May 1, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIV No. 18

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local young

athlete who is showcasing her kick-boxing skills to the world.

Melanie Haire, a sixteen-year-old Harbour Grace youth, recently was part of

the Canadian national team to travel to Kassandra, Greece, to be part of World

Pro Kick-Boxing Association World Championships, April 24 to April 29. Melanie

won Silver in the eighteen years and under category. Other members of the team

from the Province included: Michael Foley, who won Gold and Silver at the

competition; Jason Foley, who won a Bronze; and Sean Hunt, who also won a

Bronze.

Mr. Speaker, this prestigious international event brought together fifty

countries and approximately 1,000 competitors. I am proud to see Harbour Grace

and this Province represented in such an event.

I want to congratulate Melanie and the entire Newfoundland contingent on

their achievement. It is another great example of the high-quality calibre of

our youth and local athletes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity today to

offer congratulations on behalf of the Members of the House of Assembly to

Eugene Manning, a Grade 12 student of Fatima Academy, St. Bride's, in the

District of Placentia & St. Mary's. In the past couple of weeks, Eugene

has won three scholarships totaling $94,200: $50,000 from the TD Canada Trust

Scholarship; $25,000 from Memorial University Alumni Entrance Scholarship; and

$19,200 Millennium Scholarship Excellence Award.

Eugene is the son of Eugene and Joan Manning, and has an excellent academic

record, finishing off Grade 12 with a 98 per cent average. Eugene is a very

community-minded person, as a founding member of Friends of Cape St. Mary's

Ecological Reserve. He is an active member of the Youth Advisory Council of the

Avalon Gateway Regional Economic Board, and has just returned from Washington,

D.C., where he attended, with 400 other students from fifty different countries

around the world, the Future World Leaders Summit.

Eugene plans to begin engineering studies at Memorial University this coming

September. He will be off to Ottawa this weekend with his family to accept his

Canada Trust Scholarship.

Once again, we congratulate him and wish him well in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave to present a member's statement

on a matter from my district, a passing of a very prominent citizen?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you, very much.

I rise before the House today to pay tribute to the late Bill Bennett, who

passed away on April 21 at the age of seventy. Mr. Bennett was a well-known bush

pilot. He was well-known in Gander and Appleton, and indeed all around this

Province. Many knew him through Gander Aviation, his air service and charter

company which was in business for nearly forty years. He was well-known for

providing air ambulance services to hundreds of communities in our Province,

particularly as part of the Grenfell Mission. He provided a valuable lifesaving

service to those in isolated communities who required medical attention. Mr.

Bennett would often transport patients to the nearest hospital in stormy weather

conditions, risking his own life to save others.

In his lifetime, he accumulated more than 30,000 hours of flying. A true

pilot at heart, Mr. Bennett was still flying his one plane, a Beaver, last

summer.

He was also very well-known for his hunting and fishing lodges both on the

Island portion of our Province and in Labrador. His lodges attracted visitors

from around the world. An expert sportsman himself, Mr. Bennett took a hands-on

approach to the business and would often personally assist guests with hunting

and fishing. His passing is a sad event for the District of Gander, for our

aviation industry, and indeed for this Province as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you send a letter of condolence to the family

of Mr. Bennett, on behalf of the Legislature.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, known as C-NOPB, has today

announced a new Call for Bids for the Province's offshore area. Premier Grimes

is also promoting this new call today at the Offshore Technology Conference in

Houston, Texas. There will be fourteen parcels up for bid this year, with three

located in the Flemish Pass Area, four in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, three in the

South Whale Basin, and four adjacent to the Newfoundland West Coast area. These

parcels compromise a total of 1,969,664 hectares.

Last year's Call for Bids resulted in work expenditure commitment in excess

of $88 million. This Call, coupled with previous calls, is a clear indication of

industry's continued confidence in the resource potential of our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, with Hibernia producing at 140,000 barrels per day; Terra Nova

to begin production later this year; the White Rose development plan under

review, and the potential for a Hebron/Ben Nevis project, we are anticipating

major growth in our petroleum sector. All of these fields are located in the

Jeanne d'Arc Basin, which has been the area of the offshore where activity has

been focused to date.

Although interest in the Jeanne d' Arc Basin continues, industry interest

has continued to extend into the South Whale Basin, Flemish Pass area, and

offshore Western Newfoundland. This continued interest bodes well for the future

exploration activity.

I am optimistic that exploration activity in these relatively untested areas

will provide the new discoveries that will lead to a combined and continued

expansion of our petroleum sector.

Companies interested in bidding on land parcels must submit their work

expenditure bids by November 20, 2001, to the C-NOPB. Winning bids are solely

based on the amount of money a bidder plans to commit to exploration on the

parcel during the first five years.

Mr. Speaker, the 2001 Call for Bids is another opportunity for companies to

invest in a Province that has a stable economic base, sufficient and significant

natural resource potential, world-class research facilities and a $1.2 billion

worth of onshore infrastructure for our offshore oil and gas industry.

We look forward to another successful call and we remain confident that the

industry will continue to invest in the Province's offshore area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is, indeed, a positive announcement when a new Call for Bids is being

put forward in this fashion. Obviously, members on this side of the House wish

all companies and all parties well throughout this process.

It is important to keep in mind, of course, and I always use an opportunity

such as this, that members on both sides of the House keep in mind the purposes

of the Atlantic Accord and in particular,

section 2(

c) which states that one of

the purposes of the Atlantic Accord is to recognize the right of Newfoundland

and Labrador to be the principle beneficiary. It is, indeed, incumbent on the

government of the day to ensure that any activity, as it relates to our offshore

and the benefits as it relates to the people of the Province - it is incumbent

upon members opposite and members of the government of the day to keep in mind

that the purposes of the Accord are kept in mind for the benefit of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so that we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

are the primary beneficiaries of this great resource.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We do hope that the Call for Bids will show some significant interest in

exploration in these areas. We should keep in mind and in perspective, the $88

million that the government referred to as the call for last year has to be

compared with the $2 billion value of the oil recovered from Hibernia alone. So

it does not strike me as a particularly significant amount of exploration for

what we would believe to be a significant world-class oil and gas area offshore

in our Province. This government has to do more to make sure that the value and

virtues of oil and gas exploration off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador is

important in value.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform everyone about the National Child Benefit

Process Report 2000, which was released yesterday across the country.

As most of my colleagues know, the National Child Benefit was created in 1998

by federal, provincial and territorial governments to help reduce child poverty

and support low-income families enter and stay in the labor force. Mr. Speaker,

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is proud to be a partner in the

National Child Benefit. The partnerships we have established through the NCB are

an excellent example of federal-provincial cooperation.

Since the launch of the NCB, the Province has introduced major new programs

and enhanced existing ones to assist low-income families with children. The

National Child Benefit also includes a federal income supplement that goes

through approximately 54,000 children in low-income families across the Province

and is valued at around $31 million. This supplement and our programs and

services are making a real difference in the lives of families, children and

youth, and demonstrate our commitment to reducing child poverty and helping low

income families with children.

The 2000 Process Report shows that fewer Canadian children are living in

poverty and more families are earning money from employment. It also shows that

the number of families receiving income support has declined significantly since

1997. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador there are about 18,000 children living

in families on income support. While that number is still too high, it is down

from about 26,000 in 1997, and represents a decline of about 30 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, while we know that a number of factors are key to this trend,

including an improved economy and changing demographics, we also believe that

the kinds of programs and services we offer are making a difference in the lives

of children and their families.

Monsieur le prsident: nous savons que plusieurs facteurs contribuent

cette tendance, entre autres, une conomie amliore et des changements

dmographiques. Nous croyons galement que les programmes et services que nous

offrons affectent positivement la vie de ces enfants et de leur famille.

Annually, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador invests about $17

million in NCB programs and services that include the Newfoundland and Labrador

Child Benefit for low income families, including families on income support, and

extended drug card benefits for families returning to work. About 24,000

families receive the NLCB. Losing benefits for their children is a major issue

for parents who are rejoining the workforce, and these initiatives are designed

to respond to this concern.

Other successful NCB initiatives include family resource centres who help

ensure children up to the age of six get a healthy start in life. There are an

estimated 1,100 families and 1,300 children attending NCB funded family resource

centres monthly in our Province. There is also a unique pilot project for

children with autism, community youth networks for youth between twelve and

eighteen, and enhanced childcare initiatives including increased funding for

subsidies. These subsidies allow low income families to go to work or take

advantage of training opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, we are all very proud of the work we are doing under the

National Child Benefit. The programs and services we offer support our continued

focus on reducing child poverty, helping people find employment, and providing

families with supports they need to ensure their children get off to a healthy

start. These are major priorities of Human Resources and Employment, Health and

Community Services, and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. They also

complement the goals of the Strategic Social Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his

statement, and I would like to make a couple of comments.

I know the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is proud to be a partner

in the National Child Benefit. I remember back in 1998 the fight that we had

with the previous Minister of Human Resources, to get the government not to claw

back the National Child Benefit from people who were on social services, just

because they were on social services and did not have a job, when employment was

so low and remains low here in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) New Brunswick and Nova Scotia did that.

MS S. OSBORNE: And we finally did it, mercifully. When I asked the

minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: When I asked the minister to provide the people who were

on social assistance with a list of the jobs that were available in the

Province, then it turned around.

There are 18,000 children living in families on income support and that

number is still too high. It is down from about 26,000 in 1997. Demographics

have changed. There has been a lot of out-migration in that period, and a lot of

the out-migration has been people who are in that situation. While the progress

report shows that fewer children are living in poverty -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: The face of child poverty is starting to change in the

Province, but it is changing from single mothers on welfare to working poor

mothers who are holding down at least one job. As the minister said, welfare

rolls may be shrinking and some jobs may have lifted some people barely above

the poverty line, but poverty stubbornly remains for many single mothers who

have traded a welfare cheque for a pay stub.

There is a modicum of credit due to government for the initiatives, but the

fact remains that we are still sadly lacking in affordable daycare that will

allow our single mothers to go out to work and not just -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS S. OSBORNE: - work in underpaid, part-time, non-standard jobs, but in

meaningful jobs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I would like to

say and acknowledge that some of the positive changes have been made in recent

years, such as extended drug coverage benefits and other programs. While this

has done a lot to enhance the lives of people in the Province, there is still

much work left to be done. There are still many workers who work hard every

week, full-time, who are still living in poverty. What we need in this Province

is a living wage, not a minimum wage.

It is also not a good sign, I say to the minister, that in 1989 when child

poverty was at the rate of 14.6 per cent, a unanimous resolution was made to

eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Now, the latest reports of 1998 show

that child poverty has increased 4.4 per cent, or 3.4 per cent, higher than when

that resolution was made. That is indicative of the work that needs to be done

in this Province and in this country in the area of child poverty.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue which affects

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the future of an industry which is the

backbone of our Province's economy. This afternoon, the shareholders of

Fishery Products International elected a new board of directors. The new board

will now lead FPI as has been directed by the shareholders of that company.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has received a great deal of attention over the past

number of weeks, as it affects several plants and hundreds of fish harvesters

and plant workers in rural communities around the Province. Many concerns have

been raised, and I stand here this afternoon to reaffirm government's

commitment to protect the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, especially

those affected by the corporate actions of FPI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: In recognition of FPI's corporate nature, all interested

parties recognize that there was no role for government to play in the election

of FPI's board of directors. In fact, the leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party, Danny Williams, also recognized that the government should

not intrude into the situation, and I quote him from the Fisheries Broadcast :

I think it is an internal corporate battle. You can't get involved in exactly

what goes on with the board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, for government to get involved would have seriously undermined

the rights of shareholders and potentially devastated the share value of the

company. This would have seriously impacted this Province's reputation as a

place to do business, and hampered our ability to attract new investment.

Mr. Speaker, now that the new board is in place at FPI, this government

remains actively committed to ensuring the protection of the current FPI plants,

the communities, and the workers which depend upon them. We are also committed

to ensuring that all the current plants are utilized to the fullest potential,

irrespective of who sits on the board of directors of Fishery Products

International, today or in the future. Representatives of the new board have

repeatedly stated their intention to vest in the company and to grow FPI in a

manner which will positively impact the rural Newfoundland communities and the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government will hold the board

accountable and ensure that they fulfill their commitments.

Mr. Speaker, in a circular distributed to the shareholders of FPI, the new

board said, and I quote: We realize that FPI's strength and potential is

derived from its strong partnership with the communities and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not intend to close any of FPI's processing

plants. On the contrary, we are committed to reinvesting and enhancing these

facilities. Suggestions made that we intend to shut down Newfoundland-based

operations are scare tactics of the worst kind, and absolutely untrue.

Mr. Speaker, the new board of directors at FPI have repeatedly made this

commitment to the shareholders of the company, to this government, and to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can assure you that we will be

exceedingly vigilant in monitoring the actions of this board so as to protect

the interests of the people of this Province.

This government, and indeed the people of the Province, must hold this new

board accountable for the commitments and promises which they have made. FPI is

the creation of this Legislature for the purpose of maximizing benefits of the

fishing industry for the people of the communities of this Province. This

government is committed to undertake any legislative amendments necessary to

achieve this end.

Furthermore, I have written and spoken to the Minister of Fisheries and

current and future FPI quotas are harvested and processed for the long-term

benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We will hold the board accountable and will request that they outline for

government how they plan to fulfil and uphold the commitments which they have

made to the communities and to the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just want to make a few brief comments on the minister's statement

because we will have an opportunity, and a chance, to debate this thoroughly in

Question Period in, not only this session today, but in other opportunities as

well.

I will say to him at the onset that I understand why you are quoting our

leader and in the context that you have quoted him in that sentence is correct.

At the same time, if he went on to quote or understand what our Leader and our

Party, though him, and through all of us in this Legislature have said, about

what is important is the protection of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and what

is important is ensuring that the act, that is the law of this Province,

enshrined, passed, and proclaimed in this Legislature, is upheld and fulfilled

to the extent that it should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite that this is an

extremely important issue, extremely important issue. The people in the Province

have many, many questions today, as they did six or seven weeks ago, about how

this new board proceeds, how it intends to live up to its promises that it has

made to grow a company, invest further, grow jobs, is critical; but in my view,

our responsibility and obligation is clear, it is to the Legislature. It is to

the legislation that we have passed and in so doing, living up to our obligation

to the Legislation, ensuring that every company, and in this case the new Board

of Directors, because they operate under the same act in terms of collusion, in

terms of harvesting, in terms of processing, in terms of marketing Newfoundland

products. That is our obligation.

I say to this House and to the people of the Province today, that no matter

what board is there, no matter what CEO is there, no matter what chairman,

chairperson, or chairwoman of the board is in place, that this side of the House

will ensure that the obligations and responsibilities of that legislation will

be lived up to for the protection of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was at that shareholders meeting as a guest this morning and 106

shareholders voted for the dissident slate, 1,429 shareholders voted for the

management slate, but the 106 shareholders had 82 per cent of the votes. Mr.

Speaker, we have witnessed the primary, flagship, international fish processing

company controlled in the interest of this Province, being taken over by its

competitors from Iceland, New Zealand and Nova Scotia. This government, to its

disgrace, has actually facilitated that take over by its indifference and its

inaction.

This is a day, Mr. Speaker, when many people out at that shareholders meeting

this morning, from throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

thought they were at a wake. It is a disgrace to this government and to the

future of this Province to see this very, very significant and important company

being taken over by its competitors. And, act or not act, the future of this

company, and this Province, under the new group is very, very uncertain and this

government is responsible for it.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the government today. I

am not sure if the Deputy Premier will answer, the Minister of Justice, or the

Minister of Fisheries. I am not trying to be facetious because some of the

questions asked today may go across interdepartmental lines.

On March 26, in this House, I asked the question: Did government - after Mr.

Risley had come to see the Premier, when he was not, frankly, interested enough

to ask any questions at the time - instruct the Department of Justice to seek a

legal opinion to see if these actions that were occurring, and now have

subsequently occurred, did these actions, in any way, or would they in any way,

fly in the face of the legislation? The Deputy Premier, at the time, indicated

that Executive Council had instructed the Department of Justice to get an

opinion and then to give that opinion to Cabinet. He also went on to make a

commitment that once they had that legal opinion, that he saw no trouble in

tabling it in the House.

My question today then is for whichever minister will answer: Did the

Department of Justice provide that briefing to Cabinet and/or the Liberal

caucus? If so, when did they provide that briefing and if they did provide that

briefing, will they table it now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous consultations between

the Premier's Office, the Department of Justice, the Deputy Premier and the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture involving this position for the past

number of weeks. Yes, there have been consultations, both within the Department

of Justice and outside, seeking legal advice and opinion as to what the FPI

Act,1987, actually did say, and what it permitted to be done or what could not

be done.

One of the pieces of advice that we received was that there should be no

comment from government, in fact, in any manner to the public that might

influence the shareholders meetings itself. That is a corporate occurrence that

is sanctioned by the Corporations Act, and shareholders are permitted to

exercise their right of vote as they see fit. That was the first instance. The

second piece of the equation was to determine what, if any options, government

might have available to it if certain things happen that might be deemed at any

particular point not to be in the best interest of the people of this Province,

or in a community in which FPI operates, or any plant worker that might be

involved in that company.

As the members opposite well know, and I stated in an earlier Question

Period, FPI is a creation of this Legislature. When it was created there were

certain rules and regulations put in place, as part of that legislation, which

said what could or could not be done by those who were in control of FPI. The

intention at that time was to control the company because it was a big player

and would be a big player in the fishing industry of this Province to ensure

that its actions were always in the best interest of the people of this

Province.

Rest assured, as I indicated earlier, it is a creation of this Legislature,

and this Legislature -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I do not want a dissertation from the minister. There was a commitment made

on March 26 in this House by the Deputy Premier, while the Premier was sitting

right there. He made this commitment: That a legal opinion was sought from the

Department of Justice. When we get it, frankly, I see no trouble in making it

available to this House.

Will you make that opinion available in this House? Yes or no, Mr. Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, there have been

numerous consultations and legal advice sought. It was not deemed to be in the

best interest while the shareholders meetings were happening and the parties

were doing what they felt was necessary in terms of the shareholders meeting

which took place today, for government to become involved. There have been

ongoing discussions based upon various pieces of information and advice that I

received from legal council within and without, providing advice to the Premier

and the Minister of Fisheries in terms of telling him where we stood from a

protection point of view.

We also met with the mayors from all of the communities who have Fishery

Products International operating within their communities and the union

personnel, and explained to them that the legislation does protect those

communities. You cannot speculate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

The bottom line is: Yes. There have been different opinions, pieces of

opinions, rendered on different issues as they arose.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, while the opinion of the government may have

been not to comment during this dispute, the horse left the barn today,

Minister. The new Board of Directors is in place. There was a commitment made by

the Deputy Premier on March 26 that all legal opinions would be tabled in this

House. They do not belong exclusively to you. Will you table those opinions

sometime today, sometime tomorrow, or sometime the next day?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in undertaking to have the

various opinions on the various pieces compiled and put together and tabled in

this House. I can also assure the Leader of the Opposition, my understanding is

that meetings in fact have been arranged between the new board. We will be

meeting shortly with the minister in the next couple of days or so. With regard

to the legal opinions, I have no problem in having them put together by whatever

the minimum amount of time required to have them complied. The information is

there. If you want to put in a brief form to be submitted, not a problem.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the concerns that people have today are

obvious. They should be obvious to everybody. I would like to ask questions

surrounding the act itself. For example, in the act -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your act.

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your act.

MR. E. BYRNE: Do you have a point to make? It is not my act. It is the

acts that you are getting on with minister. Now if you would like to get up and

stand up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

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

If you could ask the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I might add that if you could ask the minister to

(inaudible) his comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: With respect to clause 7 of the act - and again, that might

be up to the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Justice, or the Deputy

Premier to answer. With respect to clause 7 of the act which states: FPI shall -

it does not say may - shall not "...sell, lease, exchange or otherwise

dispose of all or substantially all of its property or business which relates to

the harvesting, processing and marketing of seafood."

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this: Will you commit, or

will the minister commit, to ensure that that

section of the act is still in

play, and that the new board of directors clearly understand that

section of the

act is clearly in play?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague has said, we have had many

discussions in the past three or four weeks on this issue. The legal advice that

we received is that we should not get involved. Your current leader admitted the

same thing, that we should not get involved in the selection of the board of

directors of this company. However, we have given the commitment, we have told

members of the dissident slate that were elected today that we will uphold the

rest of this legislation pertaining to FPI.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this question. So he

is going to tell the new board that the marketing arm of FPI, which has been

successful in marketing as a part of the business of Fishery Products

International, will not be sold off to any foreign interests, either in Iceland,

New Zealand, or anywhere else, that all and substantially all of that marketing

division will remain in tact? Is that what the minister is saying he is going to

tell the new Board of Directors of FPI?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: As I said earlier, yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be telling them

that. We have already made representation to the new board. I hope to meet with

them, along with some of my colleagues, in the next day or two. This legislation

has been on the books since 1987 and we will ensure that all of this legislation

is adhered to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In terms of the current operations, clause 7 is a very important clause. If I

may just have a little bit of latitude, under the act, the powers of the board

are clearly defined, but clause 7 gives this Legislature the power to act. It is

very, very important. So we want to be clear, and I want to ask the minister to

be very clear, that in terms of the communities that FPI currently operates in,

in terms of all of the communities that it currently operates in, all of the

operations that FPI currently has, is government's commitment the same, that

there will be no change in FPI status in those communities unless first the

communities decide that for themselves? Is government's position as it was in

1999, as it was spelled out on March 26, by the Deputy Premier? Is that still

the position of government today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The current board has notified everybody they

have spoken with in the last three weeks - the communities, the government and

everybody else who wanted to listen - that they will not be closing down any

facilities in this Province. We will hold them to that commitment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, boards come and go. Boards come and go, as

evidenced today, but the legislation that protects this industry is what our

obligations are. I am glad to hear the minister say - and I want to be clear, so

I will ask him again because I am not sure he said it - that there will be no

change in status in the communities that FPI currently operates in and runs

operations in unless, first of all, there is a commitment from the communities

themselves or that the communities themselves say it is okay. Is that the

commitment that this minister tells to the people of the Province today and, in

particular, to the rural communities where FPI is currently operating in?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, and the Premier, met with mayors and councillors from the affected

communities. We also met with union representatives from those communities and

we told them that we are committed to making sure that the assets and resources

attached to FPI, and to those towns that currently operate under FPI, are

protected under the legislation and if necessary, as my colleague said earlier,

if the legislation is not strong enough - and I think it is as we look at it

today - we can come back into this House of Assembly at any time and change it

to make it stronger if it is so required.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this question

because he has not answered it to the satisfaction or answered it directly, in

my view. I want to ask him: Is he saying what the Deputy Premier said on March

26 when he said this: Let me inform the hon. gentleman of one thing, any attempt

to circumvent the legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to read it to you again?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Any attempt to circumvent that piece of legislation - that

is what he said - or any attempt to do what the failed NEOS bid was unable to do

in 1999 would not take place unless the communities themselves expressly said

yes to it. Is that still the commitment of government today?

MR. REID: Did I say that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: I told you what you said.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know how many ways I can say it. We are committed to ensuring that

FPI remains intact and that the benefits derived from FPI are derived for the

people in the communities and to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador,

and to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: They are not saying it, Mr. Speaker, and here is where the

trouble is. I will ask them again: Is the Minister of Fisheries' stand the

same as the Deputy Premier on March 26 when he said: As far as this government

is concerned will remain in place and any attempt to hurt Newfoundland rural

communities, as we said in 1999, will only be allowed when those communities say

so? Is that your position today? The same position that the Deputy Premier took

on March 26?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that the government will ensure, in cooperation with the

communities and those affected by FPI, we will ensure that the assets are

protected for the interests of those involved, and that means the communities,

the workers, the fishermen and everybody else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Clause 6 as well, of the FPI Act, deals with the issue of: FPI cannot request

continuance under the laws of any other jurisdiction. Now there has been some

opinion put forward on this issue which indicates that it is possible - and I

say possible - that clause is not enforceable.

I want to ask this question, possibly to the Minister of Justice. Clause 6 of

the act states that FPI cannot request continuance under the laws of any other

jurisdiction. Does your research or opinions that the Department of Justice has

shown, does that prevent FPI from being registered in any other province in this

country, or in any other country for that matter? Have you been provided any

legal opinion on that? An important question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the advice that we have is that it shall

continue to operate only under this Province. It may, of course, carry on

business in another area for the purposes of complying with the other

jurisdictions' ability to be in their jurisdiction, but that it must remain

registered here and be operated pursuant to the laws of the Newfoundland and

Labrador corporations act, and not pursuant to the laws of any other

jurisdiction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

Minister, in light of the statements you made in the House yesterday, and

outside of the House, I would like to ask you what you, or your government, will

be doing to protect the assets presently at Marystown, owned by Friede Goldman?

Can you tell us the direction you are taking in order to make sure that those

assets stay in Marystown to be of benefit to the people in this Province?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me just say first of all, to the Leader of the Opposition,

if I said something different, or if he thought I said something different

outside to the press yesterday, I apologize to him for that, because that

certainly is not the intent of any statements that I make.

There are possibly a number of ways that you could protect the assets of FPI.

They are being explored. One of them, of course -

AN HON. MEMBER: Friede Goldman.

MR. TULK: I am sorry, Friede Goldman. And FPI, I say to him.

We are exploring a number of legal options with the buyers here and in the

U.S. At the present time we do not see that they are under any duress, if I

could, during the 120 day bankruptcy period. Of course, as I said before, we

will leave no stone unturned to see that the assets are protected for the people

of Marystown. I think what the Leader of the Opposition might be referring to

yesterday - I think I said one of those stones - to the press was the use of the

Legislature. That, I would say to him, is probably a bit premature at this time,

but it was necessary. (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister continues to refer back to

chapter 11. That is what he is

hanging his hat on to protect the assets at Marystown. I say to the minister, my

understanding of

chapter 11, while it protects the assets at Marystown as far as

seizure and bankruptcy is concerned, it does not stop Friede Goldman from

selling the assets in Marystown.

I ask the minister if he has considered what will happen if the assets are

put up for sale and what his government will do, again, to protect the assets to

the benefit of not only the people in Marystown, but the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

MR. TULK: It is a good question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Of course, Friede Goldman could sell the assets. Selling them,

or removing them, would be two different things.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, this is a contract put in place by you and your

government. I ask you again, since it is a contract between your government and

Friede Goldman, why don't you bring an end to this and just cancel the

contract?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman that

cancelling a contract is not the only way that you can secure those assets.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did they live up to their commitments?

MR. TULK: No, they have not lived up to their commitments. That is well

known. They know that. We know it -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - and I am thankful now to see that the Member for Cape St.

Francis knows it, that they have not lived up to their commitments in the sense

that they have paid up the $10 million, or provided the amount of labour that

they were supposed to provide in the second and third year. In the first year,

of course, they provided more labour than really was called for in order for

them to live up to their commitments.

Now, to the hon. gentleman's question. That may very well be one of the

areas that you might have to undertake, but there are other ways as well. To be

frank with you, we will, before the 120 days are up, let everybody in this

Province know exactly how we intend to protect the assets. I say to the hon.

gentleman that the ultimate weapon that you have is right here.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, a final question to the minister. Since

there was an agreement in place that Friede Goldman haven't lived up to as it

relates to the man-hours provided, is the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador now one of the creditors that have gone forward looking for payment to

this government, to the taxpayers of this Province, along with the other

creditors that are looking for funding from Friede Goldman as well?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I would say to the hon. gentleman, that he is ill-informed. I

have to say that to you, because the truth -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, no. The truth of the matter is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: In his question he made the statement that other creditors have

gone to Friede Goldman, and that implies that you have gone to Friede Goldman on

Marystown. There have been no calls by any creditors, including the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the Marystown assets, on FGN. I am sorry. I

have to say to the hon. gentleman, under

Chapter 11 they are not tied into the

assets of Friede Goldman Halter.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the acting Minister of Health. Great concern has been

expressed by physicians about the inadequate space allocated for obstetrical

patients at Unit 5, North B at the Health Sciences Centre. Of the forty beds in

the unit, twenty-four are in wards with four babies and four mothers in one

room, a room that measures, I might say, about 20 x14 feet. With eight patients,

that is four mothers and four infants, in such a small space, physicians say

they have little room to maneuver around in order to provide adequate and

reasonable levels of care, or to provide for adequate privacy.

The present arrangement, Mr. Minister, according to some of the physicians,

constitutes a public health crisis. The minister has known about this for some

time. I ask the minister: What is your government doing about it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the question from the hon. Member for Waterford Valley. Indeed,

some concerns have been expressed in the last number of days with regard to the

issue that he has raised. My officials have been in contact with the Health Care

Corporation and have been advised that adequate space is available. That is not

to say that from time to time there are not some difficulties that do arise. My

officials are assured that, as I said, the space is there. Certainly the space

is there to deal with the concerns. Certainly when problems of this nature arise

it is a concern to all of us. None of us want a situation where the quality of

care is in any way negatively impacted. We are working with the Health Care

Corporation to ensure that a high level of care is available to all of the

citizens of our Province, not only here in St. John's but indeed right

throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, a final

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is the minister saying that he has directed the board of

the St. John's Health Care Corporation to change the wards that are there now

into semi-private type arrangements, and to find additional beds at the Health

Sciences so that there is sufficient space for mothers and their infants, so

they can get the care they deserve in the crucial days following delivery? Is he

saying that he is going to change the whole arrangement over there so that

adequate space can be made available, and has he directed the Health Care

Corporation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest to the hon. member that what he heard is not what I said. If

he wants to provide the answers as well, to the questions he asks, then I would

suggest that he send me a written copy beforehand. Indeed, the answer I gave is

nowhere near what he misinterpreted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, or whoever will answer for him today. The

Minister of Fisheries today referred to the shareholders meeting of FPI as

resulting in a change of directors. Will this government not acknowledge that in

fact what has happened here is a takeover of FPI by its competitors from

Iceland, New Zealand and Nova Scotia? And, how can this government justify its

indifference and its inaction in the face of the takeover of the premier

Newfoundland fishing company with operations in thirty-two countries of the

world, which has done a job for the last seventeen years for the people of this

Province and for the communities of this Province in which they operated?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the Leader of the NDP,

who happens to be a lawyer, is standing in the House of Assembly today saying

that we should have interfered with the selection of the board of directors of

FPI. Every piece of legal advice that we have received said that you could not

do that because to do it would be tantamount to nationalizing FPI. The effects

that could have on the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, not to mention the

company itself, would be astronomical.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Province knows that what

happened today was the takeover of this Newfoundland operation by its

competitors with the help of institutional shareholders.

Why did this government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; I ask him to get to his

question now.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Institutional shareholders, such as pension funds from other Provinces,

played a strong role in this happening. Why did this government not use our up

to $2 billion worth of pension funds, public pension funds, to also play a role

in influencing the future of this company and maintain it as a Newfoundland and

Labrador company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite how many

shares he held in FPI, because I doubt if he had any. In fact, prior to this

year, the total shares held by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in that company

was less than 5 per cent.

I have to also tell the hon. member opposite that all during this debate, the

board of directors of FPI was in constant contact with the previous Chairman,

Mr. Young, and all through this I asked: What is it you want the government to

do, or is there something that the government can do, to prevent this from

happening? The answer came back every time, saying: No, there is nothing you can

do with the selection of the board of directors of FPI.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

There is time for one quick question.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions again today are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. Minister, we have all followed the press, I guess, over the last

several days and we find that one of my federal cousins - not one of your

federal cousins but one of mine - is now putting a motion before the House of

Commons in Ottawa concerning the cleanup of the St. John's Harbour. I would

like to ask you today, Minister: Have you written your federal cousin, the

former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and is he onside and will he

support such a motion in the House of Commons?

I know that the provincial government has already committed their share to

the cleanup. I wonder, have you people made any representation to the federal

government in Ottawa to come forward with their share of the money for the

cleanup of the St. John's Harbour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say that recently I met with the ACAP group and they came and asked if

our commitment was still firm toward the cleanup of the St. John's Harbour. I

indicated to them that: yes, it was; providing, of course, they could find the

other one-third per cent funding so that the project could be complete.

I indicated to them at that particular time, they were to write to the

federal minister, the regional minister for Newfoundland, asking for a meeting

to be arranged. I told them that I would do that, and as of this particular time

it has not been done. I am waiting to hear from the regional minister so that we

can meet, ACAP and myself, to deal with the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today again to present another petition in a long line of petitions on

roads in my district. Surprise, surprise, I know, to a lot of members opposite.

This particular petition is from the community of Westport on the Baie Verte

Peninsula, still one of the communities, one of the 900 kilometres of unpaved

roads in the Province. When the minister asked me on different occasions about

priorities, I have always said to the minister and previous ministers that a

gravel road anywhere in this Province is a priority. To look at the statistics

again, of 900 kilometres of unpaved road in the district, according to the

information from the minister recently, that I asked for - and I thank the

minister for providing me with that information - there are some 1,400

kilometres of pavement in this Province that is twenty years to thirty years

old. So, we have a combination problem in this Province now of not just the

embarrassment of having gravel roads but the fact that we have so much old

pavement in the Province, like the La Scie highways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will allow the minister to get up after, to make some

responses, if he wants to. He gave me the information. I am just telling him

what he gave me: that in fact we do have a serious problem. We simply know that

$18 million this year, in this year's budget, that was bragged about by the

minister and the government, saying it was such a big increase, the minister

knows himself you certainly cannot address the serious problem we have in this

Province of some $200 million in requests this year on urgent roads, on roads

that are not paved. Again, like I said, the combination now is that we have some

1,400 kilometres of old pavement in this Province. I have spoken to members on

both sides of the House who have said the same thing - even the minister

himself.

We have 1,400 kilometres of old pavement, 900 kilometres of gravel road, and

we have $18 million to address a $200 million problem. You do not have to be a

Finance Minister or a genius to figure out that if you keep addressing this

problem like we do every year - when all the members line up at the minister's

office, we run over begging for a few crumbs to address a problem that has

basically gotten out of control.

Mr. Speaker, I have said before to the minister's suggestions, he can

plagiarize our Blue Book again if he wants to, but the truth is that we need a

plan to address the problem. Back even when the former Minister of Fisheries was

the Minister of Transportation, we said the same thing, and the other ministers

said the same thing, that every year we cannot run to the Minister of

Transportation begging for a few crumbs to get each district in this Province

which has gravel roads and old pavement, fighting over a few crumbs that the

government is throwing out.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that we have always made besides having

a plan is talk to the federal government because the problem has gotten so far

out of control that we need the cooperation of the federal government to address

these roads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 13,

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,"

carried. (Bill 13)

On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of Bill 11,

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The Dieticians Act, The

Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers Association Act.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Chiropractors Act, The Dieticians Act, The

Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994 And The Social Workers Association

Act," carried. (Bill 11)

On motion, Bill 11 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker. Again, I move first reading of a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act,

1999. (Bill 12)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act And The Medical Care Insurance Act,

1999," carried. (Bill 12)

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading of a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. (Bill 15)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act," carried. (Bill 15)

On motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker. The Concurrence Motion, the Social

Services Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, the Social Services Estimates Committee has had

the opportunity to review and discuss a number of departments, including:

Justice; Health and Community Services; Human Resources and Employment; Labour;

Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education; and Education.

I must say that all members who participated in the deliberations had the

opportunity to discuss and review, and I guess selectively pick out various

aspects of each department. I must say that all of us can say that the meetings

were extremely successful and that was indicative by the amount of time in which

some of them took place.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting committees, I guess, was education.

When we looked at education we reviewed the new mandate of the Department of

Education, and we seen very early and very quickly that the realignment of the

Department of Education and the addition of early childhood development to the

department's existing K-12 education system literacy mandate are indicative of

the government's renewed commitment to investing today for a brighter

tomorrow.

Between 1997 and 1998, and 2001 and 2002, the number of students in the K-12

system will have declined by over 14,500. That is almost 15 per cent. During

that same period the expenditure per student, excluding capital, will have grown

from $5,557 to $6,434, an increase of 15.8 per cent.

In recent years the Province's investment in education has increased at a

higher rate than any other province. The Province's pupil-teacher ratio, of

one teacher to every 13.9 students, continues to stand as the best in the

country. The Canadian average, in the most recently published data, was sixteen

students for each teacher. The ratio of our Atlantic counterparts range from

16.9 to 17.4 students per teacher. In September 2001, the ratio of this Province

will further improve to approximately 13.3 students per teacher.

I guess one of the things that has happened is that government's

reinvestment from the efficiencies that we have done through the amalgamation of

schools and education reorganization. The $160 million has been committed since

Confederation - the $160 million has been committed for school construction and

renovations. The largest investment in education since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Approximately $82 million has been reinvested to retain

teaching units in the system since 1997-1998, despite an enrolment decline, as I

mentioned earlier, of over 14,500 students. School boards have retained all

savings from school closures, resulting in $23.4 million being reinvested in

capital expenditures.

To date - and I will have to name them, in fairness, when I congratulate the

minister - eight new state-of-the-art schools have been constructed in: Buchans,

Clarenville, Hopedale, Nain, Norman Bay, Pollards Point, Rigolet, and Upper

Trinity South. Planning or construction is underway for ten more in Arnold's

Cove, Burgeo, Englee, Roddickton, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Lethbridge,

Musgravetown, Lower Trinity South; Manuels, New World Island, Plum Point, Pouch

Cove and Flat Rock. In addition, some major renovations and extensions have been

completed on twenty-seven schools and communities throughout the Province.

This amount of investment goes to reassure the people of the Province that

their concerns which were raised during the Jobs and Growth Consultations are

being addressed, and that education is the cornerstone of the Province's

economic development. Our unwavering commitment to continued investment in our

education system and recent changes that seen responsibility for education

spread over two departments allowing a more intensive focus on K-12 and

post-secondary education. That is a clear indication that we have taken the

message in the Jobs and Growth strategy very seriously.

The provincial government is investing $800,000 this fiscal year to achieve

parity in the school busing system throughout the Province. Previously, all

students in the Province, with the exception of St. John's junior and senior

high schools, had access to school bus transportation, provided they lived 1.6

kilometres from the school or more. K-6 busing was introduced in St. John's

for the 1999-2000 school year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I am just trying to let you know there is a school being

built in your district. Pay attention, you might find out where it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Unbelievable.

Starting in September 2001, junior and senior high school students attending

schools in St. John's, who live 1.6 kilometres or more from their designated

schools, will receive free school busing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I agree.

Government is allocating an additional $1 million to the Provincial

Information and Library Resources Board for the purchase of books. Government is

also investing $5 million to implement the recommendations of the report -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take his seat for a minute. The Chair

just wanted to bring to members' attention again, I know we have chairs that

are swivel chairs and it makes it easy to move around but many members often

turn back on to the Chair. We know that is not an acceptable practice. I just

want to remind members about that.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Government is investing $5 million this year to implement

the recommendations of the report of the ministerial panel on education delivery

in the classroom.

The Social Services Estimates Committee also had the opportunity to meet with

the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education to discuss some of

the initiatives.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did she say?

MR. SWEENEY: I am going to tell you now what the hon. minister said, and

how pleased I am to have had the opportunity to meet with her and hear the

initiatives of this new department.

She reiterated the importance of education as the cornerstone in the

communities of this Province. The minister announced the establishment of a

Student Investment and Opportunity Corporation with an initial allocation of $4

million to help provide programs which will give them more opportunities to gain

work experience and employment to offset the cost of their education.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne has probably lost

interest at this point, I guess. We have gone out of high school and into

secondary education.

In March 2000, $6.5 million was announced to expand the Prince Philip Drive

Campus of the College of the North Atlantic. I should ask my colleague from Bay

of Islands the amount that was spent in Corner Brook. I think that is in over $3

million. Unfortunately, he is not paying attention either. I hope he is aware

that there is over $3 million being spent on the campus at the Grenfell College

in Corner Brook.

There was a total increase to the provincial operating grants to Memorial

University, as well as to the College of the North Atlantic. Government is

providing $3.3 million in additional funding to Memorial which would eventually

enable a 10 per cent reduction in tuition fees, beginning this September, 2001.

Funding will also be provided to the College of the North Atlantic to freeze

tuition costs. The tuition reduction at Memorial will result in a savings of

$330 per year. I might add that the tuition at Memorial University is the lowest

in Atlantic Canada. With the continuation of the tuition freeze at the College

of the North Atlantic, for the third consecutive year, the College will continue

to have one of the lowest tuition fees in Atlantic Canada. I must say, I have to

congratulate the minister and her department on her initiatives.

We eventually went on and met with the Department of Human Resources and

Employment and reviewed their budget. It was noteworthy to see that the

department is developing a new computerized pay system that will enhance service

delivery and ensure that clients receive fast, efficient, and timely responses

to their income support. The department will continue to support clients making

the transition to the labour market. They have endeavoured to develop programs

in partnership with community agencies and other groups. These programs focus on

the link between economic and social development. Again, that is a major part of

the government's theme in the strategic social plan.

Government has also, in that department, already committed, and will continue

to commit, $3 million for NewfoundJOBS. The Single Parent Employment Support

Program will provide $500,000 to assist single parents find meaningful

employment. The minister already reported earlier that that program is very

successful, with many, many people finding a better means in life.

Under the Employment Assistance for Persons with Disabilities, the EAPD

program, people living with disability will continue to access support of their

homes.

These initiatives, together with our growing economy, have been instrumental

in reducing our social assistance caseload to less than 29,000 in December,

2000. The lowest level since October, 1992.

Let's see what else I have here. In Health and Community Services, and the

critic for health may want to pay attention here as well, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador will increase its budget allocation to the Department

of Health and Community Services by $162 million this year, bringing the

department's budget to $1.4 billion for total gross in current capital

expenditures. Government will continue to make significant investments this year

the budget, as was discovered in the Estimates: $3.1 million to reduce wait

times and wait lists for patients requiring cardiac surgery and cardiac

cauterizations; I am very pleased to say $700,000 for new mammography units in

Carbonear, Corner Brook and St. John's to further the commitment toward the

development of the comprehensive province-wide breast screaming program; $5.1

million for anticipated increases in the utilization of the Province's drug

subsidy program; $2.1 million to increase dispensing fees.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I have been reminded by my colleague from Torngat Mountains

that I forgot to mention the new building for a school in Postville.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true, another school?

MR. SWEENEY: Another school.

MR. TULK: How many is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four in six communities. Way to go!

MR. SWEENEY: What a member!

MR. TULK: What a government!

MR. SWEENEY: What a government!

Four hundred thousand increased funding for the medical transportation

assistance program, to provide financial assistance to people who incur high

costs of accessing medical and hospital treatment.

Other spending in health and community services will total over $50 million

for the ongoing capital projects in several places throughout the Province; $17

million as part of the $69 million James Paton Hospital redevelopment in Gander.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: Almost. Hopefully this year.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Don't forget my long-term care facility.

MR. SWEENEY: I have been reminded by my colleague from Trinity North that

he has $10 million allocated for a long-term care facility in Clarenville.

MR. FITZGERALD: Ten million in the budget for Clarenville? Where is it?

Where is the $10 million (inaudible)?

MR. SWEENEY: Ten million this year for the new Sir Thomas Roddick

Hospital in Stephenville, which has a total cost of $30.3 million.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): Order, please!

On a point of order, the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is important when people stand in this

House to speak, that they put forward the correct information. It is important,

when the member gets up and starts talking in the millions of dollars, that he

puts forward the correct amount. My understanding was that there was $0.5

million for the design and engineering work for a long-term care facility in

Clarenville, not $5 million. Correct me if I am wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: I have to say to the Member for Bonavista South that it is

also important to hear the figures that were said. It was not $5 million; it was

$10 million, I said. I should have said that it was half a million dollars

toward the engineering and design of an eventual $10 million construction of a

complex in Clarenville.

I hope the hon. member understands that. He does not want to hear the truth.

That is the difficulty of sitting in the Opposition, I know.

There is also $2.5 million for the Grand Bank health care centre, which has a

total cost of $17.3 million; $11.2 million for new facilities in Fogo and Bonne

million for several renovation projects throughout various health facilities

across the Province.

MR. J. BYRNE: Boy, you had better take care of them now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I hear the hon. Member for The Straits saying about taking

care now. This government has taken care of your needs with the funding of

Norstead, as I understand, so I would not be very critical of this government.

MR. TULK: I took care of you in January, sure.

MR. SWEENEY: The hon. Premier of the day certainly took care of that area

at the time, and he looked after you quite well. There is an old saying in

Newfoundland: Be careful not to bite the hand that feeds you.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who is feeding who?

MR. SWEENEY: The more important question, I say to the hon. Member for

Cape St. Francis, is: Who is feeding who what?

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly. You picked up on (inaudible). You're smarter

than you look.

MR. SWEENEY: I thank the member for his compliment.

MR. J. BYRNE: You're welcome.

MR. SWEENEY: It is not often that the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis is

in a complimentary mood.

Let's see what else I have. Government will also spend $32.4 million for

capital equipment throughout the Province: CT scanners, mammography units,

therapeutic equipment for acute care settings, and priority equipment for

resident care needs in nursing homes.

I guess I will have to be totally fair about the whole thing. We will talk

about the increases in salaries that the department has found and the government

has found for its health care workers. We have $1.3 million being directed to

personal care homes, to increase funding to facilities and to subsidies for -

MR. SULLIVAN: How much?

MR. SWEENEY: For $1.3 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Budget has not been approved, I say to the member.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. SWEENEY: The Budget has not been approved yet. That is the process

which we are going through right now.

We have $5.2 million on programs and services to ensure children get a good

start in life through an early childhood development initiative. We have also

met with the hon. Minister of Labour.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that tie.

MR. SWEENEY: I have to compliment the minister; it is a nice tie.

MR. TULK: Do you like that?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. TULK: I tell you, that tie is perfect. The Leader of the Opposition

in the gallery sent me down a note saying he hated it. You know what he hated?

What is going to get him - the red.

MR. SWEENEY: The red before a bull.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I have the opportunity, I will continue later.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to speak on the concurrence on the social services. I,

too, will begin with Education. The Budget of 2001 certainly indicated that this

government was looking at a new mandate, especially as it involves youth, and

that is encouraging; because I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to

youth, they are certainly the future of this Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador and we must ensure that the education that they receive is indeed an

education that will prepare them to move forward into the post-secondary and

indeed into life.

The inclusion now of early childhood education - I assumed it was included

before, anyway - especially with regard to early literacy, that there is going

to be now a focus especially on that particular part of the education system

whereby we can look at an education system that literally begins in the womb and

continues on a lifelong journey. It is important, I say to you, when we see the

education of our infants, our children, our teenagers, our young men and women

and onwards, that they are getting the type of support that they need once again

in order to prepare themselves for the life that is ahead of them. It has been

certainly a proven fact, I say to you, with regard to intervention at the early

stages of a child's life, it is most important at these very early stages that

the child is exposed to as much in the way of, I guess, learning experiences as

are possible. It is at these early stages that children learn how to speak, they

learn how to read, they learn how to write, they learn how to adapt to the

society that is around them. It is certainly a very positive move, if this

Budget indeed focuses on putting programs in place that will address the early

education of our children.

Moving forward from the early education stage, I would just like to focus, if

I could, on the K-12 system. Some of my colleagues will rise as the debate goes

on and will, I am sure, touch on the other aspects of the social services

concurrent so that they can speak on that aspect of it. When we talk about the

social, Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasis how important it is for any government,

for any budget, to make sure that the people - because that is what social

means; social refers to people - have their needs addressed; that every person

in our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador be assured that they have enough

food, that they have adequate clothing, that they have clean water, that they

have good housing, that they have opportunities in education, employment, in the

different aspects of life, that they have the opportunities to be certainly the

best they can be.

We must ensure that the finances of our Province support the programs that

are necessary to ensure equality, at least the very basics, equality in the very

basics of living: food, shelter and clothing. I know when we look at the social

aspect of any budget that it calls for a tremendous amount of dollars, but we

also have to be sure that the dollars that we do put into our education, our

social programs in general, that they do indeed address the priorities at any

particular time. It is important that we be fiscally responsible in making sure

that the people of this Province have the very basics.

To return back to the education, and I refer to the K-12 system, it is

encouraging to see that there are dollars being put into new buildings, that

there have been dollars put into programs, that there are dollars being put into

holding on to the various, I suppose, human resources that are required to run

the K-12 system. That is not to say that the K-12 system now is at a level where

we do not need to look at some of the shortfalls, I suppose, of programming, of

the physical plants, of the things that are related to making sure that the

learning environments of our K-12 system are indeed at a standard that ensures

the health and safety of all those that use it.

When we talk about the education system of K-12, Mr. Speaker, most people are

still talking about the aspect of reform; reform meaning change. I would suggest

to anyone that any education system - and the education system of Newfoundland

and Labrador is certainly no different than any other education system - when it

comes to reform or change, our education system has been evolving since really

the first class back perhaps as far as 400 or 500 years, maybe 1000 years if we

even go back to the Vikings. With regard to the education system in Newfoundland

and Labrador, there have always been changes that have been necessary in order

to move our education system forward.

The buzz word of the late 1980s, and the 1990s, had to be reform. Education

reform was talked about, not only in this Province, but in the other provinces

of this nation and, indeed, in other nations as well. The reform package that

was sold to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the early 1990s was a

reform package that many people naturally assumed would bring about drastic,

long-lasting changes to the education system, changes that would ensure

neighborhood schools, new schools or better schools, smaller classes and these

things that, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, you would expect to bring about a

situation, learning environments in the schools throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador, that would, now as we move further into the new millennium, into the

year 2000-2001, be very much settled; where the curriculum would be sound and

moving forward; where the class sizes, in reality, should be down to about,

certainly, twenty to one, if not fifteen to one, in some areas; where we would

be assured that every school in Newfoundland and Labrador would have a roof that

did not leak; where the furniture in the building would be up to scratch; and

where the technology in the building would be comparable to the time. I say to

the Member for Bellevue, those things have not happened.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: Oh, I have been here. I have been here, I say to the

Member for Bellevue.

There has been disappointment expressed, because what has happened in the

1990s has not been reform, I say to you Mr. Speaker, it has been restructuring.

The restructuring has been done in such a way that instead of lowering the class

sizes, in many cases it has made for overcrowded schools, schools that were

built - the member is shaking his head, but the member knows that the new school

in Blaketown, for example, is now at a point where it is overcrowded. I say to

you Mr. Speaker, that with regard to schools, like the one in Blaketown, the

student-pupil ratio in that school is not where it should be, because it is a

school that was probably built for 200 students less than what it is

accommodating now, and this September, or the following September, there will

be, perhaps, even more students going into that school. They have some problems.

That is only one example, I say to you, Mr. Speaker..

It is important for us to get away from the statistics that are so often

referred to. The teacher-pupil ratio, the per capita, just for a minute again -

I hate coming back to this, Mr. Speaker - but the teacher-pupil ratio, in

comparing it to other provinces, to other countries, is much like comparing

apples and oranges. The way that the teacher- pupil ratio is looked at in this

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is that anyone, any teacher, any educator,

any administrator that is part of the system, is included in this particular

ratio. What we have is really not reality, because again in many of the schools

that I am familiar with the teacher-pupil ratio is certainly, in most cases, not

below twenty-five to one.

It is most important that we realize that we have to look at, especially

something like the - I have to chuckle, I say to you. You put me off track that

time, I say to the Member for Bellevue. I apologize if, indeed, there is

sleepiness coming over you. I will try to gesture or something to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on, boy, liven it up a bit!

MR. HEDDERSON: - liven it up just a little bit.

I will get back, once again, to talking about the K-12 system and how

important it is, especially at the primary level, that we make sure that we keep

our class sizes at a level where - certainly, a thirteen to one ratio would be

absolutely fantastic, or even a fifteen to one ratio. This would give the

primary teachers more one on one with regard to instruction, to ensure that the

curriculum - there have been, I guess, concerns raised, and we will just branch

off into the curriculum. There have been concerns raised about the curriculum,

especially at the primary level. The primary level, as I say, is the basis for

what happens in the rest of the grades, and how important it is, Mr. Speaker, to

make sure that we have adequate resources in place at the primary level, to

ensure that the students of this Province get an excellent start. The amount of

dollars that are invested at the primary level will give you great savings as

you move up through those particular grades.

Of interest, as well: There is mentioned in the Budget, the amount of money

that has been used to ensure that the air quality in our schools, certainly, is

up to scratch, that the health and safety of the students in our Province is not

compromised. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in 1997 -1998 there was, because of

pressure from parents and other groups and the schools themselves, a program put

in place whereby many of the schools in this Province - and I say many but not

all - were tested for air quality. The tests were done and, as a result of these

tests, some remediation took place, but we found out in the years to come, as we

look back to 1998, that some of these schools that were tested for air quality

in 1998 and remediated, basically a year or two or three years later were

causing difficulties for the people who were in those particular schools. We

have had schools close down because of air quality. We have had schools that had

to be closed down for temporary periods of time while air quality was looked at.

I am not convinced, in looking at this Budget, if indeed - because what we

are hearing back from the boards is that they are strapped when it comes to

maintenance, when it comes to renovation, and when it comes to dealing with

emergency repairs with regard to their buildings. So, it is most important that

some sort of an on-going assessment be done of all schools in this Province, to

ensure that the air quality in these schools certainly would be up to scratch.

The textbooks - and again I am just trying to stay on the schools themselves. I

just made note of textbooks because one of my colleagues brought up, just before

Christmas, about the state of textbooks in a particular school. Textbooks

certainly are very, very important tools as we try to instruct our students, Mr.

Speaker. The textbook that my colleague presented to this House was a textbook

that should never be used. It should be recycled, I suppose, is the word I

should use these days. There are some problems, because not all of the courses,

Mr. Speaker, have the required textbooks that are necessary, because in waiting

for new courses to come in they are being forced to, I suppose, depend on used

textbooks, until the new courses come about. Again, these are some of the

problems.

Also, in some of the new initiatives, especially the Language Arts, there are

provisions made by the department to provide class sets, but I shouldn't say

full class sets, partial class sets of novels or reading material that goes

along with these particular courses. The onus is on the school to make do with

these partial, I suppose, books, rather than a full class set. They have to, in

some cases, fund-raise, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that every child in that

particular class does have access to the reading material.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that there are some fine initiatives, and I

don't deny that.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to inform the hon. member that his time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HEDDERSON: So, I am left.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to talk about an issue that I

believe is relevant and of great importance to Newfoundland and Labrador. We are

on the Social Services budget, but how do you separate the social needs of

people and the resource needs of people. I don't think there is any

separation. I think one has to be tied to the other. Otherwise, you can't

provide the necessary income for people in the communities, for children, for

education, for health services or any other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The reason why I want to take this opportunity to talk about

it is, what took place in Newfoundland and Labrador today. I guess it is the

conclusion of what has been talked about over the last couple of years, and what

impact it will have on children, families, communities, in the next one, two,

three, four, five years, or on into the future.

When I did an interview today down at the Delta hotel, I expressed my

concerns but I also said that I hope and I pray that I am wrong. I really

sincerely hope that my concerns will not come true. But look at the history of

Newfoundland and Labrador, look at the rural communities of Newfoundland and

Labrador, look at what kept it alive, look at what we have done in the past,

where we were a decade ago, where we are today, and where we may go in the

future.

I said this earlier today in a conversation with an individual down there:

Newfoundlanders, for some reason, either cannot stand prosperity or once

prosperity comes their way they cannot wait long enough to get rid of it. There

is always some dark cloud that will fly over to cause a problem.

I also said to a processor, a small plant operator, who supported the

takeover of FPI, which I was quite surprised at: Look at tomorrow, look at your

future, because you are small and there is going to be no place for you.

My other point, I said: if it is not broken, why try and fix it? It is not

broken, so why are we fixing something that is not broken?

I hear these promises about what this new group of people is going to do. Are

they good business people? Absolutely. Are they successful? Absolutely. Are they

rich? Yes. The question I ask is: Do they have a social conscience? No fishing

industry, no company, no part of Newfoundland, can exist today, in this day and

age, ever in the past or into the future, make money, yes, make a profit, but

combined with that they must have a social conscience. If the present or the

former CEO board of FPI was totally committed to the shareholders on Bay Street,

or wherever they exist, you would not have as many plants operating in this

Province today as you have.

Let's look at the individuals. Let's look at John Risley. One individual,

a multi-multi-millionaire, started the hard way, started with nothing and came

up through. Here is what his mentality is. Here is what he said publicly in St.

Anthony, and maybe the Member for The Straits was there when they had a public

meeting up there about the shrimp plant. They were talking about employing 200

to 300 people in the plant in St. Anthony. Those were the numbers. That was the

combined multi-species. As a government, we gave them a crab licence. They had

the groundfish licences, so with the shrimp, the groundfish and the crab, with

that expectation, you would think they should have been employing 500 or 600

people. This was his comment in a public meeting in St. Anthony: I am not

interested in creating 300 or 400 jobs - he told that to the people in the hall

- I am interested in making money.

If you sit on the business side of the table, there is nothing wrong with

that. I was in business and I wanted to make money, but put on the other side of

the table the people living in the communities of St. Anthony, Harbour Breton,

Triton, Bonavista, all of the other communities where the FPI plants exist

today, and if you use that type of business thinking, the shareholders will make

a greater profit, there will be greater dollars to invest in the FPI operations,

or wherever they want to build and expand, but there has to be someone lacking,

someone who will make less. That is the question I am asking. That is one of my

fears.

The other fear I have is the actual breakup of FPI. A question you have to

ask: Why did this company want to get a hold to FPI? They are already into the

fishing business. They already hold a great deal of the fishing industry in Nova

Scotia, in Newfoundland, in Iceland and in New Zealand. What is it they want?

Why is it they want it?

Let's talk about the IFP. Who is the largest competitor of the IFP company

and the shrimp companies in Iceland? FPI. Who has done the magnificent job of

marketing cold water shrimp? FPI. There is one thing that I have a concern

about. Prove me wrong and I will say thank you, thank God I am wrong. Who

markets most of the products here in Newfoundland for the smaller companies?

Cloustens, FPI. Who has the social conscience to deal with the fishermen, deal

with the small companies and deal with the people in the communities? FPI. Would

they make more money if they never had that social conscience? Absolutely.

Absolutely, they would make more money.

The other thing that you have to be concerned about is the transfer of

quotas. I am glad I heard the Minister of Fisheries answer the question today

that he has already contacted Mr. Dhaliwal. We saw it happen out of Burgeo. Why

today is Burgeo a ghost town as far as employment? Burgeo had 10,000 tons of red

fish. John Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, was on the board with

this group today, transferred that red fish to Canso, Nova Scotia. Today you

have several hundred people working in Canso, Nova Scotia, and no one person

working in Burgeo. Not one individual working in the fish plant in Burgeo. Do

you wonder why we are all concerned? Do you wonder why we all question what is

going on? The question, you ask: What can you about it? Well, I do not know what

can be done about it in the future.

Let's suppose this new company decides to close a fish plant in Harbour

Breton. Can a government tell them they are not going to close the plant?

Absolutely not. How can you tell a company they are not going to close a plant

if they have no fish to put through it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or to open one up?

MR. EFFORD: Or to open one up? It is not even sensible thinking to say

that we can stop somebody from closing a plant. If they decide to close Harbour

Breton and process all of that fish in Marystown or vice versa, or close

Bonavista and process it all in Triton, or the other way around -

MR. TULK: Like they were going to do last year.

MR. EFFORD: Like they were going to do last year, but they did not do it

because they had a social conscience. I am talking about the new company in the

future. Whether it is Vic Young or John Jones or whoever, because you live in

Newfoundland and because you are in the community of Newfoundland and you deal

with people every day, that forces them to have a social conscience. But if you

a businessman in Nova Scotia or in New Zealand or in Iceland, what do you care

about the communities, whether you lose a vote or whether you lose popularity in

Newfoundland? That is my concern. I have no allegiance to Vic Young. I have no

allegiance to anybody on the board of FPI. What my concern is, is the mentality

and what these people can and cannot do. That is where my concern is.

They talk about importing fish. I have seen a lot of companies try to import

that H and G cod. I have seen a lot of companies, and I have not seen any of

them make money yet. They say they are doing okay in Arnold's Cove, but I can

tell you one thing, they are the only company. If you look at the profits, the

end of the year financial report of National Sea, you wonder why. If they had

the local cod to process, they would have a greater profit than they had last

year. They had problems done there.

Our problem is, access to raw material. If we had access to raw material,

then we could employ our people. What we are doing in the shellfish industry

today, the shrimp and cod, we are trying to divide it too thin, too much through

the communities, and we are trying to further divide it, and soon not only will

we dilute the stocks but we will also dilute the job opportunities of the people

of the communities. That is the reason why I have tried to place so much

emphasis on trying to get the people of the Province, the scientists, the union,

the companies and everybody else, to put some energy and work in the return of

the groundfish. I am not going to talk about that because we all know the

reasons why it is not returning.

One of these days that shellfish is going to disappear, as sure as you are

sitting down in these chairs. It has nothing to do with overfishing. That can

happen. It just has to do with nature in itself. When there were thirty-nine

boats fishing crab, most of them were from 3L in Conception Bay when they first

started the crab industry. The crab industry failed, with only thirty-nine

boats. Today, there are 3,515 boats fishing crab. So add that with nature

itself, because it is a cyclical species, it will go down. God forbid, with the

debt load that is carried by the fishermen today compared to the debt load in

1992, 1992 will be like a Sunday school picnic if anything happens to that crab

stock.

What is the other negative thing I am concerned about? What is the one thing

that we faced in 1996 when I was asked to be Minister of Fisheries? The cartel,

and it was alive. Don't anybody say it was not there. They got together,

controlled the prices, and they manipulated what the fishermen were going to

get. This company now is taking the FPI present group out of the picture, who

brought some fairness to the fishing industry. They now have the control of the

fishing industry combined into about 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the fishing

industry.

Do you think now that the fishermen will be able to go to company A, company

B or company C and negotiate a price over and above the minimum price set?

Absolutely not. There is already today evidence in my own community, where a

fisherman got extra pennies for his fish last year and has already been told the

year, we are not even going to talk to you. It is already happening, so the

competition is another key factor. Once you allow the fishing industry to be in

the control of a few hands then you have some concerns. This is a provincial

issue. This is just not an issue for one person or one side of this House. This

is a provincial issue. We say we cannot do anything about it? Boy, how many

times have I heard in the last twenty-five or thirty years that we cannot do

anything about it?

We have more resources per capita in this Province than any other part of

this country. Look at the ocean, look at the forestry, look at the agriculture,

look at tourism, look at the oil, look at the gas, look at the minerals, and yet

we cannot get up in the morning and say we are confident we can get through the

day. Our population is decreasing, going to all other parts of the country; then

we have the multinational companies getting greedy and we suffer and suffer and

suffer.

Yes, I have concerns. I have concerns because I am a Newfoundlander, because

I live in a community that depends on the ocean, like hundreds of communities

around Newfoundland and Labrador; but add to those communities - and this is

what I really find difficult to understand - every urban centre in Newfoundland

and Labrador depends on the rural communities.

You take that $1 billion out of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, how

many businesses in St. John's, Gander, Grand Falls, Corner Brook, Goose Bay,

how many companies would go bankrupt? You would be shocked to know how many

companies would go bankrupt today. So, the whole of the economy of Newfoundland

and Labrador depends on the fishing industry; not only, but it is a major part

of the economy and the development and the success of the whole of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

MR. FITZGERALD: Where is it going to be controlled from now?

MR. EFFORD: My concern is: I only hope, number one, that they maintain a

social conscience. Number two, I only hope and pray that they do not break up

this company. I do not know how many people in this House have been down to the

Boston Seafood Show, but I have had the pleasure to go down there. I can tell

you one thing: it made me feel proud when I went to the Boston Seafood Show and

saw FPI as the most noticeable company and booth in the whole of the Boston

Seafood Show, which was the largest seafood show in the world. They had the

number one recognition for the five years that I was down there at the Boston

Seafood Show.

Give that respect to the fishing industry of Newfoundland alone, besides what

it does internally in the Province, the respect worldwide. It is just not

dollars and cents. It is not just what we make today; it is what we make next

year and the year after, and maintaining that respect and credibility into the

fishing industry.

The shellfish now - Mr. Risley, does he want the scallops they have in Nova

Scotia? That is the question you have to ask. FPI has a major scallop plant in

Nova Scotia. Does somebody else want the groundfish? FPI owns 92 per cent of all

offshore flatfish stocks; 92 per cent. Can you imagine the value in dollars and

cents that is today? But, when the stocks return to the numbers that we expect

them to return, what will it be worth? Just think about it.

So, we have the shellfish in Newfoundland, you have the groundfish in

Newfoundland, you have the scallops in Nova Scotia, and you have the marketing

company. You have four or five companies here involved in this. Will one company

want the marketing? Will the other company want the shellfish in Nova Scotia?

Will somebody else want the groundfish in Newfoundland? These are all the

questions. Will it go the way of the past? These are all the questions that have

to be asked.

When you get people like Mr. Crosbie, a very influential man when he goes to

the Bay Street investors and talks about what can happen if this goes to court,

or what cannot happen - very influential in changing the minds and thinking of

people. When you get people like Derrick Rowe and John Risley, who like to

millions upon millions upon millions, and have made millions upon millions -

MR. FITZGERALD: Guess who was showing around the gentleman from New

Zealand today?

MR. EFFORD: I have no idea.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Ed Roberts.

MR. EFFORD: I don't talk to Ed Roberts anymore, so I am not going to

comment on it.

Anyhow, seriously, I just wanted to express my concerns. This is a major

issue, because we, today, have a billion dollar industry in this Province. The

same export value, by the way, as the Iron Ore Company of Labrador who employs -

What, 2,500 to 3,000 people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Okay, and the fishing industry 20,000 people. A billion

dollar export value. We have to ensure, as people in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen hundred in total.

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen hundred.

We have to ensure the people in this Province that we cannot go backwards.

For the sake of the people in our communities, for the sake of the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador, for the sake of all of the people in this Province,

we have to ensure, in whatever means possible, that we move forward and not

backwards. God knows, in the last twenty-five or thirty years in the fishing

industry we have moved backwards enough. Why do we have fish plants working ten

or fifteen weeks of the year when they should be working forty or fifty? We had

enough resource out there to keep every plant in Newfoundland and Labrador going

full-time but the foreigners, the multi-national companies and the factor

freezer trawlers took it away, and now we are paying a price for it.

So in these few moments and with these few words I just wanted to express and

bring to the attention of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador exactly what

can happen in this Province in the fishing industry and what kind of an impact

it would have on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not going to say

I am any different than anyone in this House of Assembly, I, for one, do not

want to see another person in this Province lose a job. In fact, what I want to

see is people working longer weeks of the year and longer seasons or whatever

the terminology you put on it, and stability in the income of those communities

in the future. That can only work one way, that we focus on our resources and we

maximize our resources to the benefits of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and

not to some multi-national companies.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a great pleasure today that I get up and speak on this social debate.

The first thing that I would like to address is a topic that was brought up

earlier in the House of Assembly by my hon. colleague from Waterford Kenmount.

It has to do with the obstetrical unit at the Health Sciences Centre. I have had

some experience with my children in the obstetrical unit over - proudly having

grandchildren for me. I visited and I have seen the close quarters and have

heard complaints from a lot of the patients there who - I guess they did not

take the dimensions of the room, but they realize that there are four moms and

four babies in a room twenty by fourteen that is really only suitable for two

people.

I noticed that when my hon. colleague was up asking questions that it was

treated a little bit lightly by a couple of members opposite. There was a little

bit of snickering, so to speak, going on. I took great offence to that because

as a woman and having given - I say to the members opposite, if the hat fits

wear it. They know of whom I speak.

However, being a mother of six children I know the joys of going in and

having a baby but I also realize that there are some moments after you deliver -

and by the way, the case room over at the new Health Sciences Center is

state-of-the-art. When you have your baby over there you are kept down there for

ten and twelve hours, which is totally unnecessary. Then you are herded, so to

speak, upstairs and put in a room with your baby, also with three other mothers

and their babies, and that room is twenty by fourteen. Now there are many times

after you have delivered a baby that you want quiet time and some personal time

for yourself. I say that having eight patients - that is the four moms and the

four babies - in a room this size is not conducive to that.

This government, in its health plans, constantly advocates for early

intervention. One of the greatest things in early intervention in the health of

a baby is when a mom is able to breast-feed. I say to you, what new mother would

want to - how conducive is it to breast-feed your baby when you are in a room

with three other women and three babies? Of course, after the birth of a child,

which is normally a joyous time in a family, a lot of family, friends and older

siblings of the baby come to visit. How conducive is it to a new mom to start

breast-feeding her baby when she is put in a situation like this? It is almost

impossible to pull the curtain around because the area there is just too small.

The nurses cannot get around the bed, physically cannot get around the bed.

There is a mom's bed, there is the baby's little bassinet on wheels, and

normally there are one or two visitors - but even if there are no visitors,

there physically isn't space for the nurses to get around the beds when the

curtains are pulled. This is a very serious situation. We are talking about

newborn babies and the ability of mothers to breast-feed and be able to do that

in a modicum of privacy, at least. I say this is not a very nice thing and I

think that my hon. colleague, who did not get to finish his questions today,

will probably be addressing this issue a little bit further as the health

critic.

I suggest that when I heard the complaints - when I seen it for myself and

then heard complaints from the moms, I mean I thought that it really was not a

good situation. Then I heard complaints from other mothers who had been in and

people who had been over to visit their relatives and said: My gosh, it is an

awful place. People are herded in there just like cattle. It is really cramped

quarters. It is really not a good place to have moms who have just delivered,

and their babies. When I seen letter in the paper this weekend from Dr. O'Shea,

I then realized that when a doctor will take the time to go to the paper with a

situation like this that it is, in fact, a serious situation. It had confirmed

how serious I thought the situation was.

I would suggest that when the minister responded today he said no, he did not

make representation to the boards, that they changed the situation. Now the

responsibility of this is being dumped from the government out to the health

boards, but the spaces are over there and the doctor has confirmed that the

spaces are over there in the hospital. These rooms can, in fact, be turned into

semi-private rooms and more of the vacant rooms which have been shut down can be

utilized. I think to do it is cost negligible and just means that this

government must have the will to talk to the health care boards and see to it

that this is done so that the moms are not ushered out of the hospital

immediately, because that is basically what is happening. The doctor said they

have one thing on their minds, and that is to get the women up into the rooms

and discharged sometimes within a twenty-four hour period after giving birth to

a baby. While you do feel well enough to go home at that time, there are some

supports that do need to be in place for the moms, especially for the moms who

are breast-feeding. I do not know if I read it in the letter, but I am getting

the impression that breast-feeding is starting to be on the decline because of

the situation that these mothers find themselves in.

That is all I have to say on that particular issue in our social services

committee. I do trust that the government will make representation and look upon

this as quite a serious problem. As I said, it is relatively cost negligible. It

is just a matter of utilizing other rooms and putting two beds into what is now

four-bed wards, and not conducive to the women.

The other thing that I would like to address today is the issue of a Child

Advocate. Now I realize that the Premier had that in his platform and I think it

is the will of the government that a Child Advocate be instated here in the

Province, as was suggested and strongly recommended by the All Party Committee

on children's rights. However, I notice here in the Speech from the Throne

that they also spoke about appointing an Ombudsman. It says: "My Government

will introduce legislation during this Session to create the Office of the

Ombudsman." That is something that the Opposition has been crying out for,

for some time, since the Ombudsman's Office was disbanded some years ago. I am

also very pleased to see that the Ombudsman will be established as an Officer of

the House of Assembly, and so it should be, that it have the same status as the

Auditor General. I am very pleased to see that.

However, when I turn the next page and I see: "My Government will also

be establishing a Child Advocate to advance the concerns and issues of our

children." I am very pleased to see that. However, I do not know if it was

an omission error, if it was just omitted and it was meant to be that the Child

Advocate would be an Officer of the House of Assembly, or whether it was by

design that it was left out, that the Child Advocate will not, in fact, be an

Officer of the House of Assembly but will be answerable to a minister. That will

negate any good that the Child Advocate can do because it will put the Child

Advocate as reporting to the minister. The Child Advocate is not going to take

the policies which the government has in place now and some of the policies that

are not strong enough for the protection of our children, and policies that are

not child friendly - the Child Advocate may not, in fact, feel like going back

to the minister with that, but if the Child Advocate is an Officer of the House

of Assembly then those issues can be addressed more at an arm's length. I

really would like to have it cleared up, whether the Child Advocate will be an

Officer of the House of Assembly.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) I am not sure that the government has made up its

mind as to where it wants to go in that particular direction. I think it is

looking at what is going to happen in other jurisdictions to see what their

success has been, but the hon. member is making a good point.

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, I would be very concerned. I say to the hon. the

Government House Leader, I would be very, very concerned if the Child Advocate

is not at arm's length and does not enjoy the same status as the Auditor

General because that puts all of the government policies - and I am not

suggesting that the government has design to make policies that are not child

friendly, but obviously there are some policies and practices that are going on

out there that are not that child friendly. If there is an arm's length person

who is reporting back to the House of Assembly, then the necessary checks and

balances will be in place. Basically, we are talking about the children of our

Province. Now that we have a blank page and we can write our own direction when

this Child Advocate is appointed, we can appoint one who would have the children

of the Province - have their best interest at heart.

It says that the Advocate will offer advice on children's programs and

services. That is something that is happening now from the various stakeholders

out there in the community, the various committees and things. They are already

offering the government advice. I would say that we need somebody in place who

can, as I said, be at arm's length and report back to the House of Assembly.

An ideal situation would be a case advocate. However, I realize that would

probably not be tailored to the economic needs of the Province, that the

government probably would not be able to handle a case advocate, but if we had

an advocate who could take complaints and then appoint the person, the child, or

the representative of the child, a systems advocate, one who could point the

child in a direction of where to go to get the necessary help.

Also, if there was a case which came in - and God forbid that it ever should

happen again like which happened back when the Mount Cashel thing started to be

reported years ago - somebody who could take that and treat it more as - that

particular one could be treated as a case. Once again, because of the system

that was in place at the time, where one person covered for the other person who

covered for the other person through the justice systems and stuff -

unfortunately, that was allowed to continue and the victims were allowed to

remain victims even though they had probably moved out of the building. They

were allowed to remain victims for years because there was nobody there to

address that situation.

I do hope that the government, when they are appointing a Child Advocate -

they do have the blank page, and they have the very strong recommendations from

the All Party committee as to the kind of Child Advocate that should be

appointed - I do hope that they take into consideration the most important

players in this, and that would be the children.

I will move on to another issue now, and that is respite workers. We still

have respite workers out there who are taking care of many of our most

vulnerable citizens, people who are physically challenged, people who are

mentally challenged, people who have a myriad of problems, and they are being

paid $5.84 an hour. That is one bad thing. The other thing is that the care

givers or the families of these respite workers have been designated the

employers. Along with that, and to add to that, many of them do not mind being

designated employers; however, workers' compensation is not available to them.

This puts a lot of people in serious jeopardy. One is the worker who comes on,

because many of the people they take care of do have severe physical challenges

and need to be lifted from the wheelchair into the bathtub and things, and many

of them have developmental challenges that cause them to sometimes act out and

become somewhat violent.

If you have a respite worker there who is being paid just $5.84 an hour, that

is bad enough. Then, when they are not covered under workers' compensation,

that compounds the problem. Many of the people who would be willing to work for

that, and very good respite workers out there, are taking a second look because

they realize that if they are hurt on the job and cannot go to work any more,

there is absolutely no protection out there. This has a detrimental effect on

the people they are taking care of, because now good respite workers are not

available. It certainly is affecting the employment, but I would say that it is

affecting the families and care givers as well. Because if the respite worker

who is taking care of the person in their charge is injured, then that respite

worker, I think - I stand to be corrected on this - I understand they can hold

the employer responsible and sue them and go for damages. I think that when the

government divested itself from the responsibility from being the employer for

the respite workers, it put a lot of people in this Province in jeopardy. Who

now is responsible for the respite workers, and who is responsible for the

people who find themselves in a situation where they need to have respite care,

either because of physical needs or because of developmental needs?

At this time, too, I would also like to address the government's handling

of people who are mentally challenged. I have brought this up in the House of

Assembly before and it remains a major concern to me. That is when folks who are

suffering from mental illness, or who are developmentally delayed, find

themselves in a situation where they are acting out and they cannot be

reasonably physically handled or controlled by the person who is taking care of

them, and they have had to call the social worker. When the social worker is

called, unfortunately, the only thing she can do in a situation like this is

say: Call the RNC; or, in the case of another jurisdiction, call the RCMP.

They have come and, because of the lack of facilities, they have had no othe