March 21,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

public galleries, Dr. Philip Warren, the former Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 15, a

member of this House tabled a confidential document by which the negotiating

team advised the Cabinet on December 12, 1991 of the results of its negotiations

with Hydro Quebec with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill up to

that point in time. While the tabling of what is essentially a stolen document

only serves to hurt the Province's bargaining ability with Hydro Quebec in the

future, the more serious aspects are the utterly unfounded allegations that have

been made on the basis of providing only a part of the total information that

was provided to the Cabinet on that date.

Some of these allegations include the suggestion that the

government, myself in particular, walked away from or scuttled a deal that was

available to the Province that would be very beneficial to the Province in the

future, and further, that the government, by this approach, and proceeding with

the two pieces of legislation, the Electrical Power Control Act and the

Privatization Act now before the House, is jeopardizing our ability to provide

for the future development of the Lower Churchill and improve our access to

benefits from the total development of the Churchill River. I will deal with the

first of these allegations in the House today and deal in more detail with the

second when I address the people of the Province tomorrow night.

Virtually everybody in this Province, and I believe, the

great majority of the people of Canada agree that the power contract between

Hydro Quebec and CF(L)Co and other related agreements and statutes have created

a grossly unfair circumstance under which this Province gets little financial

benefit from the hydro operations on the Churchill River in Labrador, while

Hydro Quebec makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year profit through its

control and resale of the power.

Under the documentation, Hydro Quebec acquired the right to

purchase virtually all of the 5,200 megawatt output of Churchill Falls at the

incredibly low price of 3 mils per kilowatt hour for 40 years until 2016 with no

provision for escalation in price. By way of comparison, people in this Province

today are paying on average about 60 mils per kilowatt hour for their energy.

Now, that is on average, all industrial customers and everything combined. If

you looked alone at residential, it would be closer to 75 mils per kilowatt

hour. In addition, Hydro Quebec also had the right to renew the contract after

2016 for a further 25 years until the year 2041 and have the price reduced by

one third, to 2 mils per kilowatt hour during that 25 years. They have exercised

that option.

In order to raise the money necessary to build the Upper

Churchill and enable it to be repaid in the original 40-year period, the

government of this Province was also required to provide legislative and

contractual guarantees that it would not, during that period, increase any

provincial taxes, water power royalties or other charges of any kind to

Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation prior to 2016, by which time the original

amount borrowed to build the Upper Churchill would have been repaid.

These provisions and others have frustrated the attempts of

successive governments of this Province both to address the unconscionable

consequences of that very unfair arrangement and to obtain access to

hydroelectric power to meet the genuine needs of the people of this Province in

the foreseeable future.

In the fall of 1989, after discussion between Premier

Bourassa and myself, we agreed to cause negotiations to be commenced between

Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. From the point of view of this

government, those negotiations had three primary objectives: to achieve the

development of the Lower Churchill; to ensure access to a future supply of

hydroelectric power for the people of this Province at 3 mils, the price at

which power is presently sold from the Upper Churchill to Hydro Quebec; and to

improve the revenue for CF(

L) Co in order to ensure its future financial

viability.

After some 29 meetings between the fall of 1989 and November

21, 1991 a resolution to most major issues had been negotiated. The price had

been narrowed to a relatively small difference and there were a number of other

important matters not finalized but the expectation of most was that both the

price and these matters could be resolved by the parties.

When, on November 21, 1991 Hydro Quebec put a proposal to the

Province that was substantially as described in the Cabinet document tabled in

this House on March 15, 1994 it included conditions that had not been

negotiated:

The document tabled in the House did not spell out, and the

member who tabled it did not say, that Hydro Quebec's offer was on the express

condition that the protections and guarantees against any further taxes or

charges that presently exist in the first 40 years to 2016 would be extended to

the next period of 25 years from 2017 to 2041 even though the price during that

period would be reduced by 2 mils per kilowatt hour.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the document did not spell out, and the

member did not say, that agreeing to such a condition would defeat the clear

rights of the Province under the 1982 amendment to the Constitution which added

section 92A, an amendment which incidentally was dreamed up specifically to deal

with the unfair consequences of the Churchill Falls contract. That amendment

enables provinces to impose taxation even on power exported from the Province.

The result would be that Newfoundland's ability to act under that constitutional

amendment and get some revenue from the Upper Churchill would then be deferred

from 2016, a further 25 years to 2041.

The document also did not note, and the member did not say,

that the Hydro Quebec proposal was also on the condition that if Newfoundland

did act to impose any further taxes or water power royalties or charges that

such action would entitle Hydro Quebec to cancel any contract in relation to the

purchase of Lower Churchill power.

The document tabled in the House did not indicate, and the

member who tabled it did not say, that it was also a condition of Hydro Quebec's

proposal that the by-laws of CF(L)Co would be changed to provide that CF(L)Co

could not agree with the government to in any manner alter any of the provisions

of the lease of water powers between the Government of Newfoundland and CF(L)Co

without the prior approval of Hydro Quebec.

The government instructed the negotiating team to advise

Hydro Quebec that such conditions would never be acceptable to the government or

the people of this Province. The government also instructed the negotiating team

to advise Hydro Quebec that we would not under any circumstances agree to a

requirement that the rights under the existing power contract with Hydro Quebec

be reconfirmed, assured or enhanced in any manner whatsoever unless there was a

full redress for the wrongs that had been created by that contract. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, we were very explicit; we told the negotiating team we

would see the waters flow to the sea forever before we would ever again submit

to such blackmail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I believe, and ever member of government

believes that acceptance of that proposal would have been such a betrayal of the

people of this Province, that no responsible member of this House could for a

moment consider acceptance of it. If the Opposition is now saying it should have

been accepted they have a lot to answer for to the people of this Province.

On March 3, 1992 therefore the Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro negotiating team presented a counter offer to Hydro Quebec that rejected

anything that would further strengthen the position of Hydro Quebec under the

existing power contract but was a fair basis for going forward with the proposal

on the terms negotiated between the parties thus far. Nothing further was

received from Hydro Quebec until the Chairman and the President of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro met with Mr. Claude Dub, Hydro Quebec's Vice-President of

External Markets, in February 1993, at which time Mr. Dub advised that Hydro

Quebec's forecast of load had decreased to the point that Hydro Quebec believed

that discussions with relation to the development of the Lower Churchill should

be delayed for a number of years.

Clearly, therefore, the Opposition's allegation that the

government walked away from a deal for the development of the Lower Churchill

that would have been very favourable to this Province is, like most of their

statements on the Hydro issue, totally without foundation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We in the Official

Opposition are smoking out the Premier. The Premier gave quite a different story

here today from what he said in the House on March 11 when I first exposed the

fact that he scuttled a golden opportunity to develop the Lower Churchill and

get side agreements on the Upper Churchill two short years ago.

On March 11 the Premier said that the failure had nothing

whatsoever to do with the inability of the two parties to come to an agreement,

but rather it had everything in the world to do with the fact that the

hydro-electric situation in the whole of northeast North America had changed in

the meantime.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days later when the Premier was

absent and I tabled a presentation to Cabinet dated December 12, 1991, the

Minister of Mines and Energy conceded that indeed this provincial government and

Hydro Quebec had been very, very close to reaching an agreement on terms

extremely favourable to this Province. So the minister began to come closer to

the truth. The Minister of Justice was denying that there had been anything

resembling an agreement.

The Premier in this statement today spins out some other

excuses. Today he didn't try to continue the pretence that Hydro Quebec lost

interest because of the recession or because of softening markets in the

northeastern U.S., because that simply is not believable.

Mr. Speaker, nobody will believe that Hydro Quebec or any

other major concern evaluating a prospect for a major hydro-electric development

will be guided by immediate circumstances, or even short-term projections. This

was to be a project for the next century, with the first of the Lower Churchill

power coming on stream in 2001, with Hydro Quebec wanting to purchase for thirty

years to start, bringing us up to the 2030's. This was to be a project for the

21st. century, so it is preposterous for the Premier to try to continue the

pretence that Hydro Quebec lost interest because of a short-term recession in

1991 or 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier today talks about the

possibility of a court challenge under

section 92(

a) of the Constitution. Now

this has been a pet theory of his for many, many, many years. Back in 1986 when

he Chaired the board of Newfoundland Light and Power he wrote a legal opinion

for Light and Power, Wells and Company, dated July 7, 1986, advancing this pet

theory of his, and he has been pushing it ever since.

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the Province knows that there have

been two unsuccessful court challenges of the Upper Churchill contract in the

early 1980's, in one of which the Premier represented interests adverse to and

opposite to those of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, sadly we lost seven to nothing in

the Supreme Court of Canada, not once but twice, thanks in part, I suppose, to

the contribution of the Premier representing some of the bond holders.

Mr. Speaker, is the Premier suggesting now the we forego a

golden opportunity to develop the Lower Churchill, with all the general

objectives set out by his government going into the negotiations met, including

over $4 billion additional revenue to the provincial government in royalties and

rental for the Upper Churchill over the remaining life of this contract -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - because he wants to test his pet theory? A

theory, incidentally, which has been soundly rejected by constitutional lawyers

consulted by the government. Is that what this is all about?

Mr. Speaker, the consequence of all this is that we are going

to sell Hydro on terms extremely unfavourable to the government and the people

of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired. We do operate by rules,

one of which is time, so I draw members' attention to that. Thank you.

Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave to

address the House?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: We're prepared to give leave on this

occasion but let me serve notice that from now on, on behalf of members on this

side, we are not prepared to give leave to address statements. We are prepared,

Mr. Speaker, to address the issue in a proper way by amending the rules of the

House if that's necessary.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not prepared to address -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's difficult to hear the hon. member at the opposite end of

the House, particularly if members are speaking.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not prepared to address in detail the lengthy statement

by the Premier on this - as I say, a rather lengthy statement about a most

important issue in our Province's history, in our Province's future. I leave

that to the Member for Humber East and the Premier to argue about the details of

what did or didn't happen but what I do wish to say on behalf of my party is

that this issue is of such fundamental importance to the Province - and it's

discussion at this time, during this Hydro debate and the debate about

privatization of Hydro, really gives rise to the concerns that people have about

the Province's ability to get out of the box that we are in with respect to the

development of Hydro electric potential in Labrador in the future.

It's the feeling of large numbers of people in this Province

that the Province's ownership and control of all of the assets of Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro and having the expertise, the experience and the ability to

have a whole entity with all of its parts is very important to the future of

this Province. It's why, at this time, it's of such grave concern to the

Province to be able to have an entity still in existence that gives us some hope

of controlling our future destiny when it comes to the development of Hydro

electric potential.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's so important for us

to hold our position with respect to the entity of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro in the hopes that we can in the future be able to get development of the

Lower Churchill and other Labrador resources on terms favourable to our Province

and hopefully get ourselves out of the box we find ourselves in now. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I owe the hon. gentleman an

apology and an explanation in the House. Let me make it very clear, I had

confused his request for leave to respond to the Premier's statement with his

request for leave on another matter. We are delighted to hear the hon. gentleman

in response to ministerial statements and we'll give leave on that. There's

another matter entirely on which the hon. gentleman wishes to make a statement,

we're prepared to give leave on a subsequent occasion - but not in response to

ministerial statements, let me make it clear, Sir.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remind all members of the House of

Assembly and citizens of the Province that today, March 21, is the International

Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This day marks the anniversary

of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in South Africa when 70 peaceful demonstrators

against apartheid were killed and 180 were wounded. In 1966, the United Nations

declared March 21 the International Day for the elimination of racial

discrimination in commemoration of this tragic event.

The General Assembly of the United Nations called upon states

and organizations to participate in the program of action for the second decade

to combat racism and racial discrimination. Canada's participation, Mr. Speaker,

in this program was announced by the Prime Minister in 1986. Subsequent to this,

in September 1988, ministers attending a federal/provincial/territorial

conference on human rights agreed to commemorate March 21 in all Canadian

jurisdictions.

This is the 6th year, Mr. Speaker, that the day has been

officially recognized. While this day is singled out to focus attention on the

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

We must confront and fight racism whenever we find it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a minute to

commend the Human Rights Association of Newfoundland and Labrador upon the

release today of its human rights reader at a lunchtime ceremony downtown.

Copies of this reader are to be used in the Province's schools and will be

available to members of the Legislature.

We all have our part to do in eliminating racial

discrimination, and I call on all members to fully endorse the recognition of

this day and every day as a day for the elimination of racial discrimination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We join today with the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations and indeed all members of the House of Assembly in recognizing this

day as a day marked by the United Nations in commemoration of the Sharpeville

massacre, for the elimination of racial discrimination.

We would like to point out as well that the elimination of

all racial discrimination begins with each and every one of us, Mr. Speaker, and

to that end if we hope at any time in the future to see racial discrimination

eliminated, it begins with each and every one of us. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join

with the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Member for Kilbride

in commemorating this day, the marking of the Sharpeville massacre in South

Africa, and recognizing the need for all racial discrimination and racial

stereotyping as well as all other forms of discrimination, whether it be by

gender or sexual orientation or otherwise. We join with all members of the House

in condemning all forms of discrimination, in particular racial discrimination

as it is being commemorated today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Does the member have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to ask

the House to join with me in requesting the Speaker to send the condolences of

the House of Assembly to the family of Alec Afonso, who was tragically killed in

a diving accident last week in the town of Hermitage.

I had the sad duty on Friday of attending his funeral at St.

Joseph's Church in St. John's, which was filled to overflowing in tribute to the

esteem in which he was held. Mr. Afonso came to Newfoundland at age fifteen from

his native Portugal, a country with long and significant connections to

Newfoundland. He became a pioneer in the establishment of underwater diving as a

commercial enterprise in this Province, and was successful and well known in

this business.

Mr. Speaker, he had time for everybody and everything. He had

the respect of all who had dealings with him and was known for his energy and

generosity. He has, as an immigrant to this Province, brought his special

contribution to us. He will be remembered for it and he will be sadly missed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Does the hon. member have leave to address the House?

Leave given.

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would join

with the Member for St. John's East. I knew Mr. Afonso. He was a great

Newfoundlander, an adopted Newfoundlander. He had a great love for the Province

and his contributions were without doubt. He was always ready, willing and able

to do many things on different days of the week and different hours of the week.

I had a long and close relationship with the gentleman. I would concur with the

hon. member that you, Mr. Speaker, send condolences to his family.

I just want to make another comment. Last week I think a

couple of hon. members on this side who had close friends who were prominent in

their communities, and perhaps may I suggest to you, Your Honour, that if each

hon. member was to send to you, Your Honour, a letter explaining the individual

and what have you, that you, at one time in the week, might be able to get up

and acknowledge them, and that way we would not have a constant and continuous -

I suppose it is difficult sometimes if it is a real prominent individual. I

would suggest that perhaps we should all think about it and do it in a better

way because it is very time consuming. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Waterford -

Kenmount have leave to address the House?

By leave.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the

Progressive Conservative Party we would like to be associated with the letter of

condolence. I had known the gentleman for some years in my role as the mayor of

the City of Mount Pearl. I had worked with him on a number of projects. He was

well known in this region, respected by all of us who knew him well, and

certainly he was a great Newfoundlander. It was a sad event for this community

and for the Province when he tragically passed away just a few days ago.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Minister of

Justice just before question period of a question I wanted to ask him. On March

9, 1993, a Miss Leette Renee Moores, a twenty year old young lady, died at the

Grace Hospital while undergoing what was expected to be a quite normal

gallbladder operation. I understand that it was later determined that she didn't

suffer from any condition that would have caused this to happen. As a result the

family, some of whom are in the gallery today, are of course left wondering, and

they are living in hope that the many unanswered questions they have can be

answered. I will also be presenting a petition, later on in the order of

business, signed by nearly 3,000 people supporting the family in their efforts

to get some answers.

Under

Section 23(1)(

a) of the

Summary Proceeding Act, in

situations such as this, the law says, a judge shall hold an inquiry to

ascertain the causes respecting, and the circumstances surrounding that death.

It is clearly mandatory. I want to ask the Minister of Justice now: Will he

direct that a judicial inquiry be held into the tragic death of Leette Moores?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all acknowledge

that my friend, the Opposition Leader, spoke to me as I came into the House

today at 2:00 o'clock. That is the notice he gave me of the question. I don't

quarrel with the courtesy he showed me but I know, in turn, he won't quarrel

with the fact that I do not have an answer ready for him today. I can make one

or two points then I will have to take it from there tomorrow.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I recollect a letter, I believe,

from a lawyer representing the family. I think it was Mrs Butler down at White,

Ottenheimer & Baker, if memory serves me correctly, making a request. I recall

acknowledging the letter. I asked my staff to get me copies of it - I don't have

them here now. I may have them at the end of Question Period, in which case, I

will deal with it on a petition. Secondly, I then passed the matter to the

Director of Public Prosecutions because he - the office is held by a man at

present - he takes these decisions. Thirdly, let me make a point to my hon.

friend. He was good enough to quote

Section 23(1) of the

Summary Proceedings Act

which is cast in mandatory language; he didn't go on, unfortunately, to read

subsection 2 of the act, 23 sub (2), which says, `Notwithstanding subsection 1,

a judge is not required to hold an inquiry in relation to a death where the DPP,

the Director of Public Prosecutions, notifies the judge that an inquiry is not

necessary,' or the second exception is the case of a medical suit, which does

not apply here, `unless the Attorney General directs that an inquiry be held.'

Mr. Speaker, what this means, in effect, and the way the

legislation is designed to work and does work - the legislation came into effect

in 1979 in my understanding. A death from unusual or different circumstances

occurs, takes place, the DDP has a call as to whether an inquiry is to be held

or not. The Attorney General has the right to override that if he or she is so

minded. I had a request from the family and we have made only an interim

acknowledgement to it. If I can get a further answer later this day I will make

the further answer and if not I will make it as soon as I can. We have not made

a substantial answer - we, being in the first case the DPP, Mr. Flynn; when he

comes to his determination I will then see how I should exercise the discussion

vested in me. That is all I can say to my friend today, and all I can say to any

members of the family who may be listening in the House. I appreciate their

concern and I share it, but I can't go beyond that right now.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, a new set of questions. I

appreciate the answer given by the minister and I may have more to say about it

later on in Petitions.

I would like to direct some questions to the Premier related

to the Hydro privatization issue. On Friday, and again on Sunday, on

Province-wide cable television - I am not sure if the Premier had the privilege

of watching that esteemed debate, but during that program his Minister of

Justice admitted that government had done a poor job in explaining the Hydro

deal, so the minister was then asked by the moderator - I will try to put in it

perspective for the Premier - `Will the government be holding public information

sessions around the Province?' The minister said, `yes'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, we can get the tape and show where you

said it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in concluding the program, the moderator

said that the government would be holding public consultations and the minister

sitting next to the moderator, was nodding, yes. That is when the program when

concluded, and if so, of course, this would be a major turnaround of

government's position. So I want to ask the Premier: Will he now advise the

people of the Province of the details of this public consultation plan that his

minister talked about? Will it involve a committee of the House? Will it involve

public hearings around the Province? What exactly are the details of the

minister's public commitment?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a text of the

transcript here, nor, I suspect, does my hon. friend, so it is going to be very

difficult to answer his question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, he has a tape. I was there. My

recollection differs from his.

MS. VERGE: I was there.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the hon. lady was there and she kept

proving it by interrupting me continuously but unsuccessfully. My friend, the

Member for St. John's East was there and did not interrupt continuously, nor was

he rude, as was the hon. woman.

What I want to say is the government's position on this. What

I said was consistent with the government's position. When we check the tapes,

or the transcripts, as may be the case, we will find out.

I can't go beyond that, but I will say, I didn't say what my

hon. friend alleges I said.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, let me be more specific. I will ask the

Premier: Are you going to have any public information sessions around the

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is going to be a major public

information session tomorrow evening. I don't know what the time is right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: NTV - 6:30 p.m., isn't it?

PREMIER WELLS: Tomorrow evening, at 6:30 on NTV.

It is not just NTV; it is all the radio stations, and I am

not sure whether or not the CBC has yet agreed. I certainly hope they do. This

is a major matter that is of great concern to all of the people of this

Province, and it is quite important that the public broadcasting system, paid

for by the taxpayers of this Province, and this country as a whole, make

available time for the people of the Province to be fully informed. I would hope

they will reconsider and do so. That will be the first major public information

effort. Now the extent, if any, to which further public information efforts will

be necessary beyond that, the government will decide shortly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that's not a public hearing, or a

public information session. That's a public lecture by the Premier - that's what

we are going to see.

If he thinks that is going to be so significant, I tell him

to pay attention and watch for NTV on Wednesday night at 6:30 when I will be on

- that's when you will get some real information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: That's when the real truth will come out, Mr.

Speaker.

Now let me ask the Premier this, seriously. He says now there

is so much concern, which is a major departure from their position of just a few

days ago when there was hardly any opposition to this, `hardly anybody

interested in this' - so it is a major departure from their position, to now

admit there is a lot of concern about it. Well, if there is so much concern, why

doesn't he give the public an opportunity to have a say by holding some meetings

around the Province, perhaps through the use of a legislation committee? The

Minister of Justice says there is no deadline. We have lots of time to do it, so

why won't the Premier do it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I accept that a large number

of people in the Province are genuinely concerned. In the case of many of them,

their concern may well have originated on their own initiative, and they are

quite concerned about this kind of an issue, or privatization issue generally. I

accept that, and I accept, without question, the sincerity of their position,

but what I don't accept is the proposition that masses of the people are

genuinely concerned and that that concern wasn't provoked and promoted by some

very, very misleading and misinforming statements made, largely by the members

of the Opposition, but by some others, too, that, if people believe those

statements, or if there were no statements made to the contrary, understandably,

would well evoke a lot of concern.

I intend, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow evening, to explain fully the

government's position, and why the government took the approach that it did, and

fully explain to the people of this Province the total government position on

the matter, and why we took the particular approach, with respect to the debate,

that we did. At that time, I would hope that all people in the Province will

have a better understanding of how this developed, the extent to which the

government is at fault - I acknowledge it, the extent to which the government is

at fault - for not taking better steps, better action, to fully inform the

people; but let's wait to see what tomorrow evening brings.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't accept the Premier's

allegations that the misleading statements have been made by members of the

Opposition. I think if you do a serious investigation into what transpired since

the Premier spoke publicly to the Board of Trade here in St. John's on November

17, you will find that, in fact, the real root of the problem causing confusion

is the Premier's own arguments. That is what has happened in all of this.

Again, I ask the Premier this question - and it is a form of

a similar question I just asked, which he neatly avoided answering: If the

Premier is so concerned that the people have concerns about this issue, why

doesn't he give the people an opportunity to have some input? not just to see

him and me on television, making a speech for twenty or twenty-five minutes or

half-an-hour; that's one thing - but to give the people a chance to have some

input, since he knows there is so much concern around the Province. Why won't he

do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I say again, we propose to

take steps to ensure that the people of this Province are fully informed as to

the position the government is taking, why, exactly what we have done, and we

will lay it out for them fully. We will then come to a conclusion as to the

level of concern and what, if anything further may need to be done beyond that;

I am not going to prejudge that situation. We will make the decision at that

time. But I will say, in response to the member's question, that the government

is also concerned, that when we proceed with privatization - assuming we do

proceed with privatization - when we proceed with privatization, we do so in

circumstances that will enable the people of this Province to get the greatest

value for the disposition of their shares, and the timing of taking the proposal

to market and so on is an important aspect of that, and we don't want to do

anything to delay for an excessive period of time that would only cause

substantial harm, substantial financial harm to the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is a real concern for the government in

relation to this whole matter, but I say again, we will be taking steps to fully

inform the people and we will then judge the matter, subsequent to that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a final question to the Premier.

In view of the fact that he has made the statements he has

made at the end of his answer to my question about doing it at the right time

and all the rest of it, can he tell the House, what kind of a deadline now,

then, has he placed on this whole process? He must have some deadline in mind,

and maybe he could tell the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no absolute

deadline, but I say to hon. members, we would like to see it achieved perhaps

before the end of April, it would be very beneficial I would think. It is not a

deadline, it is not an absolute. It may not be achieved until the first week in

May, the second week in May, the last week of May or into June, or maybe even

later, for all I know. There is no absolute deadline, let me hasten to add that.

It is a proposal that is being put forward, and I say again, it is important to

the people of this Province that we try to make sure that anything that is done

is done in a way that will produce the best possible results for the people of

the Province, and we are very conscious of that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the

Minister of Education but, prior to the opening of the House this afternoon,

agreement has been reached with the Minister of Finance to respond.

The Minister of Education authenticated that the government

intends to reduce significantly the total number of teachers in the Province;

some teaching units would be lost as a result of declining enrolments and some

will be lost due to the government's decision to discontinue the 2 per cent

savings clause in the teachers' collective agreement. Can the minister inform

the House the number of teaching units to be lost in each of these specific

categories?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, two parts of the question - first

of all, as the enrollment in the Province declines, then obviously, there

becomes not as much need for the same number of teachers. If there is a drop in

enrollment coming over the next two years, then obviously, you don't need the

same number of teachers there. So, government is not acting upon laying off

teachers and so on. If the need is there, teachers will be provided. There is a

declining enrollment, and I believe that will result in maybe, approximately 130

fewer teaching positions as a result of that - simply because there are fewer

and fewer students left to teach.

The second part of his question, Mr. Speaker, refers to the 2

per cent rule, which is a rule that indicates that no matter what the declining

enrollment, the number of teachers cannot be dropped by more than 2 per cent in

a particular board. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, there has been, at this point

in time, no reduction. I believe the Department of Education has sent letters

around giving interim allocations to the superintendents of the board, because

that is an item that is part of our collective bargaining right now. So we want

to give the interim allocations and we will see a few months down the road

whether we will, in fact, give further allocations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the potential loss of great

numbers of teachers in the classrooms of this Province will have the effect of

increasing class size, particularly in our rural schools.

The minister is well aware that the 2 per cent savings clause

was introduced as a government initiative in the early 1970s to protect the

curriculum and to protect the programs in rural schools in particular. If we are

to continue to drop that 2 per cent, or to have proposals put forward to drop

the 2 per cent, the effect on rural schools would be multigrade classrooms, and

teachers teaching courses for which many of them will not be well-trained, or

they will lack experience.

I want to ask the minister: Will the minister commit his

government to assure that the initiatives on the 2 per cent savings clause will

not put in jeopardy the quality of instruction available to students in

Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me assure the hon. gentleman that where the

need exists, that need will be taken care of. It's unfortunate that in certain

areas of the Province over the past ten years, because of the 2 per cent rule,

there have been surpluses of teachers built up. Now, whether that's a real

surplus or an imagined surplus I can't say at this point in time. Obviously,

where the enrolments have been declining we need, overall, a lower pupil/teacher

ratio than in areas where enrolments have not been declining.

Mr. Speaker, that has created an imbalance in the Province,

and I want to assure the hon. member that whatever the results of this round of

collective bargaining are, that wherever the need is, that need will be

provided.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

There is, in the Province, and there has been for a long

time, some talk about a small schools policy. I want to ask the minister: In

view of the fact that government wishes to address the inequities created by the

2 per cent savings clause, will government commit itself to instituting a

comprehensive small schools policy in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in general

allocation anyway, government recognizes the fact that where there are a large

number of small schools there needs to be an extra supply of teachers, simply

because of the distribution of students and the need in high schools to provide

as full a program as possible, so that need is recognized.

As we go through the process of change that is happening, and

will happen in our educational system, I can assure the hon. member that the

needs of the small schools will be dealt with, but as to whether there is going

to be a special commission - there certainly will be a special policy, but

whether this is going to involve a separate process from what is happening in

the reorganization, I am not too sure. I will check with the Department of

Education and let the hon. gentleman know.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. My question is prompted by a telephone call I had on the weekend from

an electrical inspector who said there are a number of electrical inspectors

throughout the Province who have received their termination notices; I believe

he said for around the first of June.

Could the minister inform the House if, indeed, there are a

number of electrical inspectors who will be terminated in the Province and, if

so, how many, and when the termination date is?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, as a matter of fact, as the Budget was being presented

by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in the Legislature on Thursday past,

ten electrical inspectors with the Department of Employment and Labour Relations

were informed that they could expect, by the first of June, that due to a

reorganization we would have planned anyway, it was just that at Budget time was

an appropriate time to do it, and with the institution of a new method of

inspection that gives more responsibility to the certified, bona fide

contractors and electricians that actually do the installations, that as a

result of that, ten of the twenty or so electrical inspectors that we currently

have will no longer be needed, and they will be laid off as of June 1 of this

year.

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

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

supplementary to the minister.

Isn't the minister - from what I gather, the work is going to

be audited, and I think a figure of some 30 per cent is being used, 30 per cent

of electrical work done will be audited. I'm sure the minister realizes the very

serious implications and consequences, if 70 per cent of your work, electrical

work particularly, is not inspected - we are really dealing with the public

safety issue here. Is the minister at all concerned, with the new system he said

his department is putting in place, is he not concerned for public safety? We

are talking about electricity here - is he concerned at all about that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, very concerned from the point of

view that we would never have agreed to put this new system in place if we

thought there was any additional risk whatsoever to anybody in their homes or

any other buildings when the wiring of them is done, which is normally, under

the old procedure, every particular installation inspected by a government

inspector before the permit to occupy and so on is given.

What we have done is moved into a system - we will move into

a system by June 1 that is already in place in most other provinces in the

country. It reflects the kinds of partnerships that the Minister of Finance was

discussing in the Budget. The business community, itself, the contractors who

actually do the installation, will commit, their record will show, they will

show that they have the certified electricians who will guarantee that they know

the regulations, they know the code and they will install according to the code.

As a matter of fact, in most other provinces, Mr. Speaker, in just about every

other jurisdiction in Canada, less than 50 per cent of the actual installations

are inspected, then the books and the records of the companies that do the

inspections are audited from time to time. If there's ever a problem that

surfaces then that particular contractor gets inspected on the actual work, but

in most cases they found that isn't necessary. They have qualified electricians

who are actually doing the installations; they do the installations according to

the codes that are in existence at the time, and the governments in other

jurisdictions are quite satisfied that there's absolutely no risk to the public

with respect to this inspection method.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the

minister, the information I have is that when these inspections are done, even

by qualified electricians, the average inadequacies or problems average around

five per dwelling, per house. Around five problems are detected by the

inspectors, which then, of course, are consequently corrected and public safety

issues put to rest. When you allude to the contractors, I say to the minister,

that's what worries me, because you're leaving it up to the person doing the

work to do their own inspections and to certify that the work is up to par.

Isn't the minister concerned that by the system he's putting in place - it's no

good for the contractor to say, `My work is flawless' after someone has been

burned in his bed, a dwelling flattened because it hasn't been properly

inspected. Isn't he concerned about public safety on this issue? Because to me

it's very alarming. How can you ask people who are doing the work to inspect

their own work? It's too late -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate

that the hon. member would use that kind of language in discussing this issue.

Everybody would understand that we have been totally convinced that we would not

have moved to this new method of auditing the actual installers, the people who

actually do the electrical installation, rather than have a government inspector

go and inspect every single installation before it is approved.

I can tell all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member

asking the question, the fact is that this has been in place across the country

for a number of years and that we are playing catch-up. This is the standard in

the country and this is the standard in the industry. We would not be making

this move and I repeat as I said in answer to the previous question, we would

not be making this move because we asked those same kinds of questions and we've

been given every assurance by both the inspectors who will be kept on to do the

auditing and do some inspecting and by the contractors who do the actual

installation themselves, that there is no need for the kind of concern that the

hon. member just raised. People will not be at any additional risk, no more so

than today, with this new system. It is on that basis that we agreed, Mr.

Speaker, to go ahead with the new audit system.

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

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

the Minister of Social Services.

The Child Welfare League of America report indicated that 103

child welfare staff are necessary to deal with the critical problems of child

abuse and neglect in the Province. I ask the minister, how many of the

thirty-three temporary staff, referred to in the Budget, will be child welfare

workers?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the workers that we have named in

the Budget are people who will be working, in the main, in social assistance,

because that is where the great need has been over the past year. There has been

a tremendous growth in the caseload, and that is where the great need is. So

twenty of the workers out of the thirty-three will be in social assistance. They

will be financial assistance officers. The other remaining thirteen will be

administrative people, which will help with the caseload in the entire office

wherever they are allocated. Because as the hon. member knows, there has been a

build-up of administrative work. So, these administrative people - although

nobody has been assigned specifically to child welfare, these people will

obviously be of great assistance in that area.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not so sure if I

understood that answer correctly or not. Because I understood from the Minister

of Finance that there would be thirty-three front line social workers. I would

like for the minister to respond to that again and also, tell us what length of

employment those social workers could expect.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, front line workers, who will be

working in the offices in every office in Newfoundland - I don't know what other

classification you can have for these that they won't be front line workers. All

thirty-three will be front line workers. There are very few people in social

services today who don't work in the front lines. If hon. members are trying to

suggest that these thirty-three workers will be of no benefit to the social

service system in this Province, they had better contact the people out there

working in the offices. We are absolutely delighted, Mr. Speaker. I am

absolutely delighted to be able to say that this government was so compassionate

that in these rough economic times, they assigned thirty-three workers to work

in the Social Services offices throughout this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year, the

budget for the Department of Social Services was overspent by approximately 15

per cent. In light of the recent changes in the U.I. program, and the fact that

this government has already admitted there will be a significant increase in the

number of social service recipients, how can the minister justify showing only a

2 per cent increase in this 1994-1995 Budget - and that is not taking into

account the public service compensation measures which will be deducted after

this Budget is implemented?

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

MR. LUSH: For some time, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in the

Department of Social Services has not been creating short-term jobs, giving

people work for ten weeks, twelve weeks, twenty weeks, so that they can qualify

for U.I. There has been a shift in this department from that and we are moving

towards training. If the hon. member will look, he will find that any movement

of funds from employment strategies have gone into training strategies and into

areas where the government determined they were most needed.

There has been no reduction of funds, Mr. Speaker, anywhere

in this Budget. If the hon. gentleman looks at the bottom figure he will see

that there is an increase. So the figures, though they might have been taken

away from a particular head, have been moved into another where we felt they

were more appropriately needed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

a question of the Minister of Health.

The Budget Speech states on page 8 that: "we are continuing

to become more efficient in providing health care services", and it states,

"putting more emphasis on health promotion and illness prevention." How can the

minister be serious about health promotion and illness prevention when his

department budget is slightly less for prevention and illness than it was in

last year's Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the hon.

member is getting this information.

AN HON. MEMBER: From the Budget.

DR. KITCHEN: This year - yes, but you can look at the

Budget and do all sorts of strange and wonderful things and I'm sure the hon.

member will be doing that. Let me just say to the hon. member that the vehicle

for delivering most of our preventive measures but not all. It is through the

medium of the Regional Community Health Boards that we are establishing, and the

budget for that has been increased this year dramatically; we had an extra $1

million in there last year, and not only is that being continued, there is an

extra half-a-million dollars being put in there as well, and in addition to that

there are several other initiatives there as well, our tobacco initiative and

some expenditures related to that are in the Budget and we are looking forward

to the beginning, we are not as highly developed in the area of health promotion

and illness prevention as we would like even this year, but we will be making

good strides this year towards that objective. That's the objective of the

department and we are moving in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MS. VERGE: Where is the Western Memorial Hospital Report?

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, as I referred in Question Period

to this issue, I want to now rise and present a petition which contains the

names of a number of the family members of Leette Moores and attached to that

petition, are 2,920 letters of support, so in total, nearly 3,000 I guess will

be sufficient for the purpose of the presentation of the petition.

The petition says: To the hon. House of Assembly in the

Province of Newfoundland and Parliament Assembled, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly showeth:

WHEREAS the next of kin of Leette Moores who died while a

patient at the Grace General Hospital on March 9, 1993 at the age of twenty are

concerned about the circumstances surrounding her death,;

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the hon. House

ask the Minister of Justice to direct that an inquiry be held to ascertain the

causes respecting and the circumstances surrounding the death of Leette Moores;

and this request is being made pursuant to the

Summary of Proceedings Act; as in

duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to just touch on a couple of

excerpts from a letter that I received from a representative of the family, I

won't go into all the details of this but I do want to, for the benefit of the

Minister of Justice, just reiterate what I said in Question Period I guess, and

I am sure he would appreciate their concerns; but they say, themselves, in this

letter just dated a few weeks ago, February 28, that they are writing to express

the concern we have had as a result of the devastating death of her daughter,

sister, Leette Rene Moores. We are writing in the hope that the many unanswered

questions surrounding her death can finally be answered.

On March 9, 1993, Leette underwent the new gall-bladder

surgery at the Grace General Hospital and died during the early stages of that

operation. It was later determined that she did not suffer from any condition

that would have caused this and as a result of this, we are left wondering

exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the end of their letter: We feel that because

Leette was a twenty-year-old single girl who lived at home with her parents, the

prevailing attitude is that she is insignificant and given time, this will be

swept under the rug and forgotten. Leette deserves better than this. This

procedure must be thoroughly reviewed to prevent any more needless deaths; to

prevent other families from suffering through such a devastating loss as we have

had to suffer, a loss that we will continue to feel for the rest of our lives.

Although it is too late for Leette, it must be made certain that no one else

remains at risk of suffering the same fate as she.

We would urge you to encourage the Minister of Justice to

call for a judicial inquiry.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have done that here today. We have heard

the minister's response and the reply. I can only tell you that as any member of

this House I am sure would feel for the family, there would have to be a lot of

unanswered questions in the minds of a lot of people, I mean, you would not

expect a death, a tragedy such as this to occur for a gall-bladder operation, it

just does not make any sense at all.

I am not privy to all the details although the family has

outlined them in writing to me, but that's for a judicial inquiry I suspect to

determine the outcome and so I hope that the minister, and I know he will

respond as diligently as he can, because the likelihood of their case going to

the courts probably would not occur maybe not until 1997 or 1998. It would be

quite a ways a way probably before it even gets into the court's system and in

view of the fact that he has the leeway, I understand the issue related to the

Crown Prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions, as he referred to earlier in

Question Period - I understand all that - but he does have the authority to

overrule a decision that the DPP might take that might not be in favour of the

family opening up this issue.

It seems to me, what limited knowledge I have, the very least

we could do for this family and for these people would be to allow for a

judicial inquiry to occur, and I hope that the Minister of Justice will respond,

and respond fairly quickly, to the family.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, since Question Period I have

received, from my staff, copies of some of the papers, so perhaps I can say a

word or two with respect to the petition.

Let me first of all say that in common, I am sure, with every

other member of the House, I have nothing but sympathy for the position in which

the family of this young woman find themselves, and sympathy for the tragedy

which has struck them.

Secondly, let me say that normally I would regard this as a

matter of solicitor/client privilege, and would not feel myself at liberty to

raise it in a public place such as the House, but my understanding, and perhaps

the Leader of the Opposition will correct me if I am wrong, is that the family

have raised this matter with him, and asked him to raise it here in the House.

He is nodding acquiescence so I say, for the record, this, in

my understanding, permits me to talk about these matters

whereas normally I

would not do so in a public forum. Again, my friend the Opposition Leader nods

acquiescence.

Those two points made, Mr. Speaker, let me go on to say that

I appreciate the concern of those who have signed the petition. I think my

friend said there were 3,000 names in round numbers, and that is a lot of

people, a lot of men and women, who signed it.

I must say, with respect, that with no quarrel with their

views, or their right to express the views, that decisions on matters such as

this cannot be made on that type of consideration. They must be made strictly on

the merits of the issue, and by those charged with responsibility for making

them.

Now I acknowledge quite readily, as I have said at Question

Period, that the final responsibility in a matter such as this rests with me, as

the Minister of Justice - not even as Minister of Justice - wearing my other hat

as the Attorney General, and I have not taken any such decision as yet; but I

can add somewhat to what I said at Question Period, so let me go on and do that.

The legislation, as my friend the Opposition Leader and I

both acknowledge, provides in

section 23 of the

Summary of Proceedings Act, that

there shall be an inquiry, and it lists a number of situations, including: as a

result of violence, misadventure, negligence, misconduct, malpractice or by

unfair means, or suddenly or unexpectedly, and it names three other instances

which are not applicable to the situation.

Then the legislation goes on to say that although it appears

to be mandatory that an inquiry shall be held, it shall not be held if the

Director of Public Prosecutions acts to the contrary.

Then, finally, it gives an override to me as the Attorney

General, and I acknowledge quite readily that is my responsibility and it is my

obligation. I have the power to direct an inquiry.

Those amendments were made in 1979, so they have been around

for fifteen years. I was in the House in 1979 but I don't recollect if I was

present during the debate. The minister of the day would have been Mr.

Ottenheimer, I should think, but I don't recollect the reasons given for that.

I am told the reason it has been set up that way is to

provide that there not be inquiries in all cases of death, but only where there

is a public purpose to be served by holding them, and that would make some

sense.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the Moores case. On January

28 I received a letter from a lawyer here in town, Mrs. Butler, a well-known

lawyer down at White, Ottenheimer, who told me she was the solicitor for the

next of kin of Leette Moores, and she asked that an inquiry be held. That was

fine. She put forward an

interpretation of the legislation not unlike that

raised by my friend, the Opposition Leader in Question Period, but she spoke

only of the mandatory part,

section 1(a). She did not go on to talk about

subsection (

b) of the legislation, which is an integral part of it. She

concluded by saying: We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss our

client's request.

That was on January 27, Mr. Speaker. I got the letter on

January 28, and replied on January 31, so there has been no delay. I am not

suggesting that my friend said there was, but if the family thinks there has

been any delay, or anybody thinks there has, let it be clear there hasn't. The

answer went back on January 31, and I pointed out to her the way the act worked,

in case Mrs. Butler had perhaps only read the first half of the section, then

went on to say: That point made, let me go on to say that we shall deal with

your request on it's merits, I have asked the DPP for advice.

That is the way the act reads. That is what I am supposed to

do and that is what I will do. I undertook to be in touch with her when I am

able to make a substantive response to the request. The papers went to the DPP

on January 31 the same day as my letter to Mrs. Butler. Now, I have not yet

received a response from the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand Mrs.

Butler was asked by him to come in on February 9 and did in fact see the entire

Crown file.

May I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank hon. members. Mrs. Butler, as is our practice in

these cases, was given access to the entire Crown file. In other words this

would include the police reports, and the reason why there is often a delay in

deciding on whether there should be any inquiry, the first thing that has to be

done when there is a death under unusual circumstances, is one must be certain

on whether or not there is any possible criminal activity because obviously that

must take precedence. A criminal charge, we are told by the Supreme Court of

Canada must take precedence over any other type of inquiry or proceeding. The

most recent case is the one in Ontario. Mrs. Starr, I think it was, the lady in

Mr. Peterson's office who got into some trouble, at least a Liberal Party worker

who got into some trouble and it went to the Supreme Court of Canada. That

particular case, and the Supreme Court was quite explicit.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the coroner's hearing?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I am not talking about coroner's

hearings in Ontario. I am talking about the law here in Newfoundland and

Labrador. What I am saying is that our practice, which is a proper one in my

judgement, is that the police investigations are completed first.

Mrs. Butler was given access to the file on February 9 and I

do not know what, if anything, she concluded as a result, nor do I know whether

she has been in touch with her clients, the family, as a consequence. I do not

know. I have heard nothing further from Mrs Butler. I think the House should

know that we have acted expeditiously. My officials have moved with some speed.

I have not spoken to the DDP, he is at a trial today. It is the Patrick Watson

preliminary, the Greenpeace fellow -

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul Watson.

MR. ROBERTS: Paul, is it? Anyway, there is a preliminary

enquiry and the DPP is acting for the Crown on it. That is where he is today.

Yes, Patrick Watson is Chairman of the CBC and a very much more reputable person

indeed. Now, these are the notes I have been given, the DPP says that he does

not see the need to have a judicial inquiry into the death because an inquiry

would add nothing to the facts or the circumstances surrounding the death. The

answer in the judgement of my officials is a civil suit for negligence. If the

family feel that there was some improper act or omission by the doctor or

doctors, or by the hospital - I do not know who any of them were and it does not

matter. The hospital is named in the letter from Mrs. Butler but the doctor or

doctors are not, or what may have gone wrong, then the remedy is a civil action

of proceeding in negligence. Mrs. Butler is very much skilled and versed in this

type of work, I would add.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that is the advice I

get from my officials. I will undertake to discuss this with them, to review the

file myself, and in due course, as soon as I can, but it may be a few weeks yet,

make a decision as to whether I should exercise the residual authority that

clearly rests with me.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its

indulgence in the matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to support the

petition and the call for a judicial inquiry into the death of Leette Moores. I

was also given, by the members of the family, a letter outlining the

difficulties that they have had in getting proper explanations as to why their

family member had died, and what had transpired in this gallbladder surgery

which occurred on March 9, 1993. Now, I do not think anyone is suggesting a

delay in the Minister of Justice dealing with this issue but there is a

considerable delay since March 9, 1993 in a decision being made as to whether or

not a judicial inquiry ought to be made. This is not a criticism of the Director

of Public Prosecutions. This is a criticism of the system which is in place in

this Province which allows and requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to

make all sorts of decisions, including this type of decision, when in fact there

should be a better system in place to deal with sudden deaths.

We have had suggestions over the years, Mr. Speaker, that we

go to a medical examiner system, or a coroner system like they have in the

Province of Ontario, where these decisions are made very quickly by a medical

examiner, or a coroner they are called sometimes, who have a forensic approach

to medicine. They are skilled and trained and able to make a decision very

quickly as to whether or not a particular sudden death requires a more thorough

investigation.

I say to the Minister of Justice that regardless of the

Patricia Starr decision - which is a particular decision by the public inquiry

of a different nature - that these medical examiners enquiries or the coroner's

enquiries, which they have in the Province of Ontario and other provinces which

have a coroner's act, go on regardless of the possibility of there being

criminal prosecutions at some point down the road. I say to the Minister of

Justice that is not a reason to delay the holding of a particular type of

inquiry such as has been requested here. I think that is an excuse for the

system that we have, one that has been justly criticized.

I've read the letter. It is a seven page letter written by

family members concerned about the death of their loved one. There are a lot of

issues raised here which in my view give rise for grave concern as to what

procedure might or might not have been used to cause the sudden death of this

young person in these circumstances. The Legislature was asked by the government

and made changes two years ago to the evidence act, ones which were opposed by

me and some other members of the Opposition, notably the Member for Humber East,

where changes to the evidence act were made so that evidence, certain types of

reports made in hospitals, either for disciplinary purposes or for purposes of

raising standards or changing standards, are not made available. Not only to the

public, but they are not even available to a court case when you have a -

they've changed the rules of evidence so that even a person suing a doctor or

hospital can't get access to these certain records.

I think it changes the playing field in these circumstances,

so family members don't have the right to find out the kind of information that

they may need to either assess their chances as to whether a legal suit might be

desirable, or in cases where - this may be one of them - a legal suit may prove

to be an expensive circumstance where the recovery of damages might be very

slight in any event. So it is not justified from an economic point of view, but

there is still from a personal responsibilities point of view, from a family's

legitimate desire to know what happened to their loved one and why it happened,

and furthermore, from the point of view of assuring the public that this kind of

thing does not happen again.

We can't always rely on doctors and hospitals and the medical

system to correct their deficiencies. We've seen, and we are seeing every day,

on the reports of the HIV inquiry in Ontario, that the medical system that we

have is not as reliable as we've been led to believe. That things that happen

continue to happen and measures are not always taken by the medical officials to

improve the circumstances, to let people know of possible dangers, to correct

deficiencies in the system so that these things might not happen again.

A judicial inquiry is the only mechanism that we have here in

this Province. It is useful to have an outside body to have a look at how the

system is responding to events of this nature which caused the tragic death in

these circumstances, and unfortunately may cause a tragic death in further

circumstances. It is not sufficient in my view, Mr. Speaker, for one individual,

such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, to be making these decisions where

this is not an area of expertise of that particular individual.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I join with the

petitioners and with the family members in urging the Minister of Justice in

this circumstance to hold a judicial inquiry. It has been over one year since

this death. There is a danger and a concern that if the procedures used which

caused this death are to continue that there may be other tragic deaths in these

circumstances. I would urge the minister to act quickly, whether the Director of

Public Prosecutions is in favour of it or not, to go ahead and order a public

inquiry so that the full facts and truth behind what happened can be made public

for the public purposes that we have explained, and also for the comfort of the

family who needs to know what happened to their loved one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am seeking Your Honour's indication as to whether there is

leave of members for me to make a very brief comment as Opposition Justice

critic in support of this petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to hear the

hon. lady if she will allow someone else on this side to speak. Otherwise, the

rule says three; there have been three. If we want to carry on, I have no

problem. The only person being hurt by this is my friend from Mount Pearl, and

he is not in his seat so apparently he doesn't mind.

I think my friend from St. John's South might like to say a

word or two.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wholeheartedly support this

petition. I believe it would be in the public interest for a judicial inquiry to

be held into the tragic death a year ago at the Grace Hospital of Leette Moores,

during what should have been routine and simple gallbladder surgery.

I believe such an inquiry would be in the public interest for

the reasons Leette Moores' family have requested the inquiry, first of all to

have an objective finding of what went wrong and why the young woman died.

Secondly, to get out this information so that other needless deaths may be

prevented in the future.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe the holding of a judicial

inquiry into Leette Moores' death would be entirely consistent with past policy

and past practice of both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney

General.

I occupied the office of Attorney General for four years,

from 1985 to 1989, and I can say with certainty that the policy which prevailed

at that time would have led to an automatic ordering of a judicial inquiry into

a death in these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I recall a similar judicial inquiry over the

past few years, I believe since the Wells administration has been in office, and

that was a judicial inquiry into the death of a young boy from Stephenville, a

young Goudie boy who died at the Janeway Hospital, so I join with the

petitioners in urging the Attorney General to ensure that there is a judicial

inquiry into the tragic death of Leette Moores.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank

my colleagues opposite.

I had occasion to talk to the family a couple of times, and

took their concerns very seriously. I brought them to the attention of the

Minister of Justice, and tried to encourage him but, of course, as the minister

said, there is a procedure.

Now the comments made by the Member for St. John's East are,

I think, very appropriate. Perhaps what we need to do, and too bad that the hon.

Member for Humber East didn't do when she was Minister of Justice for four years

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No. I say to the hon. Member for Grand Bank

that we have already had a couple of judicial inquiries. I encouraged this

particular situation to go that route, and discussed it with the Minister of

Justice who, in turn, told me that his correspondence was gone on the particular

case to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and upon his recommendation, which

is only just back in the minister's hands.

Now I am fully aware of the circumstance of the situation. I

don't have the detail, or did I have the detail, that the family gave the hon.

Member for St. John's East and/or the Leader of the Opposition. Initially I was

the one who tried to do whatever I could on behalf of the family, and it was a

very sad and serious tragedy.

When somebody goes into a hospital and a new procedure is out

there, and is identified, and the medical profession - it is not hon. members in

this House - the medical profession says: Well, let's go ahead with this

procedure. They discuss it with the family, and the family, of course, in turn,

says to the doctors, who they put the confidence in, that this is a new

procedure, fine, if you think it will work... A lot of us would do the same.

Of course, the situation ended up in a real, serious tragedy

and the loss of the life of a very young woman. I encouraged the family to

retain a lawyer immediately and start the case action as soon as possible and

that's what happened and I would still encourage that this particular tragedy

should be looked into and that's why I support the petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 133 residents

of my district and one person from the District of Carbonear and a person from

the District of Mount Pearl. They must have been visiting St. Mary's - The

Capes.

The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is 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, asks for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to

whether the Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown

corporation, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to stand and present this

petition on behalf of those 135 people, and let me say that I welcome the news

that the Premier will address the Province tomorrow night and put forward the

government's stand on this very important issue, as the hon. House Leader has

said on several occasions, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation

to come before the House since 1949.

I hope also that CBC news goes along with giving the Premier

ample time also because the area of Newfoundland where I come from, we haven't

got NTV so we have to depend on CBC so I hope that they go along and give the

Premier time to address the Province which includes us out there also; sometimes

we are forgotten but I hope we make it tomorrow night as we do Wednesday night

when the hon. Leader of the Opposition will also address the Province with the

concerns of our party and the position of our party on this very important

issue.

I also welcomed the news last week that the Member for St.

John's South together with the Member for St. John's West will be holding a

public meeting in their districts, a combined meeting I presume in their

districts so that the people of their districts would have the opportunity to

have their say and to put some concerns forward on behalf of the residents of

their districts. I am sure that both members are looking forward to hearing from

the public because this is what people have been crying out for, Mr. Speaker,

right across the Province; they have been asking for some type of public debate

and I ask the Premier not to stop there with his address tomorrow night, I ask

him to continue, and the possibility of holding public meetings right across the

Province so that people in rural Newfoundland especially, will have the

opportunity to have their say and put their points across and the possibility of

a referendum because this is a very important issue and people are voicing

concerns and maybe a referendum would settle it once and for all; if not, why

not have a free vote in the House of Assembly as we talked about earlier last

week so that members could vote with their conscience on behalf of the people

they represent?

A main thrust that I am finding with people I talk to in my

district and outside, is the concern over our water rights and basically I think

this is the main bone of contention that we are hearing and the concern that

somewhere down the road the Minister of Finance will determine what undeveloped

water rights if any will be excluded; and this is a concern to many people

because the water rights in our Province, who really can put a value on them

today, who can put a value of them in ten, fifteen or twenty years time and this

is a concern, and under the legislation, the government says new Hydro will not

get ownership rights but rather rights to use water only for as long as the

water is used to produce electricity, the legal title: `free and clear of any

encumbrance', Mr. Speaker, is ownership; and you know, we are talking about

water, Mr. Speaker, that will last forever and this is a concern of many people.

Another concern that I have found over the past few weeks in

talking to people in my district, is the rural electricity rates, will they

increase in the next few years and in the future? This is a concern with a lot

of people. Under the legislation the rural electricity rates will be phased out

by December 31, 1999. This will come in when Bill 2 is brought to the House

under the Electrical Power Control Act,

Part 1, clause 3(a). The phase-out will

take away $15 million of government subsidy that is here now, Mr. Speaker, and

this is a concern to many people in rural Newfoundland that their electricity

rates will increase, double or even triple in some cases. This is a concern that

I'm sure many members are hearing about and people are wondering exactly what

electricity rates will be in the future. Mr. Speaker, I also understand that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of a prayer read today by my colleague from

St. Mary's - The Capes. Since the night that the bill was put through second

reading, I personally have not changed my mind on this bill. To the contrary, I

have got so many calls and visits from residents of the District of Placentia,

even more so than what I had to say that night and in meeting other people

outside the district. The communication that should have been put forward by the

government in the first place has certainly come home to roost. I was glad to

hear the Premier say today that the last of April, the first of May, middle of

May, June - well that's going to give them ample time to talk to more people

because what I do suspect is after tomorrow nights address by the Premier and

subsequent to the night after that by the Leader of the Opposition there is

going to be more need than ever before for government to get out across this

Island and into the Labrador to let people know what is happening to their

utility.

We've all known and seen Frank Buckley over the years. We've

come to trust it even though it's foul tasting, Buckley's mixture, but for us to

swallow the medicine of Hydro and government members telling us that it is going

to be good for us - no, that is not medicine that the people I know, the people

I support and people who support me are willing to take because they are just

not Frank Buckley or Buckley's mixture and these are not the people to trust,

the members opposite.

Ladies and gentlemen, this bill has many ramifications. It

has been echoed back and forth for weeks inside this Chamber and outside about

the future and the costs of escalating electrical rates. They talk about the

other odds and ends that it's going to do to our people; about the lost of work,

the less chance of apprenticeships, training and the water rights. While we're

debating this now clause by clause the other bill that has to come in under the

privatization of electrical is going to be another contentious issue as well.

While we're only part through two clauses of this bill - some people opposite I

know for a fact have not or just have lately read the entire act while we and

other people outside these Chambers are more familiar because members opposite

have been just flying blindly - one or two of their leaders.

Through Hydro we have come to learn to believe that

opposition is very, very important in our democracy, very important. For all of

us, it is a chance for us to make sure that the news gets out to the people to

whom we are responsible - that everybody should have a say. Everybody should be

able to have a look at what is going to happen to them and their offspring in

the future. I'm glad to say that I am part of a team that has been supportive in

getting delays made, instead of taking a roughshod method of driving home a

Hydro sale without people having a say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we begin, may I, for the

convenience of the House, move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Perhaps we could put that motion first.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me say, it is my

understanding that my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, who will be speaking

in a moment when the debate is called, will propose at around 6:00 p.m., when

the flow of his speech - whenever is convenient to him, that we take, shall we

say an hour, for a supper break and a whatever break. We are not trying to have

an endurance marathon here. That would have to be by unanimous consent

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And coffee at 9:00 p.m.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, if we have a coffee at 9:00 p.m. other

things may flow, I say to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank - that is what

may cause the trouble.

- but that would be my understanding, I say to my friend, the

Member for Mount Pearl, whenever it is convenient to him. He knows how he has

organized his remarks. So I simply say, we on this side will be prepared to

consent to that. My understanding, also, is that my hon. friend, the Member for

Mount Pearl will finish tonight. Whatever length he needs to go on and -

MR. WINDSOR: Or tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: - the government proposes to ask - I'm

sorry?

MR. WINDSOR: Or tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Or tomorrow, whenever. The government

proposes to ask that the House adjourn when my friend finishes the debate. We

will be here until he finishes and look forward to it with considerable

pleasure.

With that said, Your Honour, I wonder if you would be good

enough to call Motion No. 1, which is the Budget Debate, of course.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me first of all address my comments to the House Leader

in thanking him for setting out that

schedule and providing the break at 6:00

p.m. Let me say right from the beginning, I don't intend to sit here, to speak

for the sake of speaking. I have certain things that I wish to say - if that

takes me two hours, I shall sit for two hours, if it takes me five hours I shall

sit for five hours.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) the hon. member (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I have no intention of carrying on just to

try to waste time - that doesn't serve the members and it certainly doesn't do

anything for the people of the Province. I do have an obligation - and a right,

I guess - but an obligation to respond to the minister's speech, and to put

forward some views as to how we see the minister's Budget for this year.

Let me start off, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is certainly

the shortest Budget Speech that I've ever seen. However, I find it amazing that

the minister found as many words to make it as long as it was, because he could

have said in one page what he said in the ten or eleven pages that he, in fact,

used in his Budget Speech.

The Speech is not only short on words, it is short on ideas

for job creation, that is one of the main failures of the Speech. It admits that

unemployment will stay at a very unacceptable 20.1 per cent again this year.

That is nothing, Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a couple of occasions over the

weekend, for the minister or this government to be proud of, and I'm sure they

are not, in fairness to them. Twenty point one per cent is a serious

unemployment rate when the national average is still at around 11 per cent. We

are almost double the national average unemployment rate. We haven't progressed

very far since -

MR. BAKER: Last month it went down a bit.

MR. WINDSOR: It went down a shade?

MR. BAKER: Nineteen.

MR. WINDSOR: Nineteen, in Newfoundland.

MR. BAKER: But that is fluctuating.

MR. WINDSOR: The question is, was that unemployment or

was that people removed from the employment rolls? Where did all of that work

come from last month? It fails me.

MR. SULLIVAN: The labour force shrank, too, didn't it?

MR. WINDSOR: That would be my thoughts. It doesn't add

up, I say to the minister, and he concurs. It doesn't make sense that last month

the unemployment rate would drop to 19.1 per cent, unless there were huge

numbers in educational institutions or out of Province, or something.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this Budget fails miserably to

create any new incentives for job creation, which we had hoped would have been

the thrust. The government has made, I guess, great statements to the fact that

job creation is the key to stimulating the economy, that they propose to do it

through the private sector by creating an economic climate that is appropriate

and attractive for private enterprise to expand and to grow, and to create jobs.

I couldn't agree more with that basic statement. It is a

statement that I have made myself in this House many, many times, that it is, in

fact, government's role to create an economic climate. However, I have to temper

that and say that right now the economic climate in Canada is not good, let

alone in Newfoundland. It's worse here than anywhere else in Canada, and while

we do, indeed, have to create a more favourable economic climate, I think it is

imperative that government take some action to create some employment now. We

can't wait for the private sector alone to create jobs in this Province, and to

help this Province crawl out of the economic recession that we have suffered,

particularly in the last four or five years.

I say also, the minister is a mastermind. He is definitely a

mastermind. He has now come in with two Budgets which were not complete, and

somehow seemed to escape the wrath of the news media and the general public. He

came in last year and said: I am $70 million short, and I don't know where I am

going to find it, but we will find it and we will tell you about it later.

MR. BAKER: And we did.

MR. SULLIVAN: The first one, he had to get a mini-Budget

to clear it up.

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. Well, he has come back this

year and said: `We are going to ask the public service for another $50 million.'

MR. SULLIVAN: No - `We are going to tell them.'

MR. WINDSOR: `We are not going to ask them,' is quite

correct. My friend, the Member for Ferryland is quite accurate: `We are going to

tell the public service they are going to give us $50 million and we are also

going to take $30 million in cuts of services - so that is $80 million, that we

don't know where it's going to come from, except the broad block of $50 million

from the public service, and $30 million from services, programs provided.'

MR. BAKER: The $30 million is out.

MR. WINDSOR: The $30 million is out.

MR. BAKER: The $50 million is not.

MR. WINDSOR: That is quite right. It's true.

Mr. Speaker, here again we have another document that is not

complete. I wish I had thought of it in 1988 when I was wrestling with a $70

million or $80 million problem. I wish I had thought, the day before Budget day,

or a week before Budget day, when we were making these final tough decisions,

that we could ask for a blank cheque, which is what the minister has done. He

has asked for a blank cheque of $50 million, and he is going to negotiate it

with the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, I wish him well in negotiating with the public

sector, but I fear his measure of success will be less than he claimed. I fear

his measure of success is going to fall short of his $50 million.

Certainly, over the weekend there were some 5,000 people, I

believe, at the stadium taking a strike vote for the public sector and NAPE,

which is the largest union in the Province. We have had all kinds of things from

teachers, who are looking at serious -

MR. EFFORD: Your time is up!

MR. WINDSOR: My time is up! The hon. the Member for Port

de Grave, Mr. Speaker, his time is soon going to be up. His time will soon be

up. Constituents will catch up to him next election time, if he doesn't trip

himself again, and get tossed out of Cabinet again between now and the next

election. He didn't survive a four-year term the last time. He will be lucky if

he gets four years this time, but even if he does, the people of the great

district of Port de Grave will call his time up in a couple of years time.

MR. EFFORD: You said that the last time.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I have to say to the hon. member, a

lot of his colleagues will go down with him the next time around. A lot of his

colleagues are going to go down, if they don't start realizing - you won't

continue to get re-elected once you forget to listen to the people. This

government has learned how to carry on without listening to the people, and

that's a sure recipe for defeat of any government. The minute they stop

listening to the people, that's the minute they begin to defeat themselves, as

has been said many times, in many Parliaments. Oppositions do not win

governments; governments lose.

A government that is doing the job that the people want, in

the manner that people want, will never get defeated, but a government that

stops listening to the people is headed for rapid destruction, Mr. Speaker, and

this government is well on the way. The only one who is still listening to the

people is the hon. Member for Pleasantville who had the intestinal fortitude to

stand up and be counted. I give him full marks, Mr. Speaker, and I admire his

courage for standing in this House and voting against the government over there,

particularly that government, I say to the hon. member. I mean this most

sincerely; it takes courage at any time to vote against your party when it is

not a free vote. It takes even more courage to vote against your party when your

party is in government and you are there to support the Premier and his Cabinet

as a government backbencher, but it takes even more courage again to vote

against this particular Premier who is not known for his compassion of members

who do not agree with his point of view. I congratulate the hon. member and I

say to him there are thousands of his constituents who feel the same way about

him. He has served himself well, and he has served his constituents, and the

people of all Newfoundland and Labrador well, Mr. Speaker, by voting with his

conscience rather than a commitment to the present Premier.

What the minister has done, he hasn't balanced the Budget,

but he has reduced his deficit to an acceptable $25 million limit, $24.6 or

$24.7 million, an acceptable current account deficit for this year in light of

the record that we have had of deficits over the past number of years. I wish,

however, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's estimates were as accurate. In looking

just quickly at his record of budgeting accurately we find that in his first

Budget of 1989-90 he budgeted a $5.3 million deficit and he actually ended up

with a $37.8 million deficit, a variance of $32.5 million. In 1990-91 he

budgeted $10.2 million and his actual was $117.2 million deficit, a $107 million

variance, a big difference, Mr. Speaker.

I could say, I suppose, that his 1989-90 Budget was the

Budget that I had prepared just prior to the election but did not get an

opportunity to present. They basically changed very little and presented that

Budget, in 1990-91. We told them at that time, as we have told the government

pretty well every Budget they have brought in, that they were unrealistic in

their expectations, and the facts prove it, Mr. Speaker, $107 million is how

much he missed. In 1991-92 he predicted a $53.8 million deficit and actually had

a $59.5 million deficit. The variance was only $5.7 million but we had some

great changes mid-year, a mini-Budget as I recall which resulted in the variance

being small for that particular year.

In 1992-93 the minister predicted a $29 million deficit and

the result at the end of the year was an $81.6 million deficit with a variance

of $52.6 million, a 180 per cent error. In 1993-94 he predicted $51 million and

ended with $71 million for a $20 million variance, so the minister has not been

accurate, Mr. Speaker. He has not been accurate by any stretch of the

imagination. He predicts a $24.6 million deficit this year but as we will see as

we go through some of my comments we have reason to believe that the minister is

being overly optimistic again.

Now, it is one thing, Mr. Speaker, to come into this House

with a Budget that contains figures that are overly optimistic if the government

seriously and honestly believe those figures to be accurate, and if that is the

best advice that is available to them, but it is very easy, Mr. Speaker, when

you are faced with $100 or $120 million deficit, as the minister told us he was,

it is very easy in the dying days to do your own estimates, to increase slightly

the revenues, but you are only fooling yourself. You are fooling the people in

the short-turn, Mr. Speaker, and they pay the price in the long-term. You are

only fooling yourself because it will come back to haunt you, Mr. Speaker, and I

suspect that is what the minister had done again this year.

The minister has also misled the business community of the

Province in this Budget. He would have us believe that this is a great panacea

for business and industry, that the income tax rate for corporations has

decreased from 16 to 14 per cent, and for manufacturing and processing, from 7.5

to 5 per cent. While we welcome that, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the

minister has chosen not to do it until January 1, 1995.

So the impact this year of those tax reductions is a whopping

$1 million for all of the businesses in the Province that pay tax. There are not

a lot them, Mr. Speaker, that indeed pay tax. Only the larger corporations and a

few very fortunate smaller companies are making profits on which they pay

corporate income taxes.

On the other hand, having given them back $1 million in that

area, Mr. Speaker, we see that there is an increase in the payroll tax of $2.5

million, and other increases on video lottery commissions and other areas. In

fact, when you add up all the taxes that will be paid by corporations this year,

there is indeed a 6 per cent increase in revenues to be derived from taxation on

corporations in this Province; hardly, Mr. Speaker, a measure that is doing

anything to encourage the private sector to create jobs or to expand business.

What we had been looking for, Mr. Speaker, was some action on

the payroll tax. Now, I hardly expected, much as I would have liked to see it,

to see the minister eliminate the payroll tax. That would have been a brave

move, and it also would have been a very positive move. It takes $73 million out

of the pockets of our corporations.

The sad part about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it bears no

relationship to the profitability of those corporations. It doesn't matter if a

small business is employing large numbers of people and making a loss. For

example, many fish plants in this Province would be operating at a loss, but

they may be very significant employers of 400, 500 and 600 people in rural

communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are hundreds, dozens at least,

of fish plants around this Province in that position. Because they are highly

labour intensive, paying very good salaries and very supportive of those rural

communities, they are taxed by this payroll tax. They have to pay it, even

though at the end of the day that fish plant, or whatever the company may be, is

losing money.

Whereas the corporate income tax is a tax which is based on

your revenues, on your profits, which is fair and reasonable, the payroll tax is

a direct disincentive to employment. It is a tax on creating jobs. The more jobs

you create, the more taxes you pay.

It is also an incentive, Mr. Speaker, for the private sector

to move to new technologies, to eliminate jobs by bringing in new technologies,

further mechanization at the process lines reducing the number of people,

increasing the technology that is there. So, Mr. Speaker, the payroll tax is a

loser any way you look at it.

Mr. Speaker, I should also point out that hidden in this

Budget there is a $2.7 million increase through the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation. Now, when you look at most of the estimates you realize that there

is some annual growth, most of the numbers will increase slightly because of

increased consumption, utilization, or whatever the case may be. In the case of

the Liquor Corporation, they were told by the Minister of Finance to return a

certain number of dollars over the course of that year. So the Minister of

Finance decides whether or not the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation needs a tax

increase. In this case, Mr. Speaker, the minister has told the Newfoundland

Liquor Corporation to find an extra $2.75 million this year.

Now, we all know that liquor sales have gone down, largely

because of smuggling into this Province - and that is another issue we will deal

with in due course - largely because of contraband liquor coming into the

Province in higher and higher volumes, but also because of the state of the

economy. If you are not employed, if you are really in serious financial

difficulty, one thing you can certainly live without is alcoholic beverages.

Unfortunately, sometimes it goes the opposite direction. Nevertheless, when the

economy is weak alcohol sales will indeed go down.

Also a factor of the tax level that is already involved in

alcohol, the very high tax, the very high cost of alcohol in this Province

compared to other provinces, has had a two-fold effect. One is to make it far

more attractive for smuggling into the Province. The second, Mr. Speaker, is to

make it less competitive here with other provinces and to reduce consumption.

Because the costs have gone so high we've passed the point of diminishing

returns. Therefore consumptions would automatically start to level off and

decrease. You add to that the impact of smuggling and we are now seeing a great

drop in the revenues from that source.

Yet the minister is predicting $2.75 million addition. In

order to do that - that is about a 4 per cent increase in the tax. Assuming that

is about 60 per cent tax then you could estimate - it is about 3 per cent

increase in the price of alcohol on the average that the Corporation will have

to find. That is assuming consumption stays the same. If consumption is

predicted to decline this year then they will have to put an even greater

increase.

We can expect to see in the very near future, over the next

number of days I would suspect, about a 3 per cent increase, perhaps more.

Because there may well be some increase coming from suppliers. The Corporation

has to do two things. It adds up its total costs from it suppliers, it looks at

the figure that government is requesting, which is in this case $73 million, it

adds those together and then it says: What do we have to charge? That is how

they establish the price of alcoholic beverages. You can certainly expect a 3

per cent or 4 per cent or 5 per cent increase from the Liquor Corporation in the

very near future.

That was hidden in there. The minister didn't mention it. It

is unusual. Usually any increase to Liquor Corporation is mentioned in the

Budget Speech and noted in the Budget Highlights. It is not mentioned at all

this year. Two years ago there was a 1 million increase and the minister

announced that in his Budget Speech: We are asking the Liquor Corporation for an

additional $1 million. Two and three-quarter million dollars this year, the

minister tried to slide it through.

There are increases on gasoline and licence fees which will

be negative to individuals and to small business. While there is a break there

on diesel fuels that will benefit only larger corporations that are using the

larger vehicles. Most small businesses are probably utilizing the lighter

vehicles that are gasoline engined. So it will be negative to the smaller

business, again, and to individuals and families. I will deal with that in due

course.

We see bed closures in the health care sector. A significant

decrease in the amount of money available in the health care sector, and fifty

beds, we are told, will save about $819,000 only. Eight hundred and nineteen

thousand dollars is all that will be saved by closing fifty hospital beds. That

doesn't appear to be a very big return for the loss of fifty hospital beds in

our health system.

Our education system will lose some $15 million this year.

Very significant, $15 million in the education system. When this government is

saying again that increase in education is important for us to improve the

economy of this Province. If we are going to create jobs we have to ensure that

our people are prepared to do good work, that they have the proper training and

education. Yet we are cutting back $15 million in education.

We look at our borrowing program. Let's begin by looking at

where we are there. The deficit is $25 million. The deficit is projected to be

at $25 million for this year. You compare what happened last year. Let's look at

the performance of this government last year. Last year they predicted $51

billion and overspent by some $20 million - it was a $71 million deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, they do it ever year.

MR. WINDSOR: They do it every year. Well, $20 million,

actually, was a small increase compared to previous years. They have had many,

much larger increases. Yet, federal and provincial revenues 1992 - 1993 went

from $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion, a 1.8 per cent increase, and they are

predicting this year that the total revenue will increase by 3.1 per cent. Now,

here is where we get to the unrealistic estimates that I mentioned briefly

earlier, Mr. Speaker.

The 3.1 per cent - now, how do they propose, Mr. Speaker, to

realize a 3.1 per cent increase in federal and provincial revenues when the same

document, under the main economic indicators, shows that Gross Domestic Product

in real terms, will only grow by 0.6 per cent, that personal income will decline

by 1 per cent, and personal disposable income by 1.1 per cent. Retail sales will

decline in real terms by 1 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and employment is going to be

level - it is zero per cent change and unemployment will stay level at 20.1 per

cent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you look at all of these factors -

these are the main factors that impact on the performance of the economy. How

can they predict, therefore, a 3.1 per cent growth in revenues from federal and

provincial sources? We will see some more details of that in due course. But we

have talked so much about the deficit, we have talked so much about the total

debt. Government has said: We can no longer afford to put this Province into

debt. Well, Mr. Speaker, they are planning to borrow another $417 million this

year. Another $417 million is the total borrowing requirement for this year as

compared to the budgeted amount last year of $408 million. So we have increased

by another $9 million or $10 million, the total borrowing requirement for this

year.

MR. ROBERTS: But the NBR is down.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: The net borrowing requirement is down.

MR. WINDSOR: The debt borrowing is down.

MR. ROBERTS: Net, n-e-t. Much of that is (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Net. Some of it is. The total Budget

requirement this year is $197 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is $197 million for this year, 165

(inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is still a lot, it is still $197 million,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: We will never get out of debt if we keep

adding.

MR. WINDSOR: Well no, we won't, Mr. Speaker, but we will

never get out if we don't develop either.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is true.

MR. WINDSOR: If we don't invest in the economy,

unfortunately, and this is the dilemma that all governments are faced today. You

can't borrow your way out of a recession either, I say to the Minister of

Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman I would agree that if we

could borrow our way into prosperity, we would be the most prosperous province

in Canada.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, we are certainly good at borrowing.

MR. ROBERTS: We are not bad at spending.

MR. WINDSOR: But we are not doing such a good job, Mr.

Speaker, at creating jobs, and that is the problem here. And that is a dilemma

that every government is faced with every budget.

MR. MURPHY: Tell us how.

MR. WINDSOR: I will tell you how. The first thing you do

is resign and then we will get a decent government over there - that will start

the ball rolling in the right direction. So, Mr. Speaker, that's what government

has done in the past year, and those are our economic indicators.

The minister talked about, and in fact he said in his Budget:

initial projections indicated there would be a $120 million deficit. That's a

frightening number, Mr. Speaker, but I say to the minister that it is

meaningless. Every year, when you are doing your Budget, you are faced at some

point in time with $100 or $200 or $250 million deficits if you don't take

certain actions. Certainly, when the wish list comes in from all the

departments, you are probably even higher in your projected deficit to that

point in time, because departments want new funds and expanded budgets for all

different kinds of projects.

So it is meaningless, Mr. Speaker, to come out and say

publicly: We are facing a $120 million problem. Well, that is what the Minister

of Finance is there for, to deal with that problem, not to try to scare the

public service, which is what he did this year. Unfortunately, for many, it

worked. He certainly scared 400 teachers out of their jobs, because they were so

concerned with losing the severance pay, Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly. They

had such concerns for themselves and their families that they chose to take a

different route which was to resign their positions, those who were close enough

to retirement to take that avenue. There are many others still in the service

who have enough years to go, that they couldn't possibly consider resigning at

this point in time. But 400 of our teachers did.

Now, these are 400 of our most experienced teachers, no

doubt, and also, perhaps, our highest paid, because they probably have the

highest qualifications. So on the teachers' scale, they may be the highest paid

teachers. Some might argue that perhaps some of the younger teachers are

up-to-date on the newer modern technologies and teaching methods and, perhaps,

are quite capable of replacing these teachers. I think it is very difficult to

replace years of experience, Mr. Speaker, in a profession such as teaching, in

dealing with young people.

It is the same tactic, Mr. Speaker, that has put pressure on

unions, who are faced with incredible projected reductions in the total

compensation package to their members. It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to

negotiate meaningfully a collective agreement when you have already been told

that we have to shave, in this case, from the public service alone, $50 million

from the compensation package. That is not easily done, Mr. Speaker, considering

that this same public service were cut by $70 million last year, from the

compensation package. That is $120 million in two years. I didn't go back to

look at the cuts in previous years, but I believe this is the fourth year for a

total wage freeze in the public sector.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when you freeze salaries, unfortunately,

you don't hold everything constant, because the cost of living doesn't freeze

with it. We had a 1.7 per cent inflation rate this year, and the same last year,

and no doubt similar or higher the two years before that. So members of the

public service are probably somewhere between 7 per cent and 10 per cent behind

where they were four years ago, in total, in their total spending ability, and

obviously, that impacts on their total disposable income.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that has a very drastic effect on those

individuals and their families. It has a drastic moral effect on the public

service, the productivity of the public service. It has an impact on government,

itself, because when the disposal income goes down, obviously, government's

revenue through consumer taxation will decrease as well.

Mr. Speaker, to make the kind of prediction the minister

made, of $120 million, and then saying that we have to find it, $50 million from

the public sector, and we haven't decided yet where we will negotiate it; first

of all, I think it is an unwarranted scare tactic, and secondly, Mr. Speaker,

let me say that it is probably a little unrealistic at this point in time.

Certainly, the indications we are getting from statements made by the public

sector unions are that negotiation for that amount is going to be very

difficult, if not absolutely impossible - very, very difficult indeed!

Mr. Speaker, let's have a look at the estimated budgetary

position of government. Again we see the factor there of $50 million is

compensation measures, an unknown factor. We don't know what that means or what

it will do to the public sector.

We find, Mr. Speaker, the annual average rates of federal and

provincial revenue growth, 8 per cent in the latter half of the 1980s. Eight per

cent was the average growth. It has now dropped to 2 per cent. So revenue growth

has deteriorated seriously in the last four years, very seriously. Budgeted last

year was 3.6 per cent, the actual was 1.8 per cent, yet, we are budgeting a 3.1

per cent increase this year. How does the government possibly think that they

could ever attain a 3.1 per cent increase in the growth of federal and

provincial revenues? The end result will be that if that growth is not realized

- which we say it will not be - we are going to have a very serious deficit

problem still with us by the end of the year.

Let's look at some of the areas as we go through. The

department of -

AN HON. MEMBER: How are your kidneys?

MR. WINDSOR: Good, perfect. It is my throat that is not

in good shape. My kidneys are good.

Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Finance we see that five

positions have been approved for tax administration (inaudible) to assist with

tax compliance. Now, we don't have a problem with tax compliance. My experience

in the Department of Finance tells me that most Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, most people generally, don't object to paying taxes, as long as

everybody pays fairly. Tax compliance is not something we have a general problem

with. However, I did have some information provided to me that gives me some

concern.

It is a letter to, I believe, a school, dealing with the sale

of chocolates as a fund-raiser for that school, as all schools are forced to do

today because of insufficient funding coming from government. In order to

provide some of the additional equipment that they need and so forth they were

forced to resort to fund-raising efforts, and many of them are involved in

selling chocolates and other things of that nature. This particular school had

sold some chocolates. Apparently, they had sold $1,820 worth of chocolates. We

now have a letter from somebody in the tax audit division saying they hadn't

paid taxes on the chocolates. They are looking for $218 taxes plus $2.62

interest on the taxes not paid, and have given ten days to come up with it.

Can you imagine! Here are schools that are forced to do some

fund-raising to raise a couple of dollars, and the kids are out knocking on

doors, selling chocolates at $2 a box, I guess - chocolate-covered almonds or

whatever they might have been - and now the government is going after that

school to take $218 and $2.62 interest, for a total of $221.02. They sold

$1,800-worth of chocolates and government wants $221 from them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suppose, under the act they are probably

quite right. It is a consumer item, it was purchased and sold. I wonder just how

far we are going to go. How far are we going to go? Are we now going to ask

every little group that's doing some fund raising to buy a new computer for a

school or whatever, some outfits for the -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Liberal Party is paying for

(inaudible) kind of fund raisers.

MR. WINDSOR: Good luck.

AN HON. MEMBER: $250.00 to meet the Premier.

MR. WINDSOR: $250.00 to meet the Premier, where's this?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's one of the fund raisers.

MR. WINDSOR: One of the fund raisers coming up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: That includes taxes, surely?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure.

MR. WINDSOR: Surely the taxes are included in that and

going to be deducted from the profits of the Liberal Party, I have no doubt

about that. Surely the government would never do anything that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: But, Mr. Speaker, that's one example of the

measures that we're going to now, to try to raise a couple of dollars by

attacking kids in school, their little fund raising efforts. It makes you

wonder, Mr. Speaker, just how serious our problem is.

The Public Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, has received

$200,000 for funding of a service quality unit. Now what exactly is a service

quality unit, I wonder? Service quality unit and what exactly does it mean? One

can only assume it means that there will be some individuals, a division of the

Publi