The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

We extend a cordial welcome to a group of fifty-five students from Holy Trinity Central High, Norman's Cove, who are visiting us today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, As Minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission, I would like to take this opportunity to remind members of this hon. House that March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

This day marks the anniversary of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre in South Africa when 70 peaceful demonstrators against apartheid were killed and 180 others were wounded. In 1966 the United Nations declared March 21 the International Day for the elimination of racial discrimination in commemoration of this tragic event.

In December of 1983 the General Assembly of the United Nations called upon states and organizations to participate in the Program of Action for the Second Decade to combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. Canada's participation in this program was announced by the Prime Minister in 1986. Subsequent to this in September 1988 ministers attending a federal/provincial/territorial conference on human rights agreed to commemorate March 21 in all Canadian jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth year that this day has been officially recognized. It is worthy of note that just this week we hopefully have seen the last of the white only votes in South Africa where that country is moving, albeit slowly, to the elimination of apartheid.

While this is a day singled out to focus attention on the need to eliminate racial discrimination, we should keep this in mind every day. We must confront and fight racism wherever we find it. The theme for this year's campaign is an appropriate one. It asks the question: If you don't stop racism, who will?

Mr. Speaker, we all have to do our part in eliminating racial discrimination, and I would like to fully endorse the recognition of this day and every day as a day for the elimination of racial discrimination, and I encourage hon. Members to do likewise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for providing me an advance copy of his statement. We on this side certainly want to echo the remarks of the Minister. It is particularly appropriate I think that this would come about on a day when 67 per cent of the white population of South Africa voted yesterday or the day before - we got the results yesterday - that they would go on with the reform that de Klerk has started in South Africa with the intent of eliminating racial discrimination in perhaps one of the most racist countries left in the world. So we want to extend the same kind of sentiments the Minister has in appreciation of all people to eliminate racial discrimination in the world. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked the Premier some questions related to the ongoing discussions concerning the Lower Churchill development. I appreciate the answers he gave. They were forthright and we got some information, some straightforward answers, which is helpful, I think, for the purpose of at least letting our people know some of the things that are going on. So I want today to ask him some further questions in the hope we will get the same kind of information.

He mentioned yesterday that the negotiations or discussions were about coming to a conclusion. I think that is what he indicated. And sometime soon there will either be an agreement or there will not be an agreement. I think that is the way he put it. I want to ask him this, even though it is hypothetical, it is still an issue that I think would need some answer. If tomorrow, for example, there was an agreement reached which was acceptable to the Government, would the implementation of that agreement require a settlement of native land claims? Assuming that it would - I presume that is a very important issue that would have to be dealt with - can I ask him how the Government proposes to deal with the issue of native land claims in relation to the Lower Churchill development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, it would not require a settlement of native land claims before a development took place. There are all kinds of developments that may take place in Labrador that may or may not require a settlement of native land claims. If it involved a specific area or lands that were consistently and exclusively used by native people, we would have to reconsider it, but this, as hon. members will know is largely the flooding of the existing steep wall river channel and will have very little additional flooding involved. The reservoirs of the Upper Churchill would serve as the reservoirs for this water system and the power would be taken out of it at another stage down river. It is simply backing the water up from Gull Island up to the tailrace of the Lower Churchill and primarily it is just flooding the steep banks of the Churchill river.

There is very little additional land flooding involved and to the best of my knowledge it does not bear directly on any lands that are currently used in any manner by native people in Labrador. It would certainly involve a total environmental impact assessment, although one was done I think in the 1970s, it was sufficiently long ago that we are of the view that another should be done to have it updated, but that I would expect that any issue of native land claims or impact on native lands would come up during that assessment. I do not think that it would impact significantly on any lands presently used exclusively by aboriginal people.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain, from the public comments that have been made by native people whether or not they would agree with that assessment by the Premier, but if the Premier says that - we will assume that therefore the negotiations have not included any significant talks concerning native land claims having to be settled before such a development proceeded. We will assume that has been the case, I think that is what he said. May I ask him a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?

May I ask him if the negotiations and/or discussions that are taking place involve the construction of a transmission line to the Island portion of the Province, and if so, does he know the estimated cost of that line, and secondly, presuming that the Federal Government would have to be asked to provide some help, because it would be a significant undertaking I suspect, have there been any significant discussions or negotiations with the Federal Government towards them providing any help with financing that might be required?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Federal Government all along on the fundamental aspects of the proposal. We have kept them reasonably well informed. In fact, some months ago, we presented a fairly substantial proposal to the federal government. I don' think it is in the public interest at this stage for me to discuss the detail of any such proposals now without having the concurrence of the federal government and perhaps the Quebec government or Hydro Quebec to do so.

I can say to the House, and to the Leader of the Opposition, that the government is working diligently to ensure that it is developed in a manner that will best protect the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I undertake to make the information fully available to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Discussion of that kind of detail would not, right at this moment, be opportune.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't debate or argue whether it would be helpful to the people at this time to know that information. We will have to let the people decide or judge that. I would like to ask him one final supplementary.

Yesterday he indicated that the development of the Lower Churchill project would mean the power would be sold to the Province of Quebec - put into their grid, I guess - for its use. At least, most of it, I believe he said, would go to Quebec. I ask him if he can be a little more specific. How much of the power will be sold to the Province of Quebec? How much will be held in reserve for our own Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the objective is to reserve immediately an amount sufficient to provide for the power supply that the Province needs that would enable it to displace the oil-fired at this time. Then the contemplation would be, I believe, that the remaining major block would be sold to Hydro Quebec for a fixed period of time. The Province would then decide on its additional needs, after that.

You are getting now into some detail of the negotiations with Hydro Quebec, and I don't think it would meet with the understanding that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has with Hydro Quebec for me to be discussing those kinds of details at this time.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: My question is to the Minister responsible for Mines and Energy. It is concerning Churchill Falls power, specifically the Upper Churchill - the infamous long-term power contract with Hydro Quebec.

My question: Is there a provision in that contract to allow a recall of a block of power from Quebec so that we, in this Province, will be able to consume the power within our own boundaries?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is a recall right - and of the recall right, approximately 140 megawatts are not presently being used in the Province, in Labrador. If we had industrial development that would require that right of recall, we would have to give, I think, three years notice to Hydro Quebec that we would be recalling that remainder.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could inform us how much Hydro Quebec presently pays CF(L)Co for this 140 megawatts of power?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the rate is the same as the standard rate in the contract, and, off the top of my head, I don't know what that is. I can get the information for him later.

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

MR. A. SNOW: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be clarified later, is that presently we receive about three mills for this power. I wonder if the minister can tell me if this is a very wise or prudent use of this cheaply priced electrical energy? Could this not be better used to sell to industrial consumers that could be located within our boundaries, to attract them? Could this not be used as an incentive to attract consumers to this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, a lot of effort has been put into trying to find alternate industrial developments to go into the Labrador area that could use that power over the past many, many years, and we have had very little success in that. As I said earlier, if there were an industrial need identified we would give the appropriate notice to Hydro Quebec and recall that 140 megawatts still available to us.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier. How long has the Premier known that about a year-and-a-half ago, a woman went to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and complained that the Member for Naskaupi, then the Minister of Environment and Lands, sexually assaulted her?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Justice knows better than to ask that kind of question in the House of Assembly. If she wants to come to see me and ask me about it, I will do my best to answer appropriately. I believe there is a police investigation underway at the moment. I will have to speak to the Attorney General to find out whether or not there is, but I believe there is one under way at the moment, and I would prefer to let the police handle that in the ordinary course rather than respond to it here in the House in this kind of grandstanding way.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

People will note that the Premier didn't answer my question which was: How long has he known about it?

When the woman contacted the RNC, which was in the late summer of 1990, she met with three different police members and signed a detailed statement. Shortly afterwards, she discussed the case with a Deputy Chief. More than a year later, in October, 1991, after having heard nothing from the Constabulary for months on end, she contacted the RNC again, and after several enquiries she was told that the file had been accidentally shelved and nothing had been done about it.

Can the Premier explain how it was ever possible for the RNC to lose a file on a Cabinet Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, but I will undertake to find out and advise the House if, in fact, the RNC accidentally shelved or lost a file in the manner referred to by the hon. member.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, the woman involved has concluded that the RNC is not so incompetent as to have lost -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I have allowed great leniency. The hon. member should get on to the question.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The woman has concluded that this is not a case of RNC incompetence, but actually there has been political interference to stall the police investigations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I have said that the hon. member is on a supplementary and she is into a rather long-winded supplementary. The hon. member should proceed to get to the question.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, given a choice between gross incompetence and political interference to stall the police investigation, the woman has concluded that there has been political tampering to delay the investigation until after the Member for Naskaupi qualifies for his severance pay and departs this House and the present Minister of Justice can run for his seat.

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

The hon. member is disobeying the Chair, and the Chair will take the appropriate action. I have given the hon. member a couple of chances to please put the question.

MS. VERGE: The question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, is: What explanation can there be for this sorry mess?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have been a member of this House for a number of years on a previous occasion and a number of years now and I have been an observer in the past, and I have never seen that kind of low-level behaviour in the House before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It may have occurred one other time when the government was browbeaten into laying a charge against an innocent man by this kind of political grandstanding. The man was a Cabinet Minister. His name was Dr. Farrell, and I defended him and established his innocence before the courts. But the man's reputation had been sullied by that kind of irresponsible behaviour.

Now the member, as a former Minister of Justice, knows the bounds of propriety when such a problem as this arises. She knows what is proper for her to do. She is a member of the Law Society, she knows the proper role, and this kind of behaviour is nothing short of despicable.

Now, let me hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, no Attorney General - and there have been three, now, in this administration - has ever given or will ever give direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police with respect to an investigation. They have explicit and express instructions as to how prosecutions are to be managed in this Province by a completely independent Director of Public Prosecutions. I took the trouble to ensure that the former Attorney General, the Member for Humber West, was fully informed of the right process and made sure that he had the advice of a competent man, Professor Edwards from Toronto, who wrote the book on the office of Attorney General and Solicitor General, to ensure that nowhere, at no time, will an Attorney General ever give instruction to a Director of Public Prosecutions to proceed or not proceed with prosecution. And it has never occurred here.

The awful slur cast by a person who was a former Attorney General is nothing short of despicable.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is despicable that a woman who made a complaint of sexual assault a year-and-a-half ago is still waiting for the police to conclude their investigation.

Mr. Speaker, why did the Premier refuse to meet with the woman when she asked his assistant for a meeting, and when, after she had waited outside his office for about two hours, he emerged with a lawyer saying that he was not prepared to meet with her? Why wouldn't the Premier see the woman when she was at his office?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't remember that occasion but I will check with my office and see if that, in fact, occurred. Now, I have been made aware some weeks ago that a complaint was made and is being investigated, and I think it came about as a result of a question, or my knowledge of it came about as a result of a question or a letter written by somebody to the Minister of Justice, and he made me aware of it.

I didn't have to instruct him, he knew the explicit - he doesn't interfere. He just makes sure that the Director of Public Prosecutions does his job objectively and fairly. He gives no instruction to anybody to prosecute or to delay or not to prosecute, that is entirely and solely for the police to do.

Now, whether there has been any mismanagement by the police, or any failure by the police, or whether those dates are right or not right, or whether there is no basis to the complaint, or whether there is a basis to the complaint, and some policeman failed to do his duty properly, I don't know, but I will find out and I will advise the House. But that is all it is, it is nothing else. I can assure the House of that.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Something has gone drastically wrong. The Constabulary lost a file on a Cabinet Minister, did nothing about it for over a year, and the matter is still not resolved. Now, I ask the Premier, will he immediately appoint a senior judge to conduct an impartial inquiry into this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the Attorney General to take immediate steps to determine whether or not there has been any inordinate delay, or anybody has caused any delay, or whether there is incompetence in the police department, or whether there is any validity whatsoever to the comments made by the hon. member today. I will take those steps.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health.

I had a very interesting phone call today, as well, from an individual here in St. John's who doesn't mind having her name mentioned, a Mrs. Clouston, who is in a dilemma. She is having difficulty getting her father admitted to a hospital for a very serious operation which will involve the removal of a lung. Doctors are telling that individual that they have to move very rapidly on that operation, but they have not been able to do it to date simply because no beds are available. This individual has been diagnosed now for over a month, and doctors cannot say for sure if he is going to get in this week, and they have been telling this woman that the situation is so bad that they have to determine who is going to live and who is going to die on a first come, first serve basis.

Now, is the Minister aware that the situation in hospitals is now so bad, that hospital staff, doctors and nurses, are at the breaking point, and that patient care is in serious jeopardy? Is he aware of that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to discuss patients individually in the hospital system. I will deal with this matter with officials in the Department and see if there is any validity to the accusations that are being made. But I would be setting a very dangerous precedent. Ministers of Health throughout this land have had to resign for interfering in the personal lives of patients in the system. I refuse to discuss personal patients, individual patients in the system. I can talk in general terms. I can say in general terms it is the physicians in the system who are the gatekeepers. They are the ones who decide who is admitted to the system, and they do it on a professional basis. They have much more expertise in that matter than I do, Mr. Speaker, or any of my colleagues in the government.

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

MR. DOYLE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the Minister of Health say that, given the fact that when he was health critic over here he very often brought up individual cases and expected answers as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me go to the Premier on a supplementary because I really do not think there is any point in asking the Minister of Health any questions. This same individual, Mrs. Clouston, was in a very desperate state. So desperate that she went directly to the Premier's office, not physically, but she went with a phone call. She phoned the Premier's office and she spoke to one of his staff up there, a Mrs. Ploughman, who according to this woman verbally abused her and treated her with such callous disregard that she broke down and she cried.

MR. SIMMS: Shame, shame.

MR. DOYLE: Now is this the standard treatment, Mr. Premier, that people who are in desperate need of health care assistance is getting? Is that the standard treatment that they are getting today from the Premier's office in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: What did they do in my office? Mr. Speaker, just let me put this in perspective. This is the Fraser Institute Assessment of Medical Services in Canada, comparison between the provinces, February 1992 right up to date. Ranking the province's studied according to 'waited averages 'reported in Table 12.a, and described earlier, indicates that the longest wait for surgery occurs in Manitoba and the shortest in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of quality health care the Government of this Province under the able leadership of the Minister of Health is providing for our tax payers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be an individual incident that needs to be addressed, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health will address it. I have no doubt the Minister of Health will address any individual concerns that need to be addressed, but I do not know of any woman who broke down and cried in my office. I cannot see every single person in the Province who wants to come and see me. I try my very best. I work night and day at doing it, and will leave the House in a few minutes and meet with other groups, but I cannot be every (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier, in light of the numerous concerns being expressed by doctors and by the Nurses Union, who incidentally have taken out full page ads in the Evening Telegram that I am sure the Premier must be aware of. Can the Premier, in light of those numerous concerns, offer any guarantees to health care professionals in the Province that the Budget is not going to make an already terrible situation a whole lot worse than what it already is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the Budget will provide for keeping the Newfoundland health care system in first place in the country as the Fraser Institute has found. But the details of the Budget will be delivered by the Minister of Finance, I believe, next Thursday, and of course the Member can wait until that time and hear the details firsthand right from - I will not say the horses mouth - the Minister of Finance.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier as well pertaining to the ongoing fisheries crisis and foreign overfishing, and the Premier has been up to meet with the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the Premier: has he sought support from other provincial premiers and territorial leaders to put pressure on for an immediate extension by Canada of custodial jurisdiction or management - we were referring to it lately over the last few day - over the Nose and Tail of the Banks; and could he tell us what results, or has he received any support from other Premiers or leaders in Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am surprised that the hon. Member is not aware of this because there was a news release on it. Maybe Atlantic Premiers do not count for very much, but when the Atlantic Premiers met in Corner Brook on March 1 and 2, that was the subject of their first communiqué, and the four Atlantic Premiers all expressed support for Canada taking steps immediately to put in place custodial management of the fisheries beyond the 200-mile limit in order to deal with that issue.

I have since, as he knows and has mentioned, spoken to the Prime Minister and I will be raising it as well at The First Ministers Conference that will take place on Wednesday in Toronto.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess I am aware of the press statement that came out of Corner Brook, but if the Premier will reflect it was a bit confusing because that was where we were talking about sending out the gunboats, and we were supposed to have said it and not to have said it. So I did not want to refer to that, but in his speech to Globe 92 forum just a few days ago, the Premier said custodial control would give Canada the right to set rules and regulations for harvesting of the fish stocks for the benefit of all countries. How would Canada obtain that right, I would like to ask the Premier, and is there any provision in international law that would allow Canada to exercise that right?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: This may take a few minutes. If the hon. Member does not mind, I will try to answer the question thoroughly. There is no express provision that says you have a right to do it, but there is no express provision that says you don't have a right to do it. There is a recognition in a variety of the clauses of the Law of the Sea Conference that acknowledge a special interest and concern of the contiguous coastal state that is close to the stock concerned, or that is directly affected, and there is specific provisions referring to management of straddling stocks as well. The general tenor and reading of it would, we believe, justify Canada taking that kind of action. I think if Canada did it in a responsible way it would enjoy the support of all right thinking responsible nations.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that there is no world legislative body that declares the law. International law gets developed by some nation - a single nation usually - taking an action that is the start of it. Some nation has to move first. That is the way all international laws develop. There have been examples in the past. Canada did it with the Arctic Waters Pollution Act. We passed a Statute of Parliament taking custodial jurisdiction of the arctic waters to prevent pollution. The Truman Doctrine in the late forties, I think 1946 or 1947, expressed the United States interest in fisheries, and they took action as a result of it. Perhaps the most famous incident was the British Parliament passed a law prohibiting trading in slavery, and they sent the Royal Navy down off the coast of Africa. There was no provision in international law for it. They sent the Royal Navy down and stopped other nations from capturing innocent citizens living in the west coast of Africa and selling them across the Atlantic as slaves. There was no provision in international law for that either, but can anybody question for a moment that it was the right and responsible thing to do? Can anybody question for a moment that it is the right and responsible thing for Canada to go out and take custodial management of those stocks to preserve them for mankind instead of allowing the irresponsible actions of other nations to fish them to extinction and destroy them for mankind? No!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: That is the basis on which Canada should act, and if Canada had any political courage in the world it would move now and take that step. It would not wait another day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier really is preaching to the converted today. I am sure he realizes that, but I just wanted to ask how he perceived, as a Nation, we could do these things?

Last week while the Premier was away, and I am sure he has been made aware, there was considerable interest raised in the Province by a statement by some representatives from the Icelandic fishing industry. They said that Canada could extend its jurisdiction to 350 miles. Is the Premier aware of any provision in the Law of the Sea which permits coastal states to claim a 350 mile economic zone for the management of groundfish, and if so did the Premier have the opportunity to discuss this possibility with the Prime Minister in his recent meeting?

PREMIER WELLS: Could you ask the question again (inaudible)?

MR. MATTHEWS: The question, to shorten it up a bit is: last week there was an interesting statement by Icelandic officials that Canada could extend its jurisdiction in the economic zone to 350 miles. I am wondering if the Premier is aware of any provision in the Law of the Sea for that, and if there is, did he have an opportunity, or did he discuss this possibility with the Prime Minister in his recent meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is as good a legal case if any exist at all for extending jurisdiction to 350 miles. I believe a sound case can be made for taking custodial management but extension of jurisdiction is quite another thing and we have not asked the Government of Canada to do that. If they had the right to do it in international law, we would certainly ask them to do it but I believe there is a much better case to be made for taking custodial management.

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

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations in this Province.

The Minister has now had the review of the Workers' Compensation Board for a considerable period of time. The Throne Speech last week alludes to some changes that are going to be made, and while these changes might address the deficit that the board presently experiences, what is the Minister doing to speed up the delivery of services, both financial and medical, to the injured workers of this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been ongoing discussions with the senior staff of the commission relating to these matters because I think all Members of the House, from time to time, get representation from injured workers who are sometimes dissatisfied with the pace of the dealing with their claim at the commission, the pace at which it occurs, and we are hoping that through a combination of the Budget next week, there will be some announcements relative to the Workers' Compensation Review Committee and their proposals.

There will also be a comprehensive package concerning the whole forty-five recommendations made by that review committee which will go through the Cabinet process in the very near future we hope, so that we could make a definitive statement on all aspects of workers' compensation including the time it takes for a claimant to be properly treated, that will be part of the package and we hope to announce that in the not too distant future.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 45, Paragraph 2, of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table a list of temporary loans raised under Sections 44 and 45 of the Act between the period February 28, 1991 and March 4, 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call hon. Members' attention to one thing only, and that is that we have expanded our borrowings under the Treasury bills from $10 million weekly to $22 million weekly in order to do more of our borrowings in the short term to take more advantage of short-term interest rates than we have in the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have two. One is the questions asked yesterday about: What representations did the Province make on behalf of Newfoundland companies with respect to access to silver hake. The situation was pretty much as I expected it was. Silver hake is a species not found in Newfoundland waters but on the Scotian shelf off southwestern Nova Scotia. Just as we have argued that stocks adjacent to Newfoundland should be allocated primarily for the benefit of the Province, Nova Scotia argues likewise for stocks in it's waters. Now, we cannot speak out of both sides of our mouths, and this Government, at least, doesn't.

Seafreez, which is a company that operates both in Burgeo and Canso, both in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, has been the largest recipient of silver hake with 39,000 tons in 1991 and they had 50,000 tons in 1992. They processed very little of it. Instead they exchanged it with the Russians for Barents Sea cod which is usually processed either in Burgeo or in Canso. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the answer to that question.

The second one asked yesterday along the same lines: Will the Province be taking a position on the turbot and mackerel development program that was announced recently by the Federal Minister of Fisheries, that he will be releasing, I believe, 20,000 tons of turbot in the Davis Strait. Now, in the past, Mr. Speaker, we have made repeated demands for the Federal Government to make that fish available and we will make similar representations on this occasion. With respect to the 16,000 ton mackerel development program announced for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, this Province is quite interested in that. There is a fairly sizeable mackerel fishery in my own district, in the Bay of Islands, where they do much of the processing. Last year they processed approximately 7,000 tons. So we will be seeking greater access to that.

Mr. Speaker, the other question was a question asked this afternoon by the Member for Humber East. I got some information from my officials. The lady to whom she referred came to my office about eighteen months ago, spoke to two of my assistants in the office and they mentioned it to me. And now that they tell me this, I recollect the occasion when this occurred. At the time her complaints dealt exclusively with - and that was the only mention she ever made of it - there was never any mention of sexual assault or any such thing. Her sole complaint was the financial state of her company and she felt that Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador was responsible for this, and she was suing Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and she has a perfect right to do that.

My response to her at the time was: I would not discuss with anybody a legal claim they may have against the Government or an agency. I do not do that and I have refused to do it three or four times previously, and I will continue to refuse to do it unless it is a formal meeting set down, with the lawyer representing the person present and with the Government lawyers as well. I will not do it. Now, that is the circumstance that the Member for Humber East just raised. It has nothing to do with what she just said.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Harbour Mille and Little Harbour. The petition is not on the proper form as needed by the House so I ask leave of the House to present the petition on behalf of these people in these two communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is asking consent of the House to present a petition that is not on its proper form, the hon. member claims. I haven't seen the petition. It might be appropriate in the future, if hon. members have a petition that doesn't meet the requirements, that they give it to the clerk so that the clerk could take a look at it beforehand. That is normal procedure. The Chair is not in a position to say more than what I have said. If the hon. member would indicate what the prayer of the petition is, then hon. members would be in a better position to agree as to whether or not they want the petition presented.

The hon. member.

MR. LANGDON: I can read the prayer of the petition. It says, 'We, the residents of Harbour Mille and Little Harbour East, petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to provide pavement for the road between Harbour Mille and Little Bay East. This road is used daily by people going for medical services, to places of employment, and most of all, by our children who have to travel' -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has heard enough and I think hon. members have. Do hon. members consent that the hon. member may proceed with the petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. LANGDON: I will continue, Mr. Speaker: 'We have been concerned for many years because of the condition of this road, but our concern is greater at this time because our elementary school will be closing in June, 1992 and all our children will have to be bused to Jacques Fontaine. We feel that this road, in its present condition, is unfit for children and other residents to travel over. We have waited too long for pavement, and our frustration with government will soon make itself known. We hope that this petition will elicit a favourable response, if not, we will resort to whatever means we deem necessary to achieve our desired goal, a paved road.'

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition that has been signed by approximately 210 residents of Harbour Mille and Little Harbour. In fact, I have placed this particular road on the top of my priority list for the past two years and have given it to the ministers concerned. This road was constructed some thirty years ago and has been upgraded to paving standards some fifteen years ago but it was never completed. In the spring of the year, like all gravel roads, because of the spring thaw, there has been difficulty in getting over the road. There was one incident last week, where a lady who had to come to the Health Sciences was concerned about the road not being passable in the early morning. I phoned the foreman from that particular depot and he, himself went to that road the next morning to escort the people to the Health Sciences Centre. I thought it was good of him do that.

Mr. Speaker, the government, I believe, will come through for these people. We have had considerable road improvements in the districts in the last couple of years. I have discussed this road with the minister concerned, and I believe, in the not-too-distant future, their concerns will be looked after. Again, as I said, I really support the petition; however, I would not advocate any violence in respect of having the road done. I believe that through common sense in our approach we can bring enough pressure to bear on the department officials that, in the not-too-distant future, this road will, indeed, be looked after.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member has met with me and has raised the concerns in the petition. He has pressed them strongly upon me. This particular stretch of road is under consideration under the Provincial Roads Program. It will be assessed, as all other roads are in the Province, on the basis of fairness and balance, and it will be ranked according to its need, relative to the other needs in the Province. I can assure the hon. member that it is being given every consideration, as is every other road in the Province, and a final determination will be made on this particular road, and all other roads at a later date. But it is under active consideration.

As the hon. member indicates, the district of Fortune - Hermitage has been the recipient of very significant amounts of money under the roads program over the last several years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: Yes, he has been a very good member to have achieved the level of funding that he has achieved for his district. But it does indicate that in that particular district there is immense need and, unfortunately, we have a very limited supply of resources to meet it, not only in Fortune - Hermitage district, but in all the districts of the Province. The hon. the Member for Fogo has indicated, he has needs in his district, as have other hon. members. There is a great need for roads all over this Province.

I will assure the hon. member that this will be fairly assessed and a decision will be made in due course. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the petition presented by the hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage. When people in this Province sign a petition to improve our roads in the various communities, I believe it is our duty to support their endeavour to have the roads brought up to standard.

It is most interesting. The hon. member mentioned that the road was constructed twenty-five or thirty years ago. Mr. Speaker, I should probably say to the hon. member through you, Sir, that I had the opportunity back in 1959 of teaching in the little school in Little Harbour. The road was there then, so that is thirty-two years ago. It was then a gravel road. Since then, we have gone through a number of premiers, fifteen or twenty Ministers of Highways, three or four different governments, and the people of those communities have been asking, year after year, to have this piece of road brought up to standard.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very important piece of road, unless it has changed recently, because from Harbour Mille, you go across the bay to other communities. So it is almost like a drop-off point for other parts of the hon. gentleman's district. We, in this party, support our colleague for bringing this petition forward. Hopefully, the Minister of Transportation, in respect of the form letter he sent out to all members has, by now, placed that road close to the top of the list. Hopefully, this year, the people in Little Harbour, Little Bay East and Harbour Mille will get a bit of black asphalt so they can comfortably drive to and from work, and home. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

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

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1993, the sum of $990,196,700."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1993 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill No. 5).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution, recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

On motion, Bill No. 5, read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

MR. BAKER: Order 1, Mr. Speaker.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

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

I declare the motion carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have a brief recess of a couple of minutes to get a bill distributed and we will be ready to resume in about a minute or so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No.1.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House and Your Honour that I have received a message from His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

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

'I, The Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit supplementary estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending the thirty-first day of March 1991, by way of further Supplementary Supply, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates to the House of Assembly.'

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message together with the amount be referred to the Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are requesting supplementary supply over and above what we needed in the Budget last year, for $135,084,900, comprising: $1,600,000 for the executive council; $1,411,400 for the Department of Finance; $83,000 for the Legislature; $20,287,500 for the Department of Development; $1,795,700 for the Department of Fisheries; $1,200,000 for Forestry and Agriculture; $95,000,000 for Mines and Energy; $306,000 for Education; $3,961,800 for Health; $979,500 for Justice; and $8,460,000 for Social Services.

Another modest amount, Mr. Chairman. I hope that the hon. Members opposite will be as kind to as they were with the interim supply a few moments ago. Many thanks.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, there really isn't much one can say. This is really old potatoes that we are dealing with here today. This is to the end... I guess what it is is the warrants that came after the fiscal year that ended March 1991.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible)?

MR. SIMMS: Yes. It says.

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but for the fiscal year ending 1991. So this is almost a year later now, so, yes, during 1991. So it really is old potatoes. I cannot remember if we have asked all kinds of questions on this stuff before or not. But there is not much one can say about it, not much point to say much about it. Because it all done, over with, and it is a year later. There is not much point in beating up on it at this stage or even asking questions, right? We would rather get on to something current, Mr. Speaker, so we really do not have much to offer in the way of debate on this particular Bill.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1991 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service." (Bill No. 2).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, this Bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," consists of a number of points here. Item number one, for the Gander Masonic Memorial Complex, a $1,000,000 loan guarantee; the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited, a loan guarantee of $700,000; and a loan to extend in time a $200,000 loan guarantee to the Northeast Coast Sealers Co-operative Society Limited; an extension in time of a loan guarantee to A L Stuckless and Sons Limited, for $500,000, and an increase of $150,000 to be extended to the same period of time. The Fogo Island Co-operative Society would be to extend the date of the expiry and then to reduce the amount of the guarantee from $3 million to $1.3 million to expire February 29, 1992. That is about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly appreciate the co-operation of members Opposite in approving these amounts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the consent of the Committee for the Committee to rise to allow me to deal with, on an urgent basis, the matter raised by the Member for Humber East?

Some very serious allegations were made. I now have the answer and I would like to give it to the House so that the media, who have been informed of all of these allegations, will have the full facts when they deal with it, and innocent people will not be hurt by the irresponsible allegations. So I would ask the Committee to agree to rise so that I can address the House and give the answers to the questions raised.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the agreement to rise?

AN HON. MEMBER: No agreement with the truth.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me just remind the Committee –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me remind the Committee that what the hon. Member for Humber East did today is nothing short of despicable in terms of the allegations made by people, and I am asking the Committee - I am asking the Committee - if the members of this Committee are interested in truth they will give consent. If they want to hide the truth, and they want to protect the despicable behaviour of the Member for Humber East, they can refuse consent.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, this is a wonderful show by the Premier who is all upset and self-righteous as usual in his approach. He does not have to rise the Committee and call the House and all that kind of stuff. It is not necessary. We are debating a financial bill where members have ten minutes back and forth, and he can stand and speak for ten minutes and respond to whatever it is he wants to respond to - say whatever it is he wants to say. We are quite prepared to listen, but there is no need to rise the Committee for all of that. He has ten minutes. Let him go ahead and do it. He can get up for one, get up for five, get up for ten - whatever. That is nonsense.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply has considered the matters to it referred and has asked me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to ask the consent of the House to revert if we might to Answers to Questions, because I have in the last few moments been able to determine the answer to the questions raised by the Member for Humber East. It is a matter of such importance, bearing in mind the nature of the allegations contained in her question, that I feel it is important that it be addressed immediately, and I am prepared to do so now, with the consent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. Members that this is a major matter. The privileges of the House may well have been breached. It is a major matter and if the hon. Members opposite are interested in truth, instead of hiding the truth, they will agree. If the hon. Members opposite are interested they will agree, and I again ask the members for consent.

MR. SPEAKER: If an hon. Member rejects, of course, the Chair has no choice but to say that there is no consent.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Point of Privilege, and I want to lay out the basis for the Point of Privilege. I will be asking Your Honour to address a Point of Privilege: that the Member for Humber East has abused the privileges of this House by making statements that are most inappropriate. Making allegations by any member of this House, let alone a person trained and knowledgeable in the law, let alone a former Minister of Justice, to make the kind of allegations that she made today, which I have found to be completely without foundation, and I am able to advise the House that the basis for my Point of Privilege is her allegations that there was political interference in the administration of justice and in the direction of public prosecutions, that the first time any minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The record of Hansard will speak for itself, she alleged that there was political interference, and the Point of Privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that members of this House, including the former Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber West, the Member for Bonavista South, and the current Minister of Justice, who is not yet a member of this House, and myself, because she made the allegation specifically against me, alleging that there was political direction to prevent the prosecution of a person because he was a member of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: That was the specific allegation. All of us heard it. Mr. Speaker, I want the Members of this House to know that the basis of my Point of Privilege is that there is no substance whatsoever to this. The first that anybody on this side of the House knew about it was March 4, this current month, and the first anybody knew about any allegation that the police were not acting properly was on March 4 when the Minister of Justice received an official complaint from Mr. Cle Newhook who is sitting in the House today. The Minister of Justice wrote Mr. Newhook and to his credit, and I stand here and give him full credit, he acted responsibly and he accepted the answer given in the letter, and I have no doubt that in due course the Minister of Justice will release the letter. Now, to Mr. Newhook's everlasting credit he responsibly accepted the letter. The former Minister of Justice, now the Member for Humber East, not only did not act properly, she acted quite improperly and went to the Director of Public Prosecutions. She went herself to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: She should resign.

PREMIER WELLS: She should not, Mr. Speaker, bypass the Minister of Justice. The Director of Public Prosecutions told her that it was improper for her to be doing what she was doing and directed her to the Minister of Justice. She never addressed or spoke to the Minister of Justice about it. Instead she stood here today in this House and castigated the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask hon. Members to please restrain themselves. According to the Premier he is establishing a Point of Privilege and the Premier should lay what the Point of Privilege is rather than getting into debating the details of the issue, because the Chair will decide whether or not we allow the debate to continue, where we can establish a prima facie case.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, to establish the prima facie case of privilege in the allegations, on March 4 the Minister became aware of it and that is when he told me about it. Now, that is my first personal knowledge of the allegation made by the Member for Humber East. The Minister of Justice, being the proficient, capable person that he is, went immediately -

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't know about it, you said. A couple of hours ago (inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Hansard will speak for itself. Indeed it will. Hansard will speak for itself.

The Minister of Justice, being the proficient and capable person that he is, did that which he was supposed to do when there was an allegation of some failure on the part of the police to properly investigate. He asked immediately for a police report. Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be improper for me to detail the report, but let me say to the House that here is the basis that will establish clearly that the allegations were so offensive and improper that the hon. Member should be censored by this House for having breached the privileges of the whole House and at least three members of the House, Mr. Speaker.

An initial complaint was made on August 23, 1990, and I say an initial complaint, I do not say that it was the matter alleged by the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, it was not the matter alleged by the hon. Member, but it would be inappropriate for me to say what it was. Steps were taken immediately, meetings were held with the lady who made the complaint, further meetings and discussions were set up with the lady who made the complaint between September and October and she failed to keep numerous appointments, one on November 6, one on November 7, and one on November 15.

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

PREMIER WELLS: She failed to keep the appointments made by the police.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just let me tell hon. Members how wrong that Member is and how inappropriate and offensive her action is.

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

PREMIER WELLS: Several times.

On November 21, 1990, the police concluded this: On the basis of the information then provided, the policemen responsible expressed the view that there were insufficient grounds for a criminal investigation, let alone the laying of a charge, insufficient grounds to open a further investigation beyond that. A further appointment was set up with her and she failed to keep that appointment.

MR. SIMMS: Did they tell her?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes. In December she was told again and a further meeting was held with her and, at that time, she advised that she was preparing a statement with her lawyer and the same would be provided to the police when it was completed. The police heard nothing more until October 29, 1991, Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, and an investigation, on the basis of the complaint then filed, was opened and is still open.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of doing or saying anything that would, in any manner, prevent the proper carrying out of the administration of justice and the proper prosecution of anybody, if a prosecution should be had. But we will not allow this Government to be railroaded or browbeaten by the Member into persecuting an individual who may be innocent.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: I will be asking Your Honour to rule on that Point of Privilege and will be prepared to make the necessary motion to follow up after, and will, Mr. Speaker, be taking whatever other action is appropriate to deal with the irresponsible behaviour of the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

All I say, Mr. Speaker, is, how quick one's memory can recover, when at two-thirty or so today the Premier had not heard anything about it. Now he tells us that the present Minister of Justice informed him of it on March 4. But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into a debate with the Premier over that. It is up to Your Honour to judge whether or not the Premier has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Because there is no Point of Privilege I say to the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is right.

MR. MATTHEWS: We can understand the defensive attitude opposite, Mr. Speaker, because I think that the Government has been disclosed in something that they are ashamed of. They have been caught out. They thought that it would go away for at least another month or two, and then if it broke they would not have been as sensitive about it, I say to Members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MATTHEWS: Then they would not have been as sensitive about it because things that they were hoping would happen would happen a bit later on in the Spring.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to submit to Your Honour that there is no Point of Privilege put forward by the Premier, none whatsoever.

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

The hon. the Member for Humber West.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not in the House to hear the Member for Humber East's allegation. I picked up the tail end of it and overheard part of it. I want to speak to the Premier's submission that there has been a breach of privileges of the Members of this House which goes to our performance of our parliamentary duties. I submit to Your Honour that that includes a performance of one in the portfolio of any of the Cabinet duties that are now in this Province.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is substantive matter here, and that is that the hon. Member, I take it, and I have not yet seen a transcript of her remarks in Hansard, alleges that there has been interference.

Now I want to say two things, Mr. Speaker. The first is that for the time I was Minister of Justice I had absolutely no information whatsoever, nor did I have any suggestion or rumour that there might be a complaint laid against the Member for Naskaupi, the former Minister of Environment and Lands. I had absolutely no knowledge, and I was there until I resigned on November 5.

So in point of fact I can say to this hon. House and to whoever else may hear of this that I personally had no knowledge whatsoever that there was any investigation. I therefore find it rather appalling that the Member would suggest without even asking that there was in some sense any interference.

The second thing that I find equally appalling is the hon. Member's obvious lack of knowledge as to how the system of justice should operate, and perhaps it reflects on her administration of justice. But the police in this Province operate independently of any political interference, and during the whole time I was minister I can say two things: One is that I was never on any occasion directed by any member of Cabinet or approached by any member of this House, least of all the Premier, who in fact made quite the opposite point, that I was fully independent in all my duties, and that not only should I not listen to any advice from other members, but should at all times maintain my complete and utter independence.

Now I know the hon. Leader of the Opposition is laughing at that. Well perhaps he and his administration ran it differently, but for those of us who have operated with the Premier, and I know I speak very strongly for myself, there should be in the minds of the people of this Province absolutely no question whatsoever of the complete and utter independence of the system of justice. And I find it very offensive that the hon. Member for Humber East, if she thinks that is the case now, I think it says more for the manner in which she operated this system.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of personal privilege that the police in this Province will operate independently. There is absolutely no knowledge at the ministerial level in the Department of Justice that there was any charge. The police in carrying out their duties at all times were directed to do so independently, and the decisions to investigate and lay charges are undertaken separately from any decision to prosecute. So in point of fact and in point of theory and in point of principle, the Member for Humber East is utterly wrong, and I think has affronted us all by her allegations in this House.

I would say further, that every member who makes an allegation of this sort has an obligation to put before the House the basis on which that allegation is made. What I find most appalling is that she offers no substantiation whatever for a bare allegation of political interference. And I can say categorically that while I was there, there was none in general or in particular. So I fully support the Premier's position in this matter. I believe it is offensive to us all as individuals, and particularly those of us whose administration is called into question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I am only going to have a few words to say on this because clearly it is not a valid Point of Privilege. The Premier is merely using the opportunity to try to respond to a question that was asked earlier today, and that has happened before I guess, and it is not unusual. So I would argue and submit that it is not a Point of Privilege for all the reasons outlined in Beauchesne's, but having heard the comments of the Premier and the comments of the Member for Humber West, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say what could be a breach of privilege is if a member on this side of the House was not able to stand in this Legislature, based on representations received by constituents or people in this Province, who feel they have been wronged by the justice system or by the Government. Then that would be a breach of privilege in my view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East had a meeting with this individual, spoke to this individual, heard the individual's case, spoke to the Director of Prosecutions and has done as much research as she can without - obviously she is not in the position to have the answers. So she has the right to ask questions in this House on that or any other matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: She has the absolute right! Her first question today to the Premier was: how long was he aware of it? That is a simple question. He has turned this into something other than what it was meant to be today. She asked sensible, reasonable questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Cover up! Cover up!

MR. SIMMS: Now.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got caught!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, we got caught. If the Premier is offended by the question, that is one thing. That's too bad if he is offended by the question. But there is nothing in parliamentary procedure or the rules of procedure that says you cannot ask a question that might be termed offensive by the Members on the Government side. Nothing, absolutely nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has given his explanation of what had transpired. That is fine. We will read it when we get a copy of the Hansard transcript. We will judge it. We will decide if we will pursue the matter or not, whether the matter will be pursued elsewhere. The press have it, no doubt. The people will make a judgement on what was right and what was wrong, and you can attack the messenger all you want. But the issue is what is important, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I won't rehash. I just wish to respond to one point that may bear on Your Honour's determination of whether you consider this a breach of privilege or not. This was the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow a Member has a right and a duty to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Member does not. And any Member, particularly a Member who was a Minister of Justice in this Province, would know that that Member has no right to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions to try and pressure or -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not!?

PREMIER WELLS: Because it is improper!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Because it - the Member knows....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't (Inaudible) understand that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I know they do not understand, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I know they do not understand -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I refer all hon. Members of this House to the text written by Professor J L L J Edwards, who was a Professor of Criminology at the University of Toronto, Professor of Law at Dalhousie. He has written the definitive works on the office of Attorney General and Solicitor General and what responsibilities are, and the appropriate position for governments to take in the conduct of the administration of justice.

Now let me say to all hon. Members now, in case anybody has any doubt in the future, it is improper for any Member on any side of this House to go and pressure the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is totally improper!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I have great fears that the chemistry might become combustible. The Chair is asking all hon. Members please to restrain themselves, and asking the Premier please to quickly sum up his few remarks.

PREMIER WELLS: Justice is normally administered, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of a complaint being made to the police. The police conduct the investigation. It is the police, not the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decide whether or not to lay a charge. Now occasionally the police may want legal advice. If the police want legal advice they would normally consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, and he would give the advice. Then the police, and only the police, decide whether or not to lay a charge. The sole role of an Attorney General is to make sure only that the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police properly perform their duties.

They have nothing to say whatsoever with whether any charge should or should not be laid - ever! It is not proper for an Attorney General to do it.

MR. SIMMS: She did not ask him that (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: But what the hon. Member has done, Mr. Speaker, and what the Leader of the Opposition is now saying, is that it was quite proper for the hon. Member to go to the DPP. My point to you is that it was not, Mr. Speaker, and the actions and the allegations of the hon. Member, in going to the DPP, and then instead of doing what the DPP advised her, going to the Attorney General, she stood in her place in this House and performed in the most despicable manner as any member performed in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, and I will, I want to remind hon. Members that a Point of Privilege - sometimes the line between the debate in establishing the Point of Privilege is very delicate and I want to remind hon. Members that for the past little while we have been into the actual debate, rather than establishing the Point of Privilege and the Chair does not want to prolong that. I will take one further submission from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not prolong it either and allow Your Honour the opportunity to consider the matter no doubt, but I do have to respond to what the Premier had to say.

Mr. Speaker, any member of this House as I understand it, has a right to approach any person in the bureaucracy, don't they? I mean if you have a question to ask of somebody in whatever department, Justice or whatever, are you not allowed to approach a bureaucrat to discuss a matter or to ask a question? Now maybe, Mr. Speaker, under this regime it is not permitted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - but I can tell the Premier this, that it has been permitted in the past and will hopefully be permitted in the future for any elected representative of the people to approach any bureaucrat, any member of the bureaucracy whether it be the Crown Prosecutor or whether it be the Director of Recreation or whatever, Mr. Speaker. So, the Premier's weak attempt here this afternoon to try to deflect from the real issue and the real truth is what is most despicable, Mr. Speaker, in this House today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, charges have been made in this House by the Member for Humber East; charges that Members of this House, and by her allegations I suppose she smeared at least four individuals, that certain members of this House have been interfering with the DPP in terms of prosecution or with the police or whatever. Certain very serious charges have been laid by the Member for Humber East, Mr. Speaker.

I can perhaps understand right now, after listening to the Leader of the Opposition, why perhaps the Member for Humber East did not realize what she was doing. It seems to be perfectly okay for the Leader of the Opposition, and maybe that is the way he operated when he was in government, it seems to be perfectly okay for him to go and influence the DPP who, according to him is like any other director in government. He is just an ordinary civil servant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is the way they operated that does not mean that it was right. That is the way that they have said they intend to operate in the future, but heaven forbid, Mr. Speaker, that they ever get the opportunity to do that again. Mr. Speaker, the privileges, the ability of these members to do their jobs as Members of the House, is impaired; they are now under a cloud and a very serious cloud. They have interfered in the Justice system, they are now under a cloud.

The Minister of Justice, a former Minister of Justice and Member for Humber West, was in the position, and obviously the Member for Humber East is somehow trying to get at that Member for Humber West, to interfere with his ability to do his job as a member by laying very serious charges in this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, something has to happen; we cannot allow this kind of scurrilous, slimy attack to happen. Something has to give otherwise this House will degenerate, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that never has in the past and should never become, and, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask Your Honour to take the matter under advisement, to have a look at other cases and check the other jurisdictions.

But this is a very serious matter. Where charges of that nature are laid against individual members without any supporting information, simply to interfere with their role as an MHA in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that this does constitute a breach of privilege. I suggest that at that point in time a full investigation is going to have to be done as to the supporting evidence that the Member has in terms of her allegations, that a complete investigation in natural course will have to be done. If members routinely believe that they should interfere with the duties of the DPP, then that is something that should be made clear in this hon. House, as to that position. Members who do interfere, Mr. Speaker, have no right to sit in this House because it is an interference in the process of law in the country, and they should not do that.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we have entertained enough arguments from both sides, but I think it is only right and proper to hear a few remarks from the hon. the Member for Humber East. I remind the hon. Member that I would like for her to keep her remarks brief.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The emotional outburst by the Premier and the Government House Leader are rather pathetic attempts to divert attention from a very serious issue. I raised the issue in a series of prepared questions earlier this afternoon. I asked the Premier to state how long he has known about the complaint of a woman that the Member for Naskaupi, then a member of his Cabinet, had sexually assaulted her. He avoided giving a straightforward answer to that question. I then recounted the developments and asked the Premier how he could explain how the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary lost a file on a Cabinet Minister.

I then, Mr. Speaker, in a rather lengthy preamble, said that this woman has concluded that the RNC are not that incompetent as to have accidentally shelved the file, and as to have failed to resolve this investigation after a year and a half. But instead she is left feeling that there has been political interference in this police investigation. Political interference calculated at stalling the matter, perhaps first hoping that she would go away, but now hoping that it will drag out until the Member for Naskaupi qualifies for his severance pay and resigns from the House, opening up a seat for the present Minister of Justice.

I then asked the Premier why he would not meet with the woman when she asked to see him, and after she went to his office and waited for a couple of hours. My final question, Mr. Speaker, is one that I would like to reiterate now. My final question was: Would the Premier immediately appoint a senior judge to conduct an impartial inquiry into this matter? I think after this emotional debate under the guise of a question of privilege, the need for an impartial investigation is very clear.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I received a call from this woman about a week ago. The very next morning a few hours after I received the call I thought about whom I could go to. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we still had an Ombudsman I would have certainly gone to the Ombudsman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, if the Wells 'Real Change' Administration had appointed a Police Commission for the constabulary, I would have gone to the Police Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, if the report of the Hughes Commission had been publicized, I would have consulted that document.

So what was I to do, Mr. Speaker? I went to see the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official I worked with whom I trust. Mr. Speaker, I simply recounted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in his office what the woman had told me the previous night. I simply laid it out for him.

I realize the nature and function of his position. It is different from that of other bureaucrats. I did not put any pressure on him to reply to me. I said: I don't like having to come to you. I wish I could have gone to an Ombudsman. I wish I could have gone to a Police Commission, but I trust you, and here is what a woman said to me on the phone last night. You should know this. He indicated to me that he was aware of the investigation suggesting that he had only known about it for a short time. I left his office.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to say whether charges should be laid. That is not the point of my bringing this to the attention of the House of Assembly and the public, but it is a matter of public concern that a sexual assault allegation has not been investigated by the police after a year and a half. It is a matter of public concern that the Constabulary lost the file and did nothing on it for a year.

It takes a lot of courage for a woman or a child to disclose sexual assault and go to the police, and people should not be treated the way this woman has been treated. The police should have dealt with that matter expeditiously, independently, impartially, and should have resolved the investigation one way or the other a long time ago.

I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister has a new submission, something the Chair has not heard, then the Chair will listen for a short period.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, I would like to state what my actions were with respect to this particular matter.

When I became Minister of Justice and Attorney General -

AN HON. MEMBER: Acting.

MR. GOVER: Yes, acting. The Premier advised me to read Professor Edwards' article on the role of the Attorney General. From that article I understood that my role as Attorney General was distinct and autonomous and separate and independent from any of my Cabinet colleagues, and as separate, distinct, autonomous and independent from the Premier himself who appointed me.

At no time during my role as Attorney General did I receive instructions from the Premier or from any other of my Cabinet colleagues with respect to this matter or any other matter.

At no time while I was Minister of Justice or Attorney General did I interfere with the discharge of the duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

If hon. Members take the time to read Professor Edwards' book, they will discover that the initiation of the investigation and all steps up to and including the laying of the charge are quasi-judicial functions performed by the police. It is not the role of the Attorney General to interfere in those quasi-judicial functions, and at no time did I.

I would just like to state that for the record, Mr. Speaker, because aspersions have been cast on me, as well as the Member for Humber West, as well as the current Minister of Justice, as well as the Premier. I can assure the House that at no time during my tenure as Minister of Justice and Attorney General did I interfere or cause to be interfered with, the legitimate discharge of the duties of the Director of Public Prosecution or the quasi-judicial functions of the police in conducting their investigation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank hon. Members for their submissions. The Chair is going to reserve its decision to give it the appropriate study that I think it deserves.

It being just a couple of minutes before 4:00 p.m., if hon. Members would permit I will read the questions that I have received for the Late Show.

From the MHA for Harbour Main who is dissatisfied with his answers on questions related to health care. To the Minister of Health.

The second question from the Member for Fogo stating his dissatisfaction with answers from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning his questions on workers compensation.

The third question is from the Member for Menihek stating his dissatisfaction with answers to questions regarding Churchill Falls - Hydro Quebec, in questions he was directing to the Minister of Mines and Energy today.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Your Honour that there is a report on a Supply Bill that should be done before we go on to the next step.

We are in the process of reporting back to the Committee.

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

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply has considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report a certain resolution carried and ask that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that it has considered the matters to it referred, and has directed him to report that it has adopted a certain resolution, and recommends that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1991 the sum of $135,084,900.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1991, And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second, and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper

MR. BAKER: Motion 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, there is not a great deal that can be said about this piece of legislation. We are pleased to see that the Province is supporting the Gander Masonic Memorial Complex which is a great initiative being undertaken by the people of Gander, and also, I think, was largely involved with the families of the people from the Arrow air disaster. I think they have been asked to contribute heavily. There was a tremendous amount of support coming from that area. It is just an opportunity for us to say that it is a tremendous project, we support it, and we are pleased to see that Government has used the Loan Guarantee Program to assist in that. The Fogo Island Co-operative Society, of course, is a good initiative that has been in place for some time and this is obviously just another loan in support of that society. I suspect over the next twelve months we are going to see many loans for fishermen's societies, at least I hope we will, as that will mean that they are still alive and working and that the Province is providing a measure of support to them, and the balance, Mr. Chairman, are simply extensions of existing loans that were in place, so we have no real problems with this particular bill, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of questions, and one brief question actually that the Minister of Finance might want to address. I notice in Clause 4(a) of this bill, it refers to the Fogo Island Co-op Society Limited and the guarantee has been reduced from $3 million to $1.3 million, and in another area of the bill, Mr. Chairman, it also gives a loan guarantee for A L Stuckless and Sons Limited that has been increased from $500,000 to $650,000, and it gives the proper Order of Council, but yet in Clause 4(c) it points out that the loan guarantee's expiry date, the loan amount guaranteed for the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative Society will expire on December 31, 1991 and it is reduced to $995,000 and broken down into two different groups. What was it before is what I am interested in? What did it go down from? Was it over $1 million or $2 million before? Is this loan guarantee being reduced through agreement with the Petty Harbour Fishermens' Co-op? I know I have attended their annual meeting for the past six years, and they have always had problems with operating money every year. But they seem to come out at the end of the year fairly good in their operations.

I just want to ask the Minister what the loan guarantee was last year before December 31, before it expired, and it is brought down now to $995,000.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question right away as to what it was before. I could find out what it was. It is just not something that I carry around in my head. But your concern that - whether it was by agreement. It is my understanding that the reduction was acceptable to the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative Society. That particular guarantee has now expired, and I believe we are either presently or have recently addressed that problem.

The normal procedure in these cases is that very often groups come and suggest that they need a certain figure. When we look at it rather carefully we try to keep the loan guarantee down as much as we can to protect Government's position rather than to guarantee things which may not be needed. It may very well have occurred in that case that we may have done some chatting back and forth in discussing it. But be assured that the appropriate needs of the Petty Harbour Fishermen's Co-operative will be met and have been met in the past.

I do not know if the hon. Member wants me to find out the information but I can, and let him know privately or I can let him know as soon as I can right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957." (Bill No. 3).

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Motion number 3, Bill No. 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 4. "An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957."

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. What we are asking for here is authority to amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act to include a number of guarantees to a number of municipal councils for work that has been proposed. These are listed in the schedule. I do not think I will take the time to read them.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have just a few words to say on this. This loan guarantee bill I guess is the one that provides the different towns and communities throughout our Province with the funds that they have to put in their water and sewer projects throughout their communities. These loan guarantees I would imagine have some affect on the 60-40 road program or upgrading of roads in the different municipalities in our Province. I just want to suggest to the Minister that - and I guess it should be the Minister of Municipal Affairs dealing with this, although I know the Minister of Finance does the loan guarantees.

But a town such as Whitbourne with an $850,000 loan guarantee which has an amortization of twenty years, I believe, of that $850,000. I would just like the Minister to explain to us how does a town - this is just one loan for the Town of Whitbourne of $850,000. I do not imagine that is the only one. But the Minister might explain to us how a town such as Whitbourne would finance and pay back a loan of $850,000 over a twenty year period. How much is the Government paying on behalf of the Town of Whitbourne on this $850,000? Maybe in his files there he has some other information of what the debt load might be for the Town of Whitbourne, how much more money might be accredited to the Town of Whitbourne in different loans. This would be only one for this twenty year period.

There are many other examples here. The Town of Twillingate, a $552,000 loan. I would like to know how many other loan guarantees a town like Twillingate might have besides this $552,000. I ask the Minister to explain to the Members of this House how a town such as Twillingate - with a fishery now that is in desperate trouble, with a lot of people in all of these smaller communities that have loan guarantees, going to have a hard time to find employment for this year, and probably for the next four or five years if we do not do something drastic with our fishery - how are these towns expected to pay back that money with the loans that are outstanding?

I would imagine their mil rates are set, knowing what rate they have to pay back. I know at one time it used to be they had to pay back somewhere around 23 or 25 per cent of the money that they collect, of their collectibles. Not the money they do collect, but their collectibles that are on the books. They had to pay back 28 per cent of that if their debt load was more than 28 per cent of their collectibles. I think that is the way it worked.

I believe that has been changed some since. I believe Municipal Affairs has changed the grant system and the loan guarantee system. So that there are different formulas in place now than what I was familiar with when I was Minister of Municipal Affairs for only a few days. Well, a month and ten days, I guess it was.

But I would like the Minister to explain to us. We have some loan guarantees here for the City of St. John's. One of them is $1.4 million, which is a ten year loan guarantee. He might want to explain to Members of this House the difference in what the St. John's Municipal Council pays back to the Provincial Government and the Department of Municipal Affairs or the Department of Finance in their loan guarantees, the difference in what they pay back and the difference in what a town such as Whitbourne, with an $850,000 loan out, or a town such as Twillingate, with at least - well, one of them here is for $552,000.

I believe the Minister in his explanation should point out to the taxpayers of the City of St. John's that they are footing 100 per cent of the loan guarantees. They are paying back every cent that is guaranteed by this Provincial Government. Actually, I would say that if the City of St. John's was left on its own, it does not need the Provincial Government to guarantee its loans. The City of St. John's, for what loans it has, would probably be financially strong enough to guarantee its own loans.

Now when they get a loan guarantee from the Province, does the City of St. John's have to pay the 1 per cent or 0.1 per cent commission? I forget what you call that. A guarantee fee. Yes. Does the City of St. John's have to pay that guarantee fee when they get their loans from the Provincial Government? Because if they do, they should not have to come to the Provincial Government for permission to loan, or for -

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South on a point of order.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Point of order?

MR. MURPHY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It has nothing to do with the Bill. I have noticed this from time to time, and I would like the Chair to clear this up for me. I notice right now that the Member for Humber East, who is still on the floor of the House, is talking to somebody in the gallery. Now, this is constantly going on. I would like, Mr. Chairman, an interpretation, because it goes on constantly. To my understanding it could be deemed and classified as being a stranger in the House, and I need to know. I think it is wrong. I don't think, if the hon. the Chairman stands up and talks about decorum -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in debate. Sit down, boy! (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Linda Hyde might get your leader.

I would like that cleared up, Mr. Chairman. I think it has gone on too long. It is constant. If it is proper, then I would ask the Chair to say it is proper. If it is improper, then I would like it cleared up.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Just to speak to the point of order raised by the Member for St. John's South. I mean, on any number of occasions, His Honour has reminded us about decorum, and he specifically mentioned going to the rail with your back turned to the Speaker or the Chair. We are all aware of that. I do it on occasion, and after I do it, then I realize that I should not be doing it, and I catch myself and come back.

The hon. member has made a point that the Speaker has brought to our attention on a number of occasions. It is like any number of other situations in this House when it comes to decorum.

I want to suggest to the Chair and to the member that if you want to run this place like Sunday school, then we will all be up every day on points of order about members doing this and that - talking to one another, not paying attention, and chewing gum, or whatever. I think the member has made a point that the Speaker has reminded us about a hundred times already. So, I think I have to say in all sincerity to the Member for St. John's South that what annoyed him was the member who was speaking to the gentleman in the gallery, and the party which the gentleman in the gallery represents. I say that in all sincerity. I am sure, if it were some other member talking to some other person, the Member for St. John's South wouldn't have uttered a word. There is no point of order, none whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will take under advisement the point raised by the hon. member, and report back to the House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I just want to get back to the Minister of Finance and the point that I believe St. John's City Council would be financially strong enough to be able to float its own loans without the guarantees of the provincial government, particularly if the City of St. John's and all municipalities have to go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for permission to borrow. And, if the City of St. John's has to pay the guarantee commission of 1 per cent of the guarantees, I think it should be left to the City of St. John's to get their own loan so at least they could save that 1 per cent of the guarantee.

I understand, the City of St. John's pays back 100 per cent of all of these loan guarantees - one of not very many municipalities doing that. I think, at last count, there were twelve or thirteen municipalities in the whole Island who actually paid back 100 per cent of their loan guarantees arranged through the Department of Finance and Municipal Affairs.

If any of these twelve municipalities - I believe it is twelve, now - have to pay this 1 per cent loan guarantee commission, they should be left to borrow their own money so that they would only pay the interest rate, which they could arrange, and not have to pay back, to the provincial government, at that, the 1 per cent guarantee commission.

I know the Town of the Goulds was not an overly financially secure town, but when it did exist, before the hobnailed boots were brought out and it was squashed and squat and put into the City of St. John's against its will -

AN HON. MEMBER: Jumped in it.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, jumped into the ground, Mr. Chairman, and then pushed into the City of St. John's. The City of St. John's didn't want them, and they didn't want to go in there, so I don't understand and I will never understand why it was done.

I do know that the Town Council of the Goulds, when they were in existence, went to a private bank - they desperately needed money for water and sewer. They need a lot of infrastructure put in that town, but the infrastructure that was to be put in the town would have paid for itself because of the development of the land along where the infrastructure would have gone.

I know the Town of the Goulds did go to a private bank here in the city, or in the Town of the Goulds, actually, it was, and they put their financial position on the table before these private industry bankers and asked, 'If we were to come to you looking for a $1.5 million loan to do some water and sewer work in the Goulds, do you think that this plan would allow us to get a private loan without a guarantee from the provincial government?' That was ongoing for four or five months. The bank checked it out. Certainly the bank in the Goulds could not approve a $1.5 million loan, and I don't think the parent bank in St. John's at the time would be allowed to approve that. So probably that request went to Toronto for consideration.

After four or five months, the bank came to the conclusion that with the payment schedule the Town of the Goulds wanted to put in place, which would have been an assessment on every lot developed in the town to go back towards that loan, that the town could definitely afford this $1.5 million loan.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the Town of the Goulds can afford that, certainly the City of St. John's can afford it, and I would say a lot of other towns and cities in the Province would certainly be able to afford also, Mr. Speaker, to get loans without having to be guaranteed by the Province.

One of the reasons why the Province wants this control over the municipalities is to keep them from borrowing too much, I would imagine, and then coming back to the Province in five or six years time and asking for a bailout. Mr. Speaker, I think for the municipalities that pay back 100 per cent of their loans, we should have a good look at them and have them off the books, we will say. Let them get their own loans and let them pay back their own loans. They might save the commission. If the loan guarantee commission is charged to those places, at least they will save that. Now, if there is an advantage to having the Province guarantee these loans, such as a lower interest rate, then maybe they would have to look seriously at continuing this. But I would like the minister to explain what advantage the City of St. John's might have in getting loan guarantees, being forced to have loan guarantees put in place, rather than going out and borrowing some of these funds for themselves.

There is one loan guarantee here for $180,000 for twenty years for the City of St. John's. I can't foresee the City of St. John's taking out a twenty-year mortgage for $180,000. It doesn't make sense to me, because they will pay a lot of interest on that before it is paid for. It probably would have been better to deal with it fairly quickly. I can see the $1.4 million and the $1.5 million and another $1.7 million, you certainly might want to spread them over a longer period of time.

Mr. Speaker, there are other communities here that we are guaranteeing loans for. The Town of St. George's out on the west coast has a $200,000 loan guarantee spread over a twenty-year period. I would like the minister to explain to the House how much of that loan will actually be paid off by the Town of St. George's. Are they one of the towns that pay back 100 per cent of their loan guarantees? I don't think they are, but I am not sure. They have another smaller one for $40,000 spread over a twenty-year period. It doesn't seem very sensible for a town, a municipality, to take out a $40,000 loan and pay it back over a twenty-year period. You are paying interest on this loan for twenty years for a small amount of money like that. It would seem to be more practical for them to get rid of it fairly quickly and not have this twenty-year loan hanging over their heads. What they would save in interest rates, if they pay it all off - now, it might be to their advantage to spread this over twenty years and not pay very much on it, depending on the rest of the debt load they have. It might be to their advantage to have it, because maybe they won't pay a cent of it. Maybe after the twenty-year limit -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Time is up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I hadn't intended to speak in this debate but the hon. the Member for Kilbride, in the course of his comments, brought up a town in the district that I represent, wondering where the town would get the money to pay back the $850,000 it received in water and sewer.

As a point of clarification, I guess, three years ago when I was elected as the Member for Bellevue, the Town of Whitbourne was about to disappear off the face of the earth. Of course, it was put there originally because of the railway, it was a railway town, and over a period of seventeen years it seemed that everything there was about to move out. The roads and the water and sewer put in there years ago had deteriorated. As a matter of fact, at one time I think there was some dispute about the - when the contractor of the day put the water and sewer in there and the way it was done, I think there was an out of court settlement awarded to the town because of the way that things operated there.

The $850,000 that we see in this loan guarantee was $850,000 that was provided to put the water tower in the town of Whitbourne, and I guess, next year we will see another one for $850,00 to put in a sewage treatment plant.

A lot of this expenditure was incurred because, by putting the youth care centre in Whitbourne, the service had to be upgraded to accommodate this public building. The public building, the youth centre in Whitbourne, of course, is a great drain on the water and sewer system in the town of Whitbourne. These people, the citizens of Whitbourne, of course, pay up to $300 per household on interest on the water and sewer loans they have through the Municipal Finance Corporation.

We hear talk of the City of St. John's, the fact that they provide services to provincial buildings and the amount of money that it costs to provide services to provincial buildings. In the town of Whitbourne, we have the youth care centre, which is a fairly large facility. We have the medical clinic, which is a government-owned and operated facility. We have senior citizens' apartments, operated through the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. All these are provincial buildings. The Town of Whitbourne provides the municipal services - the water and sewage, garbage collection and other things - to these provincial buildings. Actually, we are quite glad to do it. As a matter of fact, if there was a move to move Confederation Building to Whitbourne they would be all in favour of it, or the Motor Registration Division from Mount Pearl to Whitbourne, where it probably should have gone in the first place. We would be glad to have it, since it would be more centrally located.

Also, in addition, the volunteer fire department in Whitbourne provides fire protection for these government buildings at no cost whatsoever to the provincial government. I think the government should be pleased to subsidize the loans on the water and sewer.

The other question that the Member for Kilbride brought up was: How can a community like Whitbourne or Twillingate or any other community in Newfoundland ever expect to pay back the monies that are owed? Thank God, we are the government now, because if he continued on to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we wouldn't have water and sewer in any small community in Newfoundland. How are we going to provide the services to rural Newfoundland and the communities in Newfoundland? This government is committed to providing services to rural Newfoundland, and the only way we can do it is by subsidizing the interest on the capital cost, and through the Municipal Finance Corporation.

The people of Whitbourne are paying their fair share. They pay $300 per household towards their debt, and with the amount of industry, and the amount of employment in the town of Whitbourne, where the average income is probably $7000 or $8000, I think they pay a significant share of their disposable income in terms of servicing their debt. If you were to compare it with the residents of St. John's, and I am sure the residents of Mount Pearl, if you look at the average income, if you average the income within these municipalities, you will know they will pay just as much property tax as the city residents or the City of Mount Pearl.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution, ask that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957 to provide for the advance of loans to, and guarantees of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by, or loans advanced to certain corporations."

On motion, Bill No. 3, read a first time, second, and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The heath care system in Newfoundland and Labrador is in a shambles and the Minister of Health continues to whistle past the graveyard, Mr. Speaker, hoping every single day that somebody is not going to die before they can get a chance to get into a hospital. Doctors are telling people all around this Province that the situation is so unbelievably bad that they, themselves have to determine who is going to live and who is going to die, based on who can get into a hospital, and the minister continues to ignore what is going on.

Doctors and nurses in the Province are at the breaking point. They can't cope with what is happening. Nurses are actually taking out full page ads in "The Evening Telegram" - they did a few days ago -urging the government to do something about what is rapidly becoming a very, very dangerous situation in the Province.

The only solution that the Premier can offer is to quote some cold bureaucratic statistics. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a little bit of information about what the Premier was talking about today, and how deceptive he was today in dealing with this particular issue. The Premier stood in his place today and quoted from the Fraser Report, the Fraser Forum, and these are the statistics he was quoting, saying, Newfoundland is among the best in Canada in terms of waiting time. What the Premier did not say, is that what he is factoring in here are plastic surgery and things like that. We happen to be the lowest, as a matter of fact, in urology and ophthalmology, the waiting time to get in to see an urologist or an ophthalmologist.

What the Premier didn't say is that we are the highest in such areas as coronary artery bypass. Do you want the statistics for that one, Mr. Speaker? Do you want the statistics for coronary artery bypasses and the five provinces that were surveyed?

MR. MATTHEWS: Tell me about it.

MR. DOYLE: Newfoundland's waiting period for an individual who wants to have a coronary bypass done is fifty-two weeks. The average for the four other provinces is fifteen weeks. Fifty-two for Newfoundland, fifteen for everywhere else, we wait 350 per cent longer for a coronary artery bypass.

But what about the other types of heart surgery? Of the five provinces which were surveyed by the Fraser Forum, Newfoundland's average waiting period for open heart surgery and other types of heart surgery, was thirty-three weeks. The average of the four other provinces was sixteen weeks, Mr. Speaker. We wait 200 per cent longer, and the Premier of this Province has the nerve and the gall to stand in his place and quote one little narrow part of the Fraser Forum. How can the people of this Province believe this Premier, when he stands up there to talk about anything? How can they believe him when they quote statistics like that, taking ophthalmology and plastic surgery and urology?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another cover-up.

MR. DOYLE: Another cover-up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde slide.

MR. DOYLE: Clyde slide, right, Mr. Speaker. But he doesn't quote the most important ones like coronary bypass surgery, he doesn't quote open heart surgery, in which we are 350 per cent longer waiting and 200 per cent longer waiting. And what about general surgery? Maybe the Premier was referring to general surgery from the Fraser Forum.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: You are certainly right, he wasn't quoting from general surgery, because we happen to be the second highest in all of Canada in our waiting for general surgery. So how can you believe this Premier? He stands in his place -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DOYLE: - every single day making these types of statements.

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

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me put the whole thing in context. The hon. the Member for Harbour Main asked me a question today about an individual case, about a person who allegedly was trying -

AN HON. MEMBER: Get control of your caucus (inaudible).

MR. DECKER: - about a person who couldn't get into a hospital. I answered that question by saying that it is not my policy or the policy of government for the Minister of Health or any other elected member of this House, to try to pull strings to get someone into a hospital. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what I said, and I could not understand why the hon. member was dissatisfied with my answer, and if I had left the House after that question, I probably would still have not understood why the hon. member was not satisfied with the answer.

But later in the day, as the events unfurled in this House, I came to understand why the hon. member was dissatisfied with my answer. Because he doesn't understand how to operate in a system where you would want a professional health care system, where you run professional engineers in the highways, this sort of thing; because he served in a government where its present leader stood up in this House and said it used to be perfectly correct for members of government to go to the Director of Prosecutions and say, prosecute so and so, don't touch this guy, he gives a good donation to the party. That is the way they ran this government for seventeen years, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, the leader of that party said: Let the people of this Province know that if ever we get in government again, we will again interfere with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is why the hon. member does not understand why he is not satisfied with the answer to my question, because he is used to a system, where the Minister of Health would phone and say: Poor old Harry, down the road - he doesn't really need this surgery, but could you pull a few strings to get him into the hospital? That is the way they ran the hospital system. That is the way they ran the hospital system. That is the way they ran the highways. Let's pave that road because that's in a Tory district. Let's not pave this road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wasn't certain of what it heard, but I just want to remind hon. members, I just wondered, on a couple of occasions, if I heard somebody saying 'a lie' or 'it's a lie' or 'somebody lied'. I don't know whether I did. It might have been a word rhyming with it, but I just want to tell hon. members that it is unparliamentary to use that word, and the Chair will check it out in Hansard to see if it came through. I just want to remind hon. members about that.

I will ask the hon. the Minister of Health to clue up, please.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not satisfied with his answer because he is used to operating in a government where elected members pulled strings and said who gets to see a doctor, or who gets into a hospital, or who gets paved roads, or who gets water and sewer projects. The hon. member might as well get used to the system in which we live.

MR. FLIGHT: Or who gets prosecuted.

MR. DECKER: Or who gets prosecuted.

We live now in an age in this Province where we have a government for the first time in seventeen years which is dealing with matters on fairness and balance. We make money available to the hospitals, and it is the professionals -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. DECKER: Do I have leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Number two is the hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's see if we can get some order back here. I wish the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations would pull some strings on the Workers' Compensation Board to see if he can speed up the process to alleviate the suffering of all those thousands of Newfoundlanders out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: This has been an ongoing issue. I have raised it with the minister before, and I have to say that next to requests from constituents with the Department of Social Services, it is the Workers' Compensation Board which gets the most requests that I have to deal with.

This weekend, on one occasion, three individuals, one after the other, called. I had an occasion, and I think it is worthy of note, of a constituent who has had a foot injury for a year-and-a-half. He went to St. John's some time ago and got referred to rehab, but he can't do rehab because his foot is not in position. I called the doctor's office yesterday to see if the report had been sent to Workers'. The secretary who spoke to me said, 'The doctor is behind in his reports.' It is going to take a month-and-a-half to get the report typed and sent to the Workers' office. The doctor saw the patient on February 16, and it is going to take another month-and-a-half from today, which is going to bring it up to nearly May month before the report is going to be at the doctor's office to determine whether payments can be made. That is just about three months that this person has been forced to live on social services, since Workers' Compensation cannot make payments because they are awaiting medical reports. That is one after the other.

I had the occasion, the week before, to find a person who had been assessed for a PFI in November of 1990. He constantly asked me about his PFI - permanent functional impairment. I said, 'Look, call in, give the person your claim number and see what has gone on with it.' They called back. A mistake had been made. The cheque was supposed to have been issued in February of 1991. Thirteen months later he receives the cheque, telling him that he can appeal. He could be dead by that time.

The list goes on and on and on of complaints with workers on two levels, one, the difficulty in getting your claim adjudicated; secondly, the slowness of medical reports. Added to that is the problem with therapy. If some patient requires therapy, it is not unusual now to go to your doctor and find that it is going to be another two to three months before you can get physical therapy.

The minister is going to address some of the concerns, I understand, in the Budget. One of the things that he is going to do is impose a 7.5 per cent surcharge - or that is what his report asked him to do, and the Premier has given some indication that they are going to ask for increased funding, lower benefits and increase the cost to the workers - a 7.5 per cent surcharge to employers.

Now, Mr. Speaker, employers perhaps would willingly pay that if they could get some dividends back so people can get back to work earlier. The problem with workers is twofold. Number one, there is the slowness, and number two, there is some abuse in the system that needs to be cleaned up. But, Mr. Speaker, it can never be cleaned up until claims can get adjudicated and we can get proper medical diagnosis and services in this Province so that people can avail of them. The minister has known of this now for a number of months, to say nothing about the Occupational Health and Safety $4 million or $5 million he never spent.

This has gone on long enough. The minister keeps procrastinating, and I ask the minister, When is he going to do something to speed up the delivery of services to the injured worker of this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, for the question, because it provides us with an opportunity for a couple minutes to detail a couple of areas of concern that he has pointed out in respect to the workings of the Workers' Compensation Commission.

There is no doubt, I think, that while there is a responsibility in the department that I am now the minister of, for the legislation that creates and sets the parameters in which the Commission operates, everyone understands fully that it is not a department or an arm of the government and that there is really, in a direct way, on a day-to-day basis, no more of an opportunity for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations or any other minister or any other member to direct the Commission, itself, to change its practices and procedures, than there is for any other person in the public. We can only ask, and so on. Right now, though, because we have the advantage of an extensive five-year review that was conducted and has been in our hands since October - we admit to that. So if there is any procrastination on our part, it is because we made a conscious, deliberate decision over a period of three to six months to consult with everybody to verify a couple of things:

First of all, to make sure that the very precarious position that the Commission is in financially - because we couldn't believe it. When it first came to the attention of this government, we could not believe that it had deteriorated to the extent that it has, because when we first appointed a new board of directors at the Workers' Compensation Commission, the previous year's financial statement, under the handling of a board appointed by the previous administration, indicated things were travelling along fairly smoothly; there was no need to be alarmed, and there might be, at the outside, a $10 million unfunded liability, which, considering the size of the operation, in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, was not considered significant or serious. Once the board put in place by this administration had a look at it, brought in a reasonable group of auditors and had an actuarial group study it, it was recognized that because of a deliberate accounting bookkeeping procedure put in place by the previous board and sanctioned by the previous Cabinet in the previous administration, that the unfunded liability was not $10 million at all, but $113 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

MR. GRIMES: And it was only because of a kind of fancy, condoned, cute bookkeeping that this was being kept from the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, and no one really recognized that there was any kind of major problem with Workers' Compensation. So there is no question that, immediately upon the new board taking office, they brought it to the attention of this government and to the public generally that there was a serious funding crisis with the Workers' Compensation Commission.

Recent information, which will become public in a matter of days now, will indicate that the problem is even more serious than we thought at that time, and the review, thankfully, points to three areas where we can probably show some improvement and bring some balance back to the system, Mr. Speaker, so that rather than being on the verge of collapse that over a period of two, three or four years we may be able to bring it back into a stable, self-funding system that it was always intended to be. There have been some improvements already that have not reflected themselves in recent actuarial studies. Three or four years ago the number of new claims per year seemed to be in the 10,000 or 11,000 range. In the past year, with the increased efforts and the scrutiny that was brought to bear by the Review Committee we are back down now to less than 10,000, just over 9000 new claimants and we are hoping to see further improvement.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of organization and delivery there will be some recommendations made to the Board of the Commission to see if there cannot be some improvements in delivery in the system. There will be some efforts made in the area of education and prevention to see if we cannot in fact reduce the number of claimants entering the system, and there will be some definite moves made in the areas of the benefit package and the financing of the Commission itself because it cannot tolerate deficits and unfunded liability in the range of $113, $115, or $120 million, so all of those areas will be dealt with. We are hoping that a comprehensive package in all three respects will be brought forward very soon now and that everybody will understand that this Government will deal with the issue upfront, realistically, and bring forward a series of recommendations that will hopefully see the long term viability of the Commission restored.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to further debate the answers to questions that I asked in the House this afternoon with regard to hydro rates that CF(L)Co are receiving for Newfoundland hydro from Hydro Quebec on a block of power.

Mr. Speaker, my final question was in relation to: has any consideration been given to allocating or consuming that power within the boundaries of our Province rather than giving this tremendous cheap stable energy supply to the Province of Quebec or New York, because that is basically what we are doing. My understanding is that when Newfoundland hydro comes into western Labrador, Labrador City, according to what reports have said, we will be paying 300 per cent more than what we are presently paying. This is a tremendous increase of electricity charges to the people of Labrador City and Wabush.

MR. FUREY: It is shocking.

MR. A. SNOW: It is shocking and the Minister agrees. He agrees with me that it is shocking. The Minister of Development says it is shocking and I agree with him. If he were the Minister of Mines and Energy he would not be in there attacking the people of western Labrador. What he would be doing if he were the Minister, I am sure, he would be in there attempting to give an incentive for the industry, Mr. Speaker, through cheaper hydro rates. Rather than use the Crown Corporation to collect more money from the residents of Labrador City and the businesses of Labrador City and Wabush that we are attempting to attract from other areas of this country and other countries, Mr. Speaker, we should be encouraging them to move into Labrador City and Wabush.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. A. SNOW: I know the hon. President of Treasury Board - the hon. Member for Gander - is disgusted with the Minister of Mines and Energy too for not reacting in a proper fashion and incur doing this. He is nodding his head in a manner that he is concurring with me. So I am pleased with that. There is some breakthrough in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is serious. The people of western Labrador are going to have to pay 300 per cent more because this Minister directs the Crown Corporation to come into western Labrador and take the money and bring it back to St. John's or to the Island portion of the Province, or I do not know what they are going to do with it. They are not going to spend it in Labrador City and Wabush. They are going to take the money, and - Mr. Speaker, the worst part of all this is that we are talking about power that we are giving to the Province of Quebec and the State of New York - that is where it is being consumed ultimately - and what does this Province derive from it? Probably one mil, Mr. Speaker. One mil, that is how much. That is how much it is, and we are going to ask the consumers in Labrador City to pay 300 per cent more. Can you imagine? Is that fairness and balance now, Mr. Speaker? I mean, can you honestly believe that is fairness and balance?

Now I know two Cabinet Ministers: the Minister of Development, and the President of Treasury Board, are in agreement with me. Now if they would get together and convince the Minister of Mines and Energy to change the policy, to instruct the Crown Corporation, because we have to remember that this Crown Corporation acts on behalf of a government. That is what Crown Corporations do, they institute a policy purpose of a government of the day. Now this policy purpose of this Crown Corporation enforced by this Government is to collect more money from western Labrador rather than attract industry to western Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Now, that disgusts the people of western Labrador and disappoints the Member for Labrador, and I would think that the people on the other side, now that you all know, now that I have told you and informed you all of this terrible attack on the people of western Labrador and the mistakes of the Minister of Mines and Energy to come in and take this money from them, and really all we are doing is subsidizing the people, the industries to locate in Quebec or cheaper power in New York, rather than giving it to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who live in Labrador City and Wabush or businesses that want to relocate from the Province of Quebec and move into Labrador City and Wabush so they can create more wealth, create more employment and more opportunities for our people.

That is all they are asking and I am hoping the Minister is going to reconsider and go back to Cabinet and say: listen, we made a mistake, we are going to admit it and the people in Labrador City and Wabush are going to respect us for it. Thank you.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what relevance this has to the questions which were asked earlier today by the hon. Member for Menihek; certainly anything that I heard now has nothing to do with that. What he is talking about now is the transfer of the Labrador City grid from the Iron Ore Company of Canada to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that has nothing to do with the questions he asked earlier. He never raised those points earlier at all and I want to correct the erroneous information he is putting out. There is nothing, nothing at all to do with a 300 per cent increase, this has never been the case, it has never been suggested, but what is in the report that was submitted to the PUB last fall, was a 15 per cent increase in rates at Wabush and approximately a 30 per cent increase in rates at Labrador City, and frankly, when you add 15 per cent to nothing or next to nothing and 30 per cent to next to nothing, you still have very little more than nothing, and the cost up there for 700 kilowatt hours from hydro power is little over ten dollars, it is a fraction -

MR. A. SNOW: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order, sit down.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy referred to a statement that I made - and a statement that he made that it was nothing, the rates are nothing. Mr. Speaker, maybe he thinks that, and that is one of the reasons why I stand on a point of order. He honestly believes that people in Labrador City pay nothing for power-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: The administrator in the hospital has stated that he will be charged $50,000 more per year and he will have to shut down the physiotherapy department, Mr. Speaker, that is not, nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. Members, on both sides of the House, when the Speaker rises, the hon. Member should sit down immediately. I do not think there is any point of order, the hon. the Member was up on a point of clarification.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the other point I would like to clarify is the point he is making that Cabinet or government had anything to do with this. This has been from the beginning, nothing more than a commercial arrangement between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and as of today, the Public Utilities Board has ruled that the transfer will take place on May 1, so, that issue is resolved as far as I am concerned.

As for the rates and as for power that is available up there, I clearly stated what that was earlier when I replied to his questions in Question Period. There is a block of 225 megawatts of power called the (inaudible) Block available to Labrador West. There is a 300 megawatt block that is available for recall off the recall block about 140 megawatts that are not presently being used in Labrador West. Long before I was a politician we were doing everything possible to find industry to go into Labrador West to use that power, and we as a Government are doing what we can to find industry to go in there, but first you have to have the industry and then when you know that industry is coming, then you can give the three year's notice that is required to Hydro Quebec and recall that power. At this time we do not have the need but when the need is there we can recall the power.

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

MR. BAKER: I want to point out for hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, that tomorrow morning we will be continuing on with Bill 4, The Local Authority Guarantee Act.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 o'clock in the morning.