So if you want to eat or you need gas, stop now and get it. That type of sign, I

think there is room for it. If it is tastefully done I don't have a problem with

the advertiser being able to compete. In other words, to promote his or her

product or service in a manner that is competitive, as long as it is tasteful

and carefully controlled by the department.

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted if the minister could, when

he speaks, give us some real information on what will be in his regulations. The

act itself I don't have a problem with. I, for one, believe we should relax the

signage policy somewhat. I would be concerned if we relax it too much, I say to

the minister. I hope we are not doing that, but there is nothing in the act to

give us that. We really need to see the proposed regulations, knowing that they

can be changed at any time, but I would like to know what government is thinking

at this point in time by way of broadening the policy in these regulations. What

types of signs, size, style, location? What types of controls will be on them?

What products can be advertised, and by whom?

If the minister would address those questions, Mr. Speaker, I

think the House and the people of the Province would perhaps have some sympathy

for this particular piece of legislation. So I look forward to the minister, in

his closing remarks perhaps, to addressing those questions if he would.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation. If he speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to

close debate on this bill because I think, as hon. members opposite have pointed

out very clearly, and the most recent speaker, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl,

it is time to address the signage policy in this Province for a various number

of reasons, from a Department of Works, Services and Transportation point of

view as to directional signage and highway signage, but from a tourism and

municipal point of view also.

It has become quite confusing over the years not only to the

people responsible for highway signage, but for the general public as a whole,

and especially the tourists coming into the Province. There has been no real

system in place where there has been a clear understanding of where the highway

signs are placed and who is actually responsible for them.

This piece of legislation gives me, as minister, the

authority simply to be in control of the directional signage on our highways,

and not the highway signage for tourism and municipal affairs. The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will be the minister responsible

for the highway signage outside of my departmental responsibility. This sets

down the direction or the corridor on where the signs can be placed on the

highway. There will be a separate corridor apart from the highway where the

signs for tourism and municipal directions will be put on the highway, and that

is the purpose of this particular change in the amendment to the department's

act.

The consumer signs, as the hon. Member for Mount Pearl just

mentioned, will not be on the highway. It will be strictly related toward

tourism. Restaurants, takeouts, grocery stores, gasoline service stations, bars

and lounges and other similar establishments will continue to be denied

advertising signage along our highways, and that is right. You cannot have a

highway littered up with signs of every gas station, and every convenience

store, and every gas bar that is in the future.

MR. WINDSOR: Could the minister tell us what is going to

be eligible?

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MR. WINDSOR: What will be eligible?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I will get to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It would probably be the best idea, if it was

to the advantage of the people of the Province.

We, as a department, in the highway signage, is taking a look

at a complete review of the highway signage that we are responsible for, the

directional signage and the speed limit signs on our highways.

We have the policy analysis within the department now taking

a look at the national highway policy, the manual, getting the latest up-to-date

manual, and every regional manager across the Province is going to go right

throughout the Province and do a full study on all of the signs not only on our

highways, on the Trans-Canada and the trunk roads, but throughout every

community in every area in this Province.

We realize that if we are going to be able to encourage the

tourists to come into this Province, and to be able to travel around the vast

area of our Province with some ease, that we are going to have to make sure that

all the directional signs, the route numbers of the highways according to the

maps that are printed, that they can make it as easy as possible for the

tourists, and the travelling public in general, to be able to get across and

around the Province. They will find all of the areas that they want to go to

see, to view, to visit for whatever reason, with as much ease as possible. Now

that is the responsibility of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. The minister, my colleague the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs will be the minister who will dictate and give it the

direction of the policy of the other -

MS. VERGE: What about the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation?

MR. EFFORD: - and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation but the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is the minister

who will be fully responsible for the new signage policy.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: If the hon. Member for Humber East is not

satisfied with it that is her problem but I mean there has to be some sense of

control put on our highway signage. You cannot have every six feet or the whole

highway cluttered up with signage at the request of an individual.

Now the hon. member asked a question, she asked the question,

who will be allowed, what businesses will be allowed to put signs on the

highway? There will be allowed the accommodation sector; hotels, motels, bed and

breakfasts and campgrounds to advertise along the side of a highway in a zone

previously reserved for the tourism attraction such as; golf courses, theme

parks, water slides, boat tours and the like. That is to take care of the

necessary information for the travelling public.

I just told the hon. member that will be for bed and

breakfasts and the accommodation sectors and hotels. If an individual is going

to a highway, no, I said no. I said that earlier, restaurants, take-outs,

grocery stores, gasoline service stations, bars and lounges and other similar

establishments will continue to be denied -

MS. VERGE: Why?

MR. EFFORD: - because you cannot have your highways

littered up with a sign of every establishment that is in a community. How many

restaurants are in the City of Corner Brook? So you put a sign on the highway

for every restaurant, every convenience store, every take-out, every gas bar in

the City of Corner Brook? You would not have enough space on the highway to put

those signs, so that is the reason why it is not going to be done.

MS. VERGE: They do it everywhere else in the world.

MR. EFFORD: No they do not.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly, they do not do it everywhere else

and the hon. Member for Humber East is not correct on that. In fact, her

colleague the Member for Mount Pearl just got up and said exactly what I am

saying here, you cannot clutter up the highway for every person who has a

business in any area of the Province who requests a sign to put up there. There

has to be some limits.

MS. VERGE: There should be a happy medium.

MR. EFFORD: Well, we have reached the happy medium.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well I do not think the man above would keep

the hon. member happy. No matter what, she would find a reason to criticize and

not to be happy with it.

MS. VERGE: There is a woman up there not a man.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I am beginning to have second thoughts about

that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to go into a long deliberation

about this because this is simply to change the act to allow the new highway

signage policy to go in place. I have said very clearly the responsibility of

the department is for highway directional signs and we are going to bring in a

complete new review of the Province. My hon. colleague the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs is the minister responsible for -

MR. REID: He makes the rules and I have to carry them out

for him.

MR. EFFORD: No, I am only the facilitator. If the hon.

minister requires me to erect a sign or take it down then I will do that.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department of Works,

Services and Transportation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 16).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have done so very well with

one amendment to the Works, Services and Transportation Act, let's try our luck

with a second one, Order No. 14, it is Bill No. 31. Don't ask me why we have

two, I am not sure I can answer that.

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

Department of Works, Services and Transportation Act (No. 2)". (Bill No. 31)

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some more good news for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker. My responsibility as minister is to improve the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation in giving out this service - in

the leading of services and new technology for this Province and to make things

a whole lot easier for the people who require the services of this department.

The piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, I am about to

introduce here is again, like I said, good news for the Province. Bill No. 31,

gives me the authority as minister in making changes to the department's act and

to bringing in the photo driver's licencing and photo identification cards. I

cannot see - in fact, I would suspect even the hon. Member for Humber East will

stand and applaud the department for this new venture into the 20th and 21st

century.

Mr. Speaker, we again are on the leading edge of technology.

AN HON. MEMBER: The camera.

MR. EFFORD: The camera. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, a number

of other provinces in Canada, and of course down in the United States it is

quite a common thing that your driver's licence and your photo identification be

all one and the same. There are a number of advantages to having this new photo

driver's licence implemented.

Let's start with the travelling public. For the travelling

public to travel, especially outside of Canada, one of the most difficult things

is to be able to produce -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

MR. EFFORD: - an identification card. Your photo driver's

licence will be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Just a few quick words, Mr. Speaker, and I

will sit down and I'm sure that there will be no problem carrying this, the

photo driver's licence, number one, for all the right reasons. The second part

of this will be the photo identification card. Because now you have to have so

many different cards in your possession for identification, and especially under

the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation you get an identification card. Once this

new legislation is brought in and my department gets the approval we will be the

one-stop shop.

We will provide photo identification cards for all of

government as well as the photo driver's licence. If an individual who doesn't

have a photo driver's licence and is required to have a photo identification

card, they will be able to obtain it from the department for a mere $20 fee.

There will be no age restriction. Very simply, two things. The photo driver's

licencing, the photo identification card, and no age restriction on the second

part, the photo identification card. Any age can obtain the card.

The photo driver's licencing in the first instance will be

for three years. It will be phased in over a three-year period, and then it will

be good after - once it is phased in and then the requirement to have a photo

driver's licence renewed will be every five years. Your photo will be taken at

the beginning and every five years after that there will be a requirement to

have a photo driver's licence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. members opposite have

so much to say and so much interruption to make when I'm trying to bring forward

an explanation as to why we are bringing this in. I will sit down and if the

hon. members wish to carry this, we will be satisfied to carry it. If not, I

will be satisfied to entertain any questions that they ask of me.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've been talking

about this piece of legislation this past while over here and we thought it was

a good idea. Not much trouble with it. But I mean now, it is just another way

for Ebenezer Scrooge to get his hands in people's pockets, that is the case.

Anyway, no, we don't see much problem with picture

identifications, no problem at all. Make it easier in lots of cases for people

going places other than where they live. The only other thing is what was

brought in a by a federal Liberal government years ago that went strange was

their Social Insurance Numbers, which was supposed to be our identification

between us and the government. That is gone. You can't go anywhere without

somebody asking you for your Social Insurance Number. That was supposed to be a

very direct thing between government and its people.

Anyway, I don't think that - unless every one of us on our

picture identification, on one side we have our own and on the opposite side I

would think it would be hellish if you had the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation's picture because the only thing that would look as bad as the

minister would be his picture. Anyway, we found out, while it is a good idea,

the minister is awake and looking at the coppers and it is another opportunity

to get money as well, but anyway, it should be much easier for the people

travelling.

Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You are up to speak now, don't be nasty.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not nasty; I was a bit interested to

hear the minister flick out his twenty-dollar bid and we need some

clarification.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is time to take another twenty

dollars, weasel another twenty dollars out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, you will have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), card.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I thought you had to have a card? You

don't have to have it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, oh. Is that going to be part of your

driver's license?

MR. EFFORD: This is a separate card (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am not sure now. Perhaps I did

not listen closely enough to the minister. There were a lot of interruptions

around me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got that right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So the minister is saying now, that

means when I renew my driver's license, whenever it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but the next time my driver's

license is renewed, is the minister telling me that there will now be a

photograph on my driver's license?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is a mandatory requirement?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But it won't be a part of my license?

MR. EFFORD: Yes. Let me explain it, let me explain it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sure, go ahead.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are two separate things.

First of all, the photo driver's licensing, your license and

a photo identification will be on the same card. That will be your new driver's

license symbol. That's it. Now, if any individual, whether he is two years old

or twenty years old or fifty years old, needs or wants a separate identification

card, like you now have for the liquor corporation, you will be able to obtain

that from the department for a fee of twenty dollars. That has nothing to do

with your driver's license. That is a separate identification card if some

person does not have a drivers license or below the age to have a driver's -

You see the hon. member is not listening and he is going to

be confused again. - so now you understand, there are two separate cards, photo

driver's license is one thing, identification card number two, if you require

one for some other reason or you do not have a driver's license.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I understand that now. You see, the

minister gets a little bit huffy over there now, Mr. Speaker, but I mean, the

minister does such a poor job of introducing his bills, the same as he did with

Bill 30, he did not know the legislation, attempted to bluff his way through -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Government House Leader,

this is Bill 31. He nods agreement. - so the fee for the driver's license,

minister, will remain the same as it is now, is that what you are telling me? I

will pay the same when I renew my driver's license, the same fees I paid the

last time or would the increases be built in, every -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, whatever it is. - but if I wanted

an ID card, I would have to pay twenty bucks, if I were too young to have a

driver's license or had my driver's license suspended, or too old to have a

driver's license and I want an ID card, it would cost me twenty dollars for the

card. How much revenue do you think you are going to get out of that? Any idea

what it is going to cost to process the ID cards and what revenue you are going

to gain on that, I would like to ask the minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, well then, how can you then decide

that he is going to charge people twenty dollars, is my question?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But you must have some basis to set the

twenty-dollar fee, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So you are just going to pay for the

cost of the card, you are not going to generate any revenue for the government?

I hope the minister does not think now that I am going to believe that, I say to

him.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will do it for $20.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, we will. We will pay for the next

election campaign out of it, I say to the minister, an ID card for twenty bucks.

Make no wonder the minister is laughing, because he knows, and the Minister of

Finance, well, he is not here, but I am sure he must be very happy about this.

Of course, he has his fingers into it, for sure.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say there is about a $2 million profit

here, or $3 million. There are a couple of hundred thousand (inaudible) want

these.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You didn't put the cost in the bill, I

say to the minister. The cost is not in the bill. It says `A person who wishes

to obtain an identification card shall apply, providing the minister with proof

of identification, of age, and of other information which the minister may

require, and shall pay the fee set by the minister.' So the fee is going to be

$20? That is decided. Was that decided by Cabinet or by the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: By the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: So, it will be $20. Well, that is

information that people need to know. That is pertinent information that people

should know, that the ID card will cost them $20. Now, if we could only get some

estimate from the minister and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board as to

what the government is going to generate from this, that would even make the

information more interesting to the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: It will never generate enough.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course, it never generates enough but

for those paying out, it is taking another bit of money from their pocket. It

ties into the debate we had today and the Question Period on employment

generation. There are so many people unemployed and finding it tough that while

another $20 may not mean too much to the minister, it means a lot to ordinary

Newfoundlanders, especially if they are unlucky enough to be pulled over by the

police, after having had a glass of wine at communion, and then having to pay

$100 to get their license back.

I guess it will pay for another bit of air time for the

minister to flick around the Province in his big helicopter, the great big huge

helicopters I saw the other day. It frightened the life out of me the other day

when I went down to Marystown and on the way home I saw this big helicopter off

at the Irving Station by the lights. I said, No, that is not the Minister of

Works, Services, and Transportation down here in that.

I heard that the minister was flying off Friday night down to

Marystown. He flew all night; his feet hardly touched the floor, I am told.

MR. TOBIN: He was that high.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He had a good time, I heard. I am just

wondering if the $20 is going to allow him to go to other places in the Province

- bring in the ID card, more air time for the minister, more expense accounts.

On a serious note, I say to the minister, I think it is a good idea to have an

ID card, a photo ID.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who said? He looks bored over here.

(Inaudible) bored, he would be over there then. At least over here he is allowed

to speak and think, but over there he is not allowed to do anything.

MR. TOBIN: Listen to `Danny'.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He hasn't opened his mouth, the old

go-fer. I say that the Member for Eagle River will need a photo ID card so he

will be able to know who he is himself. He has been so quiet lately, and so

subdued, that he will need to take it out of his pocket every now and then and

look at it to remind him who he is. He is a different man. He will need the ID -

it is going to be a great benefit to the Member for Eagle River for when he goes

up to Quebec and rents those cars. When he goes to Quebec to rent a car for use

in his district, he will only need the one card. I don't suppose the minister

could arrange to have a French card done for the Member for Eagle River, have it

in French?

Basically, we don't have any problem with this, I say to the

minister, but there are a couple of question that I think are pertinent and that

we wanted to ask. The minister has answered them, for which I thank him.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a couple of minor questions which will take only

a minute. The initial processing of the license is normally for three years now

at $60, I believe. So with the photo on the next issuing of license, is the

minister stating there is no increased cost?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We will see when the budget comes down, I

guess.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It will stay in place just for this fiscal

year, depending on the budget, I would assume, if they increase it, but this

aspect is not going to increase it.

I think the minister stated that $500,000 would be the cost

of implementing the system.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The cost of implementing the system?

AN HON. MEMBER: $3.5 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: $3.5 million? So I would assume you are

going to try to do a cost recovery on it, are you? And the $20 on cost recovery

would mean that we are going to have about 175,000 people who are going to avail

of this system at an extra $20.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know, but at a $3.5 million cost,

and they have a cost recovery at $20, we are looking at about 175,000. In fact,

I just shouted out a little while ago, I would assume a couple of hundred

thousand people would avail of this system, which -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the same $3.5 million

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The cost then, to the consumer, basically

is about $3.5 million extra, and that is going to be fully recovered. The

minister is stating -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and the minister is stating they are

going to fully recover this program. It is not going to be absorbed into the

general budget, that the people will pay $3.5 million in fees over and above

what they normally pay now to recover this. That is correct? Okay.

A liquor commission ID, for example, maybe you might be able

to tell me what the cost of that is. Are you familiar with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. I have that figure - I'm sorry. It is

$16.05 - the member provided it. So basically this could suffice to replace that

one, too, and then there will be a whole group of people who would be

contributing, too. So really the net cost is $3.5 million.

Thank you.

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

Transportation. If he speaks now, he will close debate on the bill.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I

want to explain that I didn't get the opportunity to explain in my introductory

remarks. One of them was that people now who live in different areas across the

Province won't have to come into St. John's, won't have to go into Corner Brook,

or won't have to go into their regular office now. We will be setting up these

cameras to give the people living in different areas of the Province where it is

difficult to travel to and from, the main centres, to have this done, the photo

taken and the driver's licence card produced, like on the Northern Peninsula and

in different areas around Newfoundland. So we are going to be very easily

accessible to individuals.

The other advantage it gives you is that nobody now will be

able to use somebody else's driver's licence, and that is one of the most

important aspects of it. Because individuals can take somebody else's driver's

licence now, if they lose it through drinking and driving, or for whatever

reason, and get their brother's or friend's or whatever, and just pass the name

across, it is pretty difficult - that would eliminate that process.

It is going to be easier now for people to do business. They

go into a business establishment and produce their identification card, their

photo driver's licence. It very clearly tells you that this is the individual

and the owner and operator of that licence or whatever. The same with the

travelling public, it is