November

28, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 40

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise hon.

members that government has decided to re-examine the arming policy of the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary, which provides policing service to St. John's, Mount

Pearl, the northeast Avalon, Corner Brook, Labrador West, including Churchill

Falls.

The full arming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has

been a subject of considerable discussion for a number of years. In particular,

the discussion has centred around the wearing of side arms on a full-time basis

by the patrol division of the force.

Mr. Speaker, I must make it clear that the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary is an armed police force. The current firearms policy, however,

requires officers to place firearms in vehicle trunks and seek the permission of

the divisional commander or designate to carry the firearms in the line of duty.

Because of this policy, it is not unusual for an officer to park behind a

shopping centre or other public building in order to arm himself or herself,

taking valuable time out of what should be a direct route to attend a situation

at hand. The policy clearly compromises public safety and the safety of the RNC

officers. Especially because officers often cannot predict when firearms are

going to be needed.

In the interest of ensuring the lives of the public and that

of the officers are properly protected, government has decided to re-examine the

current firearms policy to determine whether or not officers should carry guns

on a continuous basis as part of their uniform. I would also like to point out

that the members of the RNC are highly trained in the use of firearms, and they

have demonstrated competence in their use through the many volatile situations

wherein they are required to wear them.

We are also interested in examining the issues of

consistency. For example, in areas where boundaries overlap with the RCMP, such

as Holyrood and Corner Brook, and in Labrador West where the RNC coordinates

with the Quebec police, our officers are left exposed and susceptible in

comparison to their armed counterparts. The RNC also serves in a jurisdiction

alongside two armoured companies, Loomis Courier and Brinks, again leaving RNC

officers vulnerable in responding to incidents involving the companies.

Furthermore, to add to the inconsistency, RNC officers in

Labrador do wear firearms for a large part of the year given the potential for

weapons to malfunction in vehicle trunks due to freezing weather conditions.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the current firearms policy of

the RNC needs examination. Over the coming weeks, I, the Chief of Police,

members of the RNC and many others will be discussing this issue publicly. Our

objective is to raise the level of awareness on this important issue among the

general public and in the near future, to make the best decision regarding the

future firearms policy for the RNC as we approach the new millennium. I also

encourage members of the House of Assembly to pass along any views of their

constituents on this matter.

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.

First, I would like to thank the hon. minister for the very

ample time in which he provided me with this statement and I am pleased to see

that once again the government has seen fit to re-examine a policy and an issue

which is of extreme importance to the people of this Province.

It is important, however, that there be a very careful

analysis and study of this very issue by those people who are directly affected

and I speak primarily of the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary,

themselves, and also the public at large.

There ought to be, Mr. Speaker, no preconceived notions as to

what the situation should be or should not be. There should be a careful review.

There should be an empirical study. There should be clear and concise data

presented to the people of the Province as a result of a careful analysis of

these very important issues.

I welcome the re-examination and it is hoped that just

because we are approaching a new millennium that does not necessarily mean that

a policy be put in place without careful examination of the views of the public

at large and the members of the force itself.

So, I welcome the review, but I also await the results of

clear data as a result of a careful study being given to the people of this

Province in response to this very important issue.

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a sort of a perennial issue in this Province with

respect to the arming of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. I share the

ministers view that the capabilities of the RNC are not in question here, but

there is a great reluctance on the part of very many people to see an armed

police force on duty at all times in the city of St. John's and in the

jurisdiction of the RNC. The unarmed police force underscores the peaceable

nature of our Newfoundland community, Mr. Speaker, so any examination of this

obviously has to take into consideration not only the needs and desires of the

police force - and I think it has to be carefully examined from the safety

perspective which has been discussed on many occasions - but also the notion of

what kind of community we have and will it make for a safer and more peaceable

community or will it up the anti, Mr. Speaker, with those elements of the

population who may wish to engage the police from time to time. I have a concern

about that; I think there needs to be a public debate about it and public

discussion before any decision is made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Attorney General.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, six years ago, a handful of men

in Ontario and Quebec decided that a white ribbon, worn during the week leading

up to the anniversary of the massacre of fourteen women at Montreal's cole

Polytechnique, would be a symbol of men's opposition to men's violence against

women. Since then, the White Ribbon Campaign has spread across Canada and also

to the United States, Australia, Europe and Central America.

Tody is the official launch date for the 1997 White Ribbon

Campaign which runs until December 6.

Mr. Speaker, I am wearing a white ribbon as a personal pledge

that I will not commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. I

have encouraged my hon. colleagues to make the same commitment. My female

colleagues are wearing purple ribbons which is the colour normally designated

for anti-violence.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has made a

commitment through the five-year action plan of the Provincial Strategy Against

Violence to work in collaboration with the community to decrease violence. The

vision is that the people of this Province will live in safe, caring communities

where there is an inherent respect for each other, and where violence is

unacceptable.

In order to achieve this vision for our society, both men and

women will need to work in partnership. My colleague, the hon. Julie Bettney,

Minister responsible for the Status of Women, will be providing you with an

update on initiatives under the Provincial Strategy and activities surrounding

December 6, in a statement next Friday.

While the White Ribbon Campaign remains dedicated to the

notion that reaching men and boys with a message of non-violence is key to a

long term solution, they understand that supporting women's organizations must

also be a priority.

This fall, the White Ribbon Campaign, with the support of

trade unions, schools, universities, municipalities and community groups across

Canada is, for the first time, raising money for women's anti-violence programs

on a national basis in an organized fashion. The campaign continues to encourage

fund-raising for women's shelters, rape crisis centres and transition houses in

their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the White Ribbon

Campaign for the support of my colleagues, and reaffirm this Administration's

commitment to addressing violence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the members of this side of the House, we join

in this very important sign and indication of our support opposing violence

against women. What happened six years ago was a very tragic incident at the

cole Polytechnique. It is important that we continue, Mr. Speaker, on an annual

basis and perhaps on a daily basis, to present signs to all members of society

that what happened is unacceptable, and certainly, as government leaders and

members of this House and as politicians that we continue to convey that

message.

It is an educational issue, as well, Mr. Speaker. This is an

educational process. It must begin in our schools. It must begin in our homes.

It must be continued in our post-secondary institutions. It must be always a

symbol within our social arm of government, in our courts and, indeed, in all

our institutions.

We are pleased to participate in this particular initiative.

It is an issue that obviously has the full support of all members of this side

of the House, and I, along with my colleagues, am pleased to show this symbol

and sign this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Minister of Justice and the

Member for St. John's East in recognizing the commencement of the White Ribbon

Campaign which has had some significant effect over the last number of years in

Canada. It is supported and made possible - I think the successful anti-gun

legislation in Canada, in part, is a response to the unfortunate incident in

Montreal. But we do have a continuing and ongoing problem, Mr. Speaker. Our

children are said to see - I do not know how many thousands of violent acts per

year on television. The encouragement of violence in our society by witnessing

it on television, particularly American television, is a difficult problem. We

do have to underscore at every occasion the particular problem of violence

against women.

I thought for a moment, the Minister of Justice was going to

say that the government is supporting core funding for women's centres in the

Province, as part of his announcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and if I could hear that from the minister

responsible for the Status of Women, next week...

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to make a

statement regarding the news this morning which has been carried on the CBC

national news network that the IFAW - during the course of the NAMMCO convention

in St. John's, which has been supported, I believe, the NAMMCO effort, by all

members of this House to promote the responsible practice and development of the

seal hunt - indeed attended the convention, but attended under false pretences;

registered as members of that convention as a film crew, as independent

journalists and freelance journalists. It has been reported this morning on CBC

Radio that indeed the crew in question had misled the organizers of the

convention, had come in as journalists and were secretly filming and taping all

of the activities over the last several days at the convention.

Mr. Speaker, members on both sides of the House have been

making the point indeed to the people of the Province, and making the point to

the people of Canada and around the world, that the IFAW has been a dishonest

and deceitful organization which has spread false and malicious lies about the

nature of the seal hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador and around North Atlantic

countries that participate in the seal hunt.

Mr. Speaker, let the word spread across the land this morning

of the nature of the IFAW tactics. This is an organization not dedicated to

animal welfare. This is an organization that is dedicated to fund-raising. This

is an organization whose best years and best days were more than a decade ago

when they raised millions of dollars from innocent and malleable people all over

the world for purposes we do not know. None of the money raised, as far as we

can see, has ever gone to promote the welfare in one iota or one sense of a

mammal whatsoever.

If the IFAW were serious about proper management of mammals

or seals, there would be programs or contributions or science or research and

development, or development of the species, or development of means to assist in

the proper development of the hunt. None of that has occurred.

I want to say today in the House, and I hope that I will be

joined by members on all sides of the House, in saying that the IFAW have

exposed themselves for the phoneys that they are, for the deceitful practices

that they engage in. They have exposed yet another facet of this campaign of

lies, all designed with one purpose in mind: to fill the coffers of the IFAW.

It is no different from the psychic

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference

between the IFAW and the people who rent time on television advertising psychic

advice. You may as well call up for psychic advice from Jo-Jo as call up the

IFAW and give them $10 towards a so-called cause for animal welfare.

They are modern day charlatans. They are peddling snake oil,

and they do so in a deceitful manner. It is time that the people of Canada paid

heed to the words of Pierre Burton, who has warned the members of the arts

community of Canada not to be taken in by the IFAW. This shameful letter signed

by twenty-five so-called Canadian artists in support of the IFAW has to be

challenged. The paltry few hundred thousand dollars -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The paltry few hundred thousand dollars

being given by the Federal and Provincial Governments - and even that is being

phased out over next year - to promote the seal hunt is nothing compared to the

$75 million annually being given to the arts community of Canada. Every part of

that $75 million is money well spent. Why would we spend less to assist

aboriginal peoples or coastal peoples in Canada to promote a sustainable seal

hunt, Mr. Speaker?

Pierre Burton, a noted Canadian author, and historian, has

said that the shameful campaign of the IFAW ought not to be endorsed by those

who have done no research but who want to attach themselves to an advertising

blitz. It ought to be condemned as an attack on aboriginal people and coastal

peoples of this country.

Let this latest shameful episode by the IFAW, this latest

deceit, be heard across this land, and let Canadians note that the Advertising

Standards Council of Canada has recently forced the IFAW to change its ad

campaigns because the message is false. Let me say to The Globe and Mail ,

Canada's national newspaper that has carried full page ads of lies, that The

Globe and Mail has more than a responsibility to pick up a pay cheque for an

ad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The Globe and Mail has a

responsibility for content and carrying full page ads that describe 500,000 baby

seals being killed is a lie and it not the role of a newspaper to put the

pursuit of advertising cash before the content that reflects truth in the

national newspapers of the nation.

So, I challenge today, the medium in this country, in Canada

and that includes news world network, where I say an ad last night, that

includes The Globe and Mail , The Toronto Star , The Montreal

Gazette, The Sun newspaper chain to take a look at what they are

putting in these ads. I say let them buy ads until the cows come home, but

surely they have a responsibility to ensure a measure of truth in advertising

and understand who they are dealing with when they take these cheques

propagating falsehood and lies.

Mr. Speaker, the only blood money associated with the seal

hunt is the money being paid over for an advertising campaign that is false and

malicious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, join in and condemn the actions of the IFAW. In fact,

I do not think they should be permitted even to attend such a convention. I

think, they should be barred from it because they are a campaign of deception

and deceit and it is a fraud that they are committing here and the people of

this Province, Newfoundlanders who will go out and protest against sealing,

these few Newfoundlanders are not true Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I can

assure you.

We have depended, in this Province, on the sealing industry

from our very beginning. We are developing a diversified seal industry in this

Province, one to be proud of and to let the IFAW try to take the scene away from

an industry that is developing and it will employ hundreds, if not thousands of

people here in this Province in the future. It is a growing industry and for the

have an aggressive counteraction to what the IFAW is doing and putting money

into their coffers and expose them for the frauds they really are.

People in other parts of the world are staring to see them

for what they are and they have turned a blind eye. We have gone through that

period now, where white coats - we have gone through that period now and people

know its sensation, that is dying, they have lost the battle there, so they have

to try to penetrate in isolated small fractions of the market to get people that

are willing enough to go on the line and perpetuate their particular cause. That

is what they are doing. They do not have the support of the people of this

Province. They do not have the support of the people around the world. They have

the support of enough of people who are influential to make a case for that and

we have to counteract and we have to show that the people out there do not want

this and they are not going to put up with that utter nonsense anymore.

They are hypocrites, I would say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: They do not apply the same standards,

universally, when they are promoting their cause to the seal industry as they

would do to other industries and in the killing of other animals. I guess it is

probably best summed up that they are lower than a snakes belly in a wagon wheel

rut and that is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope the Premier, in cooperation with the

federal government will seriously look at measures that we can take on a very

rational basis, in a way that is not going to give them a platform to play on,

but is going to be a concerted effort, a long-term plan and a short-term plan to

deal with the utter nonsense that we are seeing. We need to do it and we do not

want ad hoc haphazard responses to them. We have to have a campaign like they

have that is methodical, it is planned, it has a purpose in mind and a goal and

we have to do that and sit down and put our heads together the best way to do

that and stop this utter nonsense that is going on here and ban them from

attending such concessions.

We have a right in a democratic society to prevent them from

coming in misrepresenting the truth. That is fair game. The court systems have

prevented people who have violated certain fundamental principles of law from

participating and getting access to particular right. We have a responsibility

as the government today, to deny them access to avenues where they are going to

use the platform to spread malicious lies and untruths on people here in this

Province when we need an industry that has been rationally developed and is

going places, we have to start supporting these things here and pulling together

with everybody in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have

leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in condemning the actions of the International Fund For Animal

Welfare but they have done us a service I think, Mr. Speaker, in showing to all

of the people of Canada, the tactics and the deceit and the hypocrisy which they

are prepared to undertake in order to victimize people who are trying to make a

living.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure, if they spent the three days at the

convention and they had an opportunity to cover the convention, what we will not

be hearing from them, is what I heard broadcast on The Fisherman's Broadcast the

other day, which was an Inuit leader talking about how the destruction of the

market for seal pelts has destroyed Inuit communities in the whole circumpolar

region and discussed how the diet, the very diet of the Inuit people has been

affected by the lack of seal meat being available to them because of the

economies of the hunt, how it has increased disease, destroyed the community

function, increased the suicide rate, has effectively taken away from these

communities their ability to conduct their way of life, to live in the arctic,

to live a way of life that they have lived for centuries and centuries and

centuries, Mr. Speaker, destroyed, for no other reason, other than an attempt by

this organization to vilify and victimize the people who are engaged in

legitimate activity, using nature, Mr. Speaker, to survive.

That is what we have been doing on this earth for centuries

and centuries and thousands of years, To take upon itself to destroy this and to

victimize the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Inuit people, native

people, is an outrage, Mr. Speaker, and any attempt and any effort, whether by

the Premier in his speech today, by his speech the other night, by taking out

ads, by asking The Globe And Mail to cover that part of the story, Mr.

Speaker, not just take money from the IFFAW -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - but to cover the real story of what is

happening to the people who are affected by this.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions, I would

like to welcome to the House today, thirty-two students from O'Donel High School

in Mount Pearl and they are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Dave Denine, who

is also the Mayor of the City of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

In light of the Premier's recent announcement that he is in

negotiations with the federal government on the Lower Churchill, I ask him: Is

he in a position to tell us today if there are other people involved in the

negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have not announced that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the middle of negotiation with the

federal government on the Lower Churchill. I do not know what comments

specifically you are referring to.

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

supplementary

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier indicated in the media that he has had

discussions with the federal government, the Prime Minister recently; it was

reported in the media, just to jog his memory. I know his memory has not been

too accurate as of late, Mr. Speaker, he has severe problems on times but, I

certainly give him forgiveness and let him know that on his free-time political

telecast, Conversation with the Premier, he had the opportunity to mention that

he has had discussion with the federal government on Lower Churchill. It was

only five days ago, Mr. Speaker, so maybe he could also tell me if other

negotiations with the federal government, if there are other people involved in

those negotiations, to which you alluded to just five days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, The Leader of the Opposition

is right, I do have severe problems on times but it is better than having severe

problems all the time.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is referring of

course, to that popular program which all Newfoundlanders require as mandatory

listening on Sundays which, of course, the Leader of the Opposition himself

listens to: Conversation with the Premier on VOCM, twice a day on Sundays, with

excerpts Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, I think is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that Jack

Byrne would not waste his time. It is the weather, Mr. Speaker, it is the big

fluffy white bits of snow coming down. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a

good question and I think it deserves a serious answer and I will attempt to

give one.

The Leader of the Opposition is making reference to the

comments that I've made that I had been in Ottawa some days before meeting with

the Prime Minister on a variety of subjects, but that while there - in fact, I

was there with the Premier of Alberta, Ralph Klein, to meet with the Prime

Minister to talk about the Kyoto conference and Canada's position at the Kyoto

conference. There is a particular interest, one would understand, by both

Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada's position. Indeed, the Minister

of Mines and Energy had co-chaired a federal-provincial conference a week or so

before that meeting and had come to a good Canadian position.

Alberta is an important oil and gas producer in the North

American context, and Newfoundland and Labrador is becoming a very important oil

and gas producer in the North American context, and it is important that we are

comfortable with Canada's position. While there I did say, and this is what the

Leader of the Opposition is asking me, to the Prime Minister, and I did say to

everybody I talked to, and I talked to a number of other ministers, that the

Lower Churchill has a particularly good role to play in the context of

greenhouse gas emissions.

Because many Canadians will not realize that Canada, if it is

to meet a target, for example, of reducing our emissions to 1990 levels by 2010,

will be 103 million tons over our 1990 levels by the year 2010. If we develop

the Lower Churchill, the Lower Churchill will eliminate the equivalent of 20

million tons of greenhouse gases. If Canada is serious about wanting to make a

contribution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing better we

could do than develop the Lower Churchill. I was merely saying to the Prime

Minister what I said when I was in Boston a few weeks before, that the Lower

Churchill is the lowest cost energy left on the North American continent, and it

behooves us all, in a reasonable fashion, to develop that resource.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm greatly

concerned. The emissions coming from that side of the House are not in any way

related to the question I asked. I am getting concerned. It is not only his

memory that has gone; he is having a severe hearing problem. The question I

asked, and I repeat again for the Premier, I will try to make it as simple as

possible, is: Are there other people besides the federal government involved in

the negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP, let

the record show, is making faces across the floor. It is causing me to lose my

composure.

We are not in negotiations with the federal government. We

have been, since last January, discussing the whole range of issues surrounding

power development and future opportunities with the Province of Quebec. Those

negotiations continue. What I'm trying to do is to make the people of Canada

aware that the lowest cost energy, according to the National Energy Board, left

on the North American continent, hydro energy, is the Lower Churchill, with

2,100 or 2,200 megawatts of power at Gull Island, 800 megawatts more at Muskrat

Falls. That is the lowest cost hydro energy project left on the continent. It

emits no greenhouse gases. I'm saying that the moment to develop Lower Churchill

is now. There has never been a better time. I am simply promoting that project

everywhere I go. If there is some way that any player, federal, provincial, or

private sector -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - can contribute to that project -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: - God bless them, we would welcome their

help.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier here is

directly avoiding. He stated on public airwaves negotiating with the federal

government. Now he denies it. I asked him is he negotiating with anybody else,

he has said before negotiations with Hydro Quebec. He is not answering the

question. He is avoiding it, or either he is not being truthful with the people

of the Province in his statements Sunday.

The Premier seemed quite optimistic about the federal

government's involvement when he was on radio last week, just days before he

could not tell us anything in this House. Now I ask the Premier, can he tell us

what terms or conditions might be put forward by the federal government in terms

of developing the Lower Churchill? He has already been on record that there are

discussions with Quebec. He has already been on record as stating he has

negotiated with the federal government, and he has already been on record here

as saying that there is a company here - I think a $35 billion company - that is

interested if Quebec is not. He said that. So answer that question, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a very easy matter to

resolve. There is a tape, there is a conversation; it was played on air.

Now, the Leader of the Opposition has a habit. The habit is

that he likes to get up and put words in the mouths of members on this side. He

attempted all last week to put words in the mouth of the Minister of Health

which were totally false. There is no tape to justify any of the words that he

attempted to put in the mouth of the Minister of Health. He has now just said,

let the record show - and I am challenging VOCM, and I am challenging all of the

media to get the tape - he has now just said that I announced we are in

you, I said no such thing; and I ask that the record be examined. The whole

question is based on a premise which is false.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the Premier, did he state last week that he had

discussions with a company - a big, huge company, $35 billion in sales - that

would be interested in looking at the Lower Churchill if negotiations with

Quebec fell through. Did the Premier make that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

would now like to change the subject because he is on record in the House as

saying that I announced - he said it several times today; I have not counted

them all, two or three - negotiations were ongoing with the federal government.

It is now entering his mind, it is now beginning to blossom into his

consciousness, that maybe he said something which is absolutely false. He is

uncomfortable with the notion that I have asked that the tape be examined.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition once again this week,

you are up saying things which are absolutely false, making a false statement,

making a false premise, and then asking questions about something which is not

true. I say to you again, there are no negotiations ongoing with the federal

government.

Now, with respect to a company with sales of $35 billion, was

there a meeting? Are they interested? Yes, there is a company interested. There

are a number of private sector companies interested in the Lower Churchill

development if, indeed, beyond the discussions currently under way with Hydro

Quebec, there is a need to look for private sector partners. The answer is yes,

of course, it is a good project.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On one hand the Premier tries to give the people of this

Province the impression that there are negotiations going on; then, on the other

hand, he is not willing to talk about it. You cannot have it both ways, Premier.

I might add, in response to the Premier's false accusation

that everything I said in this House is entirely accurate and I stand on record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: With the federal

government to get involved in negotiations in this Province, will he give a

commitment today that if the federal government is going to get involved in the

Lower Churchill development - am sure the federal government has an agenda to

ensure that most of that power will go into North America grid - I ask him: Will

there be restrictions? Will he give a commitment that this Province will not

tolerate restrictions on the amount of energy that we can use in our Province on

the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

really should think very carefully about what he has just said. Here is the

policy handbook of the Conservative Party from the last election:

(1) P.C.

government will promote a consortium of public and private investors to develop

the Lower Churchill; (2) promote resource and related industrial development in

Labrador; (3) energy needs for industrial development to the Island part of the

Province; and, (4) equitable economic returns from the sales of surplus power to

customers in other Canadian provinces or in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, that is the policy of the P.C. Party, but the

Leader of the P.C. Party has just stood up and said: Don't talk to the private

sector; don't talk to other governments, and don't talk about the sale of

surplus power.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to what we say he puts words in

our mouth, and when it comes to what he says he swallows himself whole.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We see the Premier's tactic. Any policy of this Party - we

released an energy policy this past year, I say to the Premier. You are about

three years behind the times. Let's get with the times, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, a simple question: I want to

ask the Premier, will he, once again, not sell us out on the Lower Churchill and

give a commitment here today in this House that Federal Government involvement

in this project will not place a cap on the amount of energy on the Lower

Churchill that can be used in this Province and they will not use the condition

that a certain percentage must go into the North American grid before they will

come on-stream? Will you give that commitment here today, Premier? Stop avoiding

answering the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, my own members are - it is

Friday morning, it's the weather. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says

that he can see my tactic. Now, I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition,

I cannot quite see through to his. I am not quite sure where he is going. Is the

Leader of the Opposition saying -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Your leader has asked a question, you

should allow me to answer it, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Is the Leader of the Opposition saying

that there should be no development of any Labrador hydro power? Is that the

position of the Conservative Party, no sale of any Labrador hydro to Canada or

to the United States? Is that the position of the Leader of the Opposition? Is

that position? Because the people of Canada have a right to know what the

position of the Conservative Party is. They have produced a policy platform

which they have just disowned on the floor of the House. They flip-flopped, Mr.

Speaker, on where they stand with respect to development of the Lower Churchill.

Now they are asking for a commitment that we would develop hydro power but not

sell it. Mr. Speaker, it is not a sensible policy.

I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that if or when

there is ever further development of hydro power in Labrador, there will be

development on the basis of a guaranteed floor price for Newfoundland and

Labrador, no limit on the upside for Newfoundland and Labrador, no more

long-term contracts, no more fixed prices and no prices that go down over time,

no more Churchill Falls, only full benefits for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today, Mr. Speaker - I want to continue with the

Minister responsible for Development and Rural Renewal in the Province. I

started on some questions the other day but I want to ask some more, because as

every day goes by now, as you talk to your constituents, and especially the

rural members I know, and also the members here in the city and so on, rural

renewal is a big question in everybody's mind. Of course, with the recent series

on CBC the other day, that was not a show from Hollywood that was the real thing

as to what is happening in this Province. Of course, the minister knows a lot of

people in that particular filming. It was from my district, and I spoke to many

of them. As a matter of fact, one of the people spoken to at Port aux Basques

was my next-door neighbour who I saw just a little while ago as he pulled out

with a U-Haul, Mr. Speaker. A trained person in this Province, forty-five years

old with two trades, ended up going to Alberta.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we talk about the plans and the people who

are involved in the strategic plans around the Province, I commend those people.

I think they are doing a great job. There are some good volunteers there.

My first question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister is about the

strategic plans and so on for all these zones. Is the minister satisfied now

that these are on-line, on time and are about to move forward and we are about

to see some real effects of what is happening in these economic zones?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. gentleman

for his question because indeed, it gives me an opportunity to tell the House

just how much good work those volunteer people have done.

MR. J. BYRNE: Time to go to sleep.

MR. TULK: Well, it would do a great service to the House

if you did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me answer a very serious

question put forward by a very serious member. It gives me an opportunity to

tell him that indeed, fourteen of the twenty Regional Economic Development

Boards have put their plans together, have their strategic economic plans in

place. There are still six to come. We expect those to be done rather shortly.

The Rural Revitalization Committee has been moving around the Province meeting

with the regional economic development boards, listening to them, asking them to

put five or six projects from each economic development board in front of us so

that we can work with them - work with them, I say to the hon. member - over the

next year to hopefully stop some of the tragedy that we saw on public television

in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad that

the minister is taking it seriously. I do not find it any joking matter

whatsoever. I say again that I do commend the people who are on these boards. I

know a lot of them - they are hard-working people. But I have talked to them

also and these people are frustrated themselves.

I guess it does take time but, of course, this particular

department by this government now has been in place for some year-and-a-half.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two years now.

MR. SHELLEY: Almost two years now, and people want to see

results and they want to see them fairly quickly.

With respect to the Revitalization Committee that is

travelling the Province, I know that the minister and his group have gone out

and spoken to the positives, and that is wonderful. I would like to go out and

talk to the positives, too. I am going to ask the minister: When is this

committee going to go out and talk to the people who are having the problems?

You have gone and visited all the companies and so on around the Province that

are up-and-running and doing well, and that is great - I applaud that - but I

wonder when the committee are going and where are they going in the next little

while to address the problem that is out in rural Newfoundland?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong with that

side of the Legislature this morning. On the one hand, he stands up and praises

up the rural economic development boards as being the voice of the people in

rural Newfoundland. I get up and tell him that we have gone out and met with

them, and he immediately comes back and asks: When are you going to go out and

meet with the real people out in rural Newfoundland?

Now, Mr. Speaker, he has to get it right. Either the REDB are

going to be the tool of rural revitalization in this Province or they are not. I

say to the hon. gentleman, you cannot have it both ways. You try hard to have it

both ways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, they are trying to have it both

ways over there all the time. Here they are saying, `Go out and meet with the

REDB. Those are great people. Those are the people who represent the grass roots

of this Province.' Then, on the other hand, he asks: `When are you going to go

out and meet with the people?' I tell the hon. gentleman to get his homework

done before he comes in and asks questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, on a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know if the storm is affecting the minister or what.

He was on the right track for awhile but then he went off. I guess he is in the

blizzard, because what is going on here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I agree with the minister that they go and

meet with these boards and so on. I applaud it. I will do it again. This is the

second time I will do that; but I am telling you, there is another phase, there

is another group you have to talk to. It is the people who are having problems

and so on, the people who are dealing with these boards, I say to the minister.

I am going to ask the minister this: Because of the situation

that is happening right now, today, because of - for example, yesterday in my

office, I had a call from two people, forty-four years old and thirty-nine years

old, who, for the first time, are going to welfare today, to seek welfare in

this Province. That is the reality. I wonder what it is like around the rest of

the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to ask the minister and the

Administration today: Is this government considering a job creation program for

this winter, or even just after Christmas, because it is needed and needed

immediately? Are you looking at that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is - I do

not know where he is, whether he is in Disneyland or whether he has gone off on

his Christmas holidays early.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on the campaign.

MR. TULK: He must be on a campaign for the leadership of

his Party, and I say to him, that is sorely needed over there. I hope he moves

up to the next seat, or a couple of seats up.

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that this government,

over the last year, has been putting funds into good, worthwhile projects that

help create jobs for our people.

In the area of silviculture, my friend has spent this year

some $15 million, created some 1,800 jobs in this Province, all over the

Province, in every district in the Province, in the hon. gentleman's district.

Let me give him a few more.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself and my

colleague from the Ramea area visited Ramea about two months ago. I think that

fish plant is getting well under way.

Let me say to him, too, that out in Arnold's Cove, it is now

going two shifts, I believe, as a result -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for the last couple of days,

the members of the Opposition have been asking questions that have been brought

to order by the Chair and we have complied in terms of Question Period, and the

rules that are associated with asking questions.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to page 123 of Beauchesne, where it

says specifically: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal

with the matter raised" - I say to ministers answering questions - "and should

not provoke debate." Mr. Speaker, I ask you to enforce the rules of the House to

ensure, with respect to the questions that are being raised and asked by members

opposite, that not only are the answers to the point but that they are brief and

deal with the rules of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. FUREY: What my hon. disputative Opposition House

Leader fails to realize is that the first quote in that passage also says that

the questions ought to be brief, and when the

preamble is three minutes the

answer deserves three minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the Minister of Mines and Energy would

pick up Beauchesne, he would understand that there is no

preamble to what I just

read. It clearly says 417, page 123, and I will begin and read the entire

section for the minister: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible,

deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." Now, if he would

like to get into how questions should be asked, we could go back to page 121 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - but we are dealing with the answers given

by ministers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, from time to time the Chair has brought attention to

all hon. members regarding the Question Period. I have asked members from time

to time to make sure that questions that they have asked are within the

guidelines set down by our own Standing Orders and that outlined by the

parliamentary authority that we follow, Beauchesne. Question Period is not a

period for debate. Members have been reminded of that from time to time.

Questions should be brief. Only the first question asked should have a

preamble.

The supplementary question should need no

preamble. Members ought to follow

that, ought to take that into consideration when they are putting their

questions. Ministers who answer questions ought to be brief, ought to address

the matter raised and should not provoke debate. I ask hon. members to follow

these when they are answering questions and when they are presenting questions.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The Speaker has made a good ruling. Let me say

to the hon. gentleman that his question required a long answer, and to that end,

I will provide him with a two-page

summary on Monday.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question this morning is for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. Minister, already this morning in my office, I have

had several phone calls concerning road conditions in the western end of my

district. I would ask you today, Sir, to check with officials of your

department. Apparently, as the ploughs come out the Foxtrap Access Road and turn

east, they cover the roads with pure salt. As they come out the Foxtrap Access

Road and turn west, they cover the road with a mixture of sand and salt, the

mixture being 3 to 1. Now for me, being the member, I care as much about the

people in the east end of my district as I do the people in the west end. In

reports to me this morning there have been pretty close to a couple of accidents

already in the Seal Cove, Holyrood area and I would ask you today, Sir, as

minister, to check with officials of your department to certainly change the mix

and to give the same service in the east end of my district, if you would Sir,

as we receive in the west.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a bad morning on the road in many parts of the

Province, but to this specific request, yes, I will check to ensure, and I will

endeavour to continuously ensure that all roads in the Province receive the same

appropriate and equitable treatment in terms of salt and sand application.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question ordinarily would be for the Minister of Education

but I will ask the question of his counterpart in transportation. Will the

minister tell us how old a school bus has to be before it is prohibited under

our law in Newfoundland, from carrying children to and from school?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: The specific age is a number that I am not

absolutely certain of. So, in that context, I will take it under advisement and

provide an answer to you, as to what the exact age is in terms of limitation.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that the law, as it exists in our

Province today, is fourteen years. In the Province of Quebec recently, in fact,

in this year, in 1997, there was a regulation passed which states that the limit

for school buses is twelve years. In other words, there can be no bus on Quebec

highways transporting children for a period of greater than twelve years when

the age of the bus is twelve years.

My question is: Is the minister aware that we have bus

operators in this Province who go to Quebec, perhaps other provinces as well,

who pick up these buses at bargain-basement prices, those buses beyond the

twelve-year period, return the buses to this Province, and these same buses,

which are apparently not good enough for the children of the Province of Quebec,

apparently are good enough for the children of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: These same buses are being used -

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - on the highways in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The age of any vehicle on the road is always important, I

suppose, and relevant to some extent. The critical piece, in terms of the

highway safety of the vehicles that are on the road, whether they are school

buses or dump trucks or cars or sports vehicles, is tied significantly to the

inspection regime we have in place as a province, and that governs, indicates,

and dictates the quality of the vehicle that is on the road.

The key component has always got to be the inspection regime

we have in place, the extent to which we require adherence to that regime, and

the extent to which we enforce that regime. Given all of the components - the

age of the vehicle, the inspection regimes we have in place, and the policing

that we have in the Province to ensure that these things take place, not only

with the RNC and the RCMP, but also inspectors under my hon. colleague, the

Minister of Government Services and Lands. Under his auspices, those things

happen, they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - happen very effectively -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and we have a safe -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - school bus fleet, as far as I know, in

the Province.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Will he take steps to move to enact

changes ensuring that buses older than twelve years are not used in this

Province to transport children to and from school? In other words, that this

Province is not being treated, with respect to school bus transportation, as a

Third World country.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also suggest and ask the hon. member that if he is

going to dictate, or wanting to lay out what the real parameters should be for

highway vehicle safety, that he should lay out all of the parameters that he

thinks are appropriate.

The age of the vehicle is a criterion, but the inspection

requirements that we impose and that we adhere to and that are in place are

equally just as important a criterion, and a review would not be appropriate or

sensible unless everything was going to be reviewed as would be relevant to the

issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, my question (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. H. HODDER: I rise at this time - I guess it would

have to be on a point of order - to say to the hon. House that since the session

has started, we have placed on this side, forty-one questions on the Order Paper

and have not had any responses at all from the ministers, not one. There are

forty-one questions as of today's date that require answers, and we want to ask

You, as the Speaker of the House, if you would cause the government to respond

to these legitimate questions which we feel are of some urgency and require

answers to be presented and to be printed within the Hansard as required by the

law.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, let me

just say to the hon. gentleman that he knows full-well that he is trying to put

the Speaker in an embarrassing position, which he knows the Speaker cannot get

into, and that is, to tell the government when to print answers to questions.

Let me also say to him that I can recall sitting in this

House when the Opposition put some 600 questions on the Order Paper, and got no

answers at all, and, Mr. Speaker, we are glad -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: They deny everything, they never live - and,

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Where are they now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vancouver, most of them.

MR. TULK: Vancouver.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

that we are looking at the questions. It takes quite a bit of time to get them -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) to do it the next time.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, is it possible to contain that

crowd over there this morning?

- and in due course, action will be taken by the government.

I say to him, it is a spurious point of order, there is no point in him standing

up again unless he wants leave to make another motion similar to what he made

yesterday evening on Marine Atlantic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

To the point of order, the Chair has no authority to order

ministers to answer questions that are either on the Order Paper or during Oral

Question Period. The minister has the option to refuse to answer any question at

any time without reason.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a long-standing

tradition in the British Commonwealth, in our Parliamentary system, that when

Your Honour, the Speaker, stands, this House is supposed to go quiet, no

catcalls, no heckling and every other member in this House is supposed to sit.

For the last number of days, I have noticed - my Freudian

slip, Mr. Speaker - that every member seems to speak when Your Honour stands. If

we are going to allow that trend to continue, this House is going to become a

bear pit, and it will be a disgrace to the people of this Province. I would

suggest, Your Honour, that members in this House should stand by the rules and

that when you stand, everybody else sits and everybody else remains quiet, Mr.

Speaker, otherwise this House will be a disgrace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst offender is the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the

House, support that particular point of order. We are quite prepared to live

within the rules laid down by Parliamentary tradition, however, we recognize

that in a parliamentary forum, if you watch the debates from Great Britain or

watch them from Ottawa, that from time to time things do happen. We respect the

Office of the Speaker, that is very fundamental to our parliamentary system and

we also understand that from time to time things will happen, as they have

happened this day and I guess they will happen continually. It is the system we

have and we respect the Speaker and we give our full co-operation to his Honour.

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

to the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, I could not agree more with the

Minister of Justice. We do get to the point here in this House where the rules

of order and the Office of the Speaker is not respected and I think the time has

come for all members of the House to endorse the suggestion that we ensure that

the proceeding of this House are televised live, so that the people of this

Province can see what is going on here and so that the members of this House can

have an opportunity to speak -

MR. J. BYRNE: And to see you do nothing.

MR. HARRIS: - to speak directly to the people of the

Province and speak to their constituents. I think if the House were televised on

an hour by hour basis, gavel to gavel basis, that the effect on the proceedings

of the House, the effect on members and the respect for the Office of the

Speaker and for the House should improve, Mr. Speaker.

So, I think the point of the Minister of Justice is well

taken. We have seen in the last number of days a deterioration in respect for

the rules of order and the rules of the House and I think that the solution to

that would include the televising of the proceeding of the House and I urge

government to consider doing just that at the earliest possible time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order raised by the hon. the

Minister of Justice, I just want, again, to refer members to our own Standing

Orders in this respect, Standing Order 11(2) says: When the Speaker is putting a

question, no member shall walk out of or across the House or make any noise or

disturbance.

As well, no member may pass between the Chair and the Table,

nor between the Chair and the Mace when the Mace has been placed on the table.

When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him

or her and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her except to raise a point of order.

I ask hon. members to, certainly, if they have not already

familiarized themselves with the Standing Orders - to do so and to certainly

cooperate in the House and to follow the Standing Orders and our own rules and

regulations that we have ourselves put in place to govern ourselves.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Order no. 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

Resuming debate on Bill no. 33.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise again today to conclude some of my remarks from

yesterday with respect to the Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund, the

amount of money subject to that.

Just to reiterate the point I ended off on yesterday, Mr.

Speaker. The people in Labrador are now of course enthused, I guess, to a point

if they hear announcements of what will happen in talking about the

transportation system and so on in Labrador, which is long overdue, now they

have to see it for themselves. They have to be able to drive up that blacktop

and say: Yes, they finally followed through on something. A government of the

day has followed through on finally something for Labrador that is long overdue

and should have been done many years ago.

It will improve a lot of things in Labrador, as I mentioned

before. The people in Labrador still have that feeling of being left out for a

long time. Of course, when they see the Voisey's Bay development go ahead they

still feel betrayed. They were not appeased at all of things that happened in

Labrador when they found out that the Voisey's Bay development, the secondary

processing and the smelter and so on, would go on on the Island portion of

Newfoundland. That hasn't been forgotten.

A lot of things that are happening, especially in the rural

parts, in the coastal parts of Labrador, are I guess similar to what is

happening around the Island portion of rural Newfoundland. I spoke about it

today in Question Period, and I say it again. The people in rural parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador, all together, have very similar concerns when we talk

about the economy and job creation and so on. It is a real sore spot for a lot

of people out there now.

When you hear the news like this morning, with Mr. Martin

here yesterday at the $500 a plate dinner at the Delta, talk about how great

everything was in Newfoundland and how we are leading the country, he said. I

think that was one of the phrases. I haven't got a quote from him, but from what

I heard of Mr. Martin this morning, Newfoundland is leading the country in

recovery, in unemployment rates, in job creation going on, and going on and on.

It was unbelievable.

As I left to come to work this morning I asked: My God, is

that true? I've got to go out and find out where that is happening in the

Province. Yes, there are good things. I say to the minister again, in all

seriousness, yes, and I've supported and commended people who have started up

small businesses around the Province and talked to them and said: Good for you,

you created one job, or two jobs, or five jobs. That is wonderful, but it isn't

it. I know we don't expect all solutions to come overnight, but here is the crux

of the situation. As we speak here today, and this is the last part of 1997,

there are people in this Province who are going to welfare for the very first

time.

The two people I spoke to in my district yesterday, and I

certainly wouldn't name names, but one of them is a very good friend of mine,

thirty-nine years old with three kids. He phoned me to say yesterday that he is

so many hours short with the new regulations on UI. Thirty-nine years old with

three kids, and he is going up today to check on how to go about applying for

welfare. He didn't know how to do that. That isn't a story or anything. As a

matter of fact, I would give the minister or anybody the name of the gentleman.

Maybe they can find him a job. Because that is the reality. He and another

gentleman who I don't know so well, forty-four years old, two children, he is

going into the welfare office in Springdale today to check out how he can apply

for welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It certainly has happened, I say to the

Member for Humber East, but it is happening much more now. It is happening right

now, Mr. Chairman, a lot more than it ever has before. That is what I'm saying.

It is getting worse, it isn't getting better. As a matter of fact, it isn't even

sustaining, I say to the Member for Humber East. It isn't even staying the same.

It is going down. It is getting worse.

The big catch about it all, Newfoundlanders for years in the

1970s and 1980s and whatever, up to this decade, had more hope than they have

right now. Yes, there are certain sectors. You talk about Hibernia oil flowing

and so on. That is positive. There is no doubt about that. If you ask the 5,000

people who worked at Hibernia, and when there were 5,000 people working on

Hibernia, ask the people in Flower's Cove or Ming's Bight or Cockles Cove how

much affect it had on them. I still say -

MR. BARRETT: Ask the people of Sunnyside how much affect

it had on them.

MR. SHELLEY: How much what?

MR. BARRETT: Ask the people of Sunnyside and Arnold's

Cove how much affect it had on them.

MR. SHELLEY: It had great affect on Sunnyside and

Arnold's Cove, Mr. Chairman. I say to the member that is good. It has always

been good that certain parts of the Province - my point here today is that

mega-projects affect certain parts of the Province. For example, Argentia. We

salute them, our hats are off. It is going to be good; it is going to pick up.

MR. BARRETT: That is not true. Hibernia affects the whole

Province. It had more effect on the whole Province than it had on my district.

MR. SHELLEY: What I am saying is that the 5,000 at the

peak periods in Hibernia never brought rural Newfoundland out of the slump it

was in. I never, ever said that it did not affect certain parts of the Province,

or all parts of it. The point I made - as a matter of fact, the minister agreed

with me - it is not mega-projects that are going to bring us out of an entire

slump. I agree that Sunnyside and other parts of the Province - Hibernia, now

Voisey's Bay, when Argentia gets going, the smelter, it is going to affect

mostly the people in the Argentia area, but there are people, I am sure, in my

district who will get jobs out in Argentia.

What I am saying, and I still hold to it, and I have for the

last four years, is that until our philosophy in this Province changes, that,

`By God, Hibernia is going to save us, and Voisey's Bay is going to save us,'

until we stop thinking like that, we are never going to get on the right track.

Our energies as a government, the administration of the day,

I don't care what stripe they are, the focus has to be on small business and

regenerating people's ideas in this Province so that they become part of the

solution. I still maintain that. There are people every single day who come to

see you who have a great idea. Maybe it is only for two jobs. I spoke to another

person yesterday; it was only two jobs. He said, `Boy, it is only two jobs'. I

say, `Boy, that is wonderful. If you can get that up and sustain it for ten

years then I am just as proud of you doing that as I am for a fellow going out

and striking off a big press conference because Hibernia oil is flowing'.

When you start to see those little things all over the place,

that is better than one big bang, because what usually happens in one big bang -

and I am from a town that had one industry, 600 jobs at the Baie Verte asbestos

mine - bang, gone; but if that was 600 people working in fifty different small

little companies, if five or six die, you can maintain. The threat and the

problem with big industry and big boom is that with a big boom there comes a big

bang, sometime, sooner or later, even Voisey's Bay. We could sit here today, and

we are looking forward to all of that, but what about our kids when they are

twenty-five years old and maybe they are some of the people in this House of

Assembly. They are going to say, `Oh, Voisey's Bay just finished; it is all

shutting down'.

Mr. Chairman, they are going to come and go with time.

Voisey's Bay is good, it is twenty years, but a lot of these mines around the

Province, especially if you come from a mining town - or Marystown Shipyard -

Marystown Shipyard went down. Luckily for them now, and for the Province, we

have somebody else in there; but I really maintain the whole point, not that

Hibernia didn't affect the whole Province, I say to the Member for Bellevue. I

agree with that. I never finished my point, the point being that I think that

the concentration of the government and the administration - and I know the

other members get it - when that person comes in with a small idea, like I say,

and I used my quote before - I don't know if I made it up or somebody said it to

me - roll out the red carpet, not the red tape.

MR. BARRETT: If they have an idea, why don't they go

ahead with it?

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: If they have an idea, why don't they go

ahead with it?

MR. SHELLEY: That is the question. That is the whole

point of it. I will say it to you again. I don't know if you have ever seen it,

but this is what happens to me. I have had people come in and say, `Boy, I had a

great idea.' I would get them started with an aquaculture project, and they

would go to ten, twelve or fifteen different offices and by the time they get a

permit and talk to environment and go to mines and go to lands, they come back

to me...

I had one fellow actually walk into me and say, `I am gone

home. Forget it. If I have to go through any more of this red tape trying to

justify me creating two or three jobs, any harder than I have, because I am

gone'. And he has left. He has actually left the Province. And I bet there are

members in this House who get the same thing. That is what is happening, I say

to the Member for Bellevue. People in this Province are getting turned off from

bureaucracy, from red tape.

MR. BARRETT: We have one-stop shopping now.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, if you think that is working then you

are not in touch with it. I am sorry, but I have to say that you are not in

touch with it. If you think that one-stop shopping is working... The concept is

right but the reality is that it is not working. I can take a list into this

House of just people in my district, and I have a small, rural district. Some of

these urban districts have people coming in with ideas on companies all over the

place.

MR. BARRETT: You can't be doing your job. You are not

(inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Don't you worry about my job. I will do my

job as good as the Member for Bellevue any time, and I will hold him to that. I

can tell you that right now.

I have gone, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and have

actually walked around office to office with the people, and the bureaucrats

say: Oh, there is another form, or there is another permit you have to do, or

something else.

Don't you worry about my job. I worry about the Member for

Bellevue's job. We should not get into that anyway. You are getting off track of

the point. If you don't believe that... First of all, I have always believed

that if you are going to solve any problem you have to acknowledge that you have

the problem. If you are an alcoholic then you have to acknowledge that you have

the problem and then you address it. So, if you are thinking here today, as a

legislative member -

MR. BARRETT: That is why we set up the one-stop shopping.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: That is what I am saying to the member, and

I will try to get the point through again. Maybe I am the only member in this

House who believes it - and if I am then so be it - the one-stop shopping is not

working.

If you go into the small business community in this Province,

even the ones that are up-and-running now, and are trying to expand or do

something, they come in here and leave this building so confused and frustrated.

You will run into that I say to the Member for Bellevue. So everybody has come

to you with a business idea, they say, `oh, there is no problem I must say. I go

into the Confederation Building and ACOA and I go to ENL and `D2R2' and

everything is fine. They are wonderful.' I mean you have heard that somewhere.

Maybe I am missing it. Maybe I am the only member in this House who has seen

that but I have people - not only in my district by the way, I have talked to

people in Grand Falls and in Deer Lake and people I bump into and say, `boy, I

have this great idea.' They tell me about it and the next thing, `...but I have

gone in there and I have gotten so confused and frustrated that I gave up on it

and left the Province.' That is what happens, Mr. Speaker.

If you take one stop shopping, the concept is right but the

reality is not working. What we need is a -

MR. BARRETT: Can you give me their names?

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you need their names for?

MR. BARRETT: I would like to talk to them.

MR. SHELLEY: You worry about your own district I say to

the Member for Bellevue. I want to make sure while I am up, Mr. Speaker, I will

get this on record now, that the Member for Bellevue believes that everybody in

this Province who has an idea for business and opportunity and whatever, that

there is no problem whatever. They came in here and they just breezed right

through the system. That is what the Member for Bellevue is saying to me, Mr.

Speaker. That is what the Member for Bellevue is saying to me. He said no

problem, if anybody has a good idea in this Province they can just come in here

and the bureaucracy is no problem. They go to ACOA there is no problem, they go

to `D2R2' there is no problem, and they are good ideas or maybe, Mr. Speaker,

what the Member for Bellevue is saying is that they are not good ideas. These

things are not thought through.

I have seen people paying $30,000 for a business plan out of

their own pockets, come in here and get caught up in permits for the

environment, in lands or somewhere else or `D2R2' will not talk to them and

anything else, Mr. Speaker. I tell the Member for Bellevue, he is not from my

district, if he is trying to use that. He is not. If that is the only problem,

that it is only the Baie Verte District having that problem, then we are okay

because we can solve that. We can send everybody in and you would just take care

of that district but it is not true. It is all parts of this Province. Go up to

rural parts of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, or Western Labrador and talk to those

people.

The concept of the one-stop shopping is right but the reality

is that it is not working and that is my whole point, Mr. Speaker. I still

believe and I maintain the premise that until we focus, as a government, on

small business, two and three jobs, five and six jobs, ten and eleven jobs. That

is where this Province is going to start turning around because what happens,

Mr. Speaker, is you pick away at it and you develop it. You will not be sitting

back in your armchairs for two, three, four years waiting for the Hibernia oil

to flow or for Voisey's Bay to start exploding. I mean, God knows how long it

will take or how long we will get caught up in it. If we are waiting on that,

Mr. Speaker, then what we saw on CBC television the other night is going to

continue and continue big time because I tell you the timing is terrible. People

are at that point. That man who was at the Port aux Basques ferry on the second

night of the CBC series - count them. Imagine, thirty-eight families leaving

this Province on one boat - 25,000 people, that is the reality, Mr. Speaker,

that is fact. Twenty-five thousand people since 1991 left this Province. So

let's just move all that into one group, Grand Falls - Windsor wiped off the map

since 1991. More than that, what is 15,000 in Grand Falls - Windsor? The member

is not here right now but that's about the population of Grand Falls - Windsor,

15,000.

Twenty-five thousand left the Province. So Grand Falls -

Windsor, Badger, Baie Verte Peninsula is wiped off the map since 1991, if we

brought all these people into one group. That is how serious it is. Imagine,

places that size. You're trying to tell me that there are no problems and that

people are saying they are getting through the system, are developing their

ideas and using their business sense to develop ideas? No, Mr. Speaker, the

problem is hope, the word hope is gone. When you lose hope, Mr. Speaker, you

lose it all. For the longest time we have been the most residual people when it

comes to surviving through tough times. We are known for it. That is what our

history is all about.

If you go back through our history to the early days of

settlement here, right on up through the 1930s, '40s and '50s before

Confederation, there were tough times and Newfoundlanders were known for it. We

could take something small and live off it. That is why in rural Newfoundland

they are saying, `look all I want is my home, which I own. There is no crime

here. I want my child to be able to go to school. I want to be able to pay my

bills.' That is what they want. Newfoundlanders are not complicated when it

comes to that in rural Newfoundland. They want the simple things, Mr. Speaker.

The two simplest and the two necessities that they are really bothered about is

that they are still driving over gravel roads and they are still carrying their

water in a white bucket in Newfoundland and Labrador today. As we speak today,

Mr. Speaker, there is probably somebody in Marks Island or Smith's Harbour

carrying a white bucket of water, as we sit here today, when we have a space

ship going to Mars and so on. In Newfoundland and Labrador, a developed country

- and I do not think I am misleading anybody when I say it - but there is

somebody carrying a white bucket as we speak today, Mr. Speaker, in this

Province, carrying water, and with a population of half-a-million people in a

developed country. There is no way anybody can justify it, Mr. Speaker, then you

talk about roads.

In my district now, there are a few communities that still

have dirt roads. We have given up on having them paved, just grade our roads on

time, put something on it so we can grade it. I know in certain parts of

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, I have been up there too besides the roads, all over,

especially the northern part of Labrador, water and sewer and the school system

and all these necessities that people say: we pay taxes, although there are a

few of us in these areas, we pay the same taxes, we are just as much

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as anybody else in the bigger centres of this

Province, therefore no, we do not want a double-lane highway, we do not want a

university, we do not want a mall in our town, we just want the necessities. It

is called decency and dignity, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is called and that

is why the focus is on back there and I say to the minister again, the question

that he did not answer, he should really consider it and although I do not

totally agree with a job creation program, I do not think that is the answer, it

is only short-term, but at the same time, one has to realize the situation of

the people in this Province today as they are turning to welfare for the first

time in their lives, at age forty and forty-five and so on, these are the people

who will be looking for help in the short-term and hopefully, if all of these

great things that the government is talking about come to fruition and we do see

a Hibernia, Marystown, Voisey's Bay and so on develop, then they can have jobs

in a year or two from now.

The Premier has even told me himself, he figures eighteen

months, that was eight months ago, so he has ten months to go to have it all

turned around. He is saying that it is going to turn around so I am saying to

the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal today, that a job-creation program

is a necessity right now. It is needed and that is where the Premier should be

talking to his counterparts, his very close relatives in Ottawa, talking about,

as our Leader just mentioned to me, about the surplus in the EI fund, $20

billion.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) after another year it will be

$20 billion.

MR. SHELLEY: There will be a $20 billion surplus in the

EI fund and, to add to that, let us talk about the great surplus that the feds

keep talking about; they were so delighted, well I am. We are glad as a country

that we are getting back on track and our finances are being controlled but if

they are looking for somewhere in this country to spend money, Mr. Speaker, to

try to decide - I mean, we should be at the top of the list with our resources

and the way they mismanaged our fishery and the resources in this Province, we

should be at the top of the list of the federal government when it comes to

excess spending if they have the deficit under control. Number one, Mr. Speaker,

and to go even further again, the Province should take that money and make sure,

especially the worst-off parts of this Province, the Labrador side, especially

the coastal area and the rural part of Newfoundland should be taken care of

first and foremost and immediately. That is where the $20 billion surplus from

EI should go. That is where the Premier should be telling his colleagues now

when he sat with the Prime Minister, he said a week ago.

If he were on track with this Province, Mr. Speaker, and in

tune with what is going on, I hope at that meeting, that the Premier of this

Province looked at the Prime Minister who is a good friend of his, a good, close

colleague of his and said: Listen, the first step, when you start spreading out

this money, before you look anywhere, Newfoundland and Labrador paid the price

big time, because the biggest, biggest example, Mr. Speaker - and you can talk

about blame and fishermen and so on - they mismanaged, over the years, all

different stripes of Parties, the fisheries, a renewal resource in this Province

was mismanaged by the federal government. There is no way out of that, and for

that reason alone, never mind another twenty reasons they can give, for that

reason alone, the federal government should be saying: Newfoundland and Labrador

is our first priority for any spending that will be going on in this country and

we are going to make sure that they get through these tough times, this next

year, the year-and-a-half like the Premier says, a year, a year-and-a-half we

will go through another tough time.

Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, it all fits into place.

There is excess money from the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador is

a year or two before we start to rebound, so very simply, the excess money

should come here quickly to get us through that slump that we keep talking

about. The little slump that we keep talking about (inaudible) Newfoundland is

down and out, Mr. Speaker,

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I have been reading all your mail, I

say to the minister. Somebody should read their mail because they are not

reading their own and they are not answering their letters anyway and they are

certainly not returning their calls.

But Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell - and I will conclude on that

- the federal government are talking about $20 million from the EI fund and the

debt under control. The Premier of this Province, who is very close to the

leader of this country right now, should be having a face to face with him and

say, very quickly Mr. Prime Minister take some of that excess money, direct it

to Newfoundland and Labrador for the short-term because like he said we are

going to turn around in a year to eighteen months anyway. So, what we need now

is a quick infusion of cash to get people through a very tough winter.

On that note, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate my point to the

Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, that although the job creation, I

have never really supported it as a concept, but it is short-term, but I think

and I believe that this time in our history and this particular year, that we

need a job creation program in the late part of this year or early in 1998, to

get people through the bad mood that they are in and to say to them: we are

going to create some work in rural Newfoundland for the short-term. By the way,

Mr. Chairman, if we let that money be channelled through the communities around

this Province, they can come up with good projects. They do not have to be

piling rocks from one pile to another. I have seen good projects where money is

well spent because infrastructure in towns is falling down and there is a lot of

different things. Tourism, there are trails to be done. They are good long-term

investment dollars that can be spent where we can take ten people who are

desperate for another three or four weeks work and put them on something that is

useful and long-term and that community can use it.

Mr. Chairman, I tell you what, the communities around my

district have a lot of good sensible ideas about projects and I am sure like in

many other parts of the Province, where they can put people to work and at the

same time do something for the community that is useful and that is going to be

long-term.

So, I would like for the government and the minister to

reconsider that job creation program for this year. Infuse some money in there

and save the mood.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not enough I say to

the minister, it is short-term silviculture. No, it is not enough, I say to the

minister. We need it badly and we need it quickly. So, I suggest that the

government take that to heart and really look at the situations around the

Province and react to it positively.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill no. 30: "An Act

To Establish The Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund".

In reading through this bill this morning it brought back

many memories of many of the trips that I have made down on the Labrador Coast

and in Labrador West as well. I worked at Wabush Mines in Labrador City. I

spent, not a long time, in Labrador West, I think I worked there for one year

back in 1965 and for a similar period in 1977 and I spent a fair amount of time

on the Labrador Coast, I say to members opposite, travelling back and forth to

places like Williams Harbour, Black Tickle, Domino, Spotted Island, Square

Island, all the way up the coast, but only up as far as Goose Bay and it is

certainly quite evident when you go to those small places on the Labrador Coast

that government has to start paying more attention in providing revenue back to

that particular area of our Province.

MR. TULK: Did the hon. gentleman ask the Member for

Torngat Mountains how much improvement there was in his area this year? Did you

ask him?

MR. FITZGERALD: I realize that. There has been some

schools -

MR. TULK: Did you ask him?

MR. FITZGERALD: There has been some schools built there.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am talking about when I was travelling

back and forth there, I say to the member. I have been into Rigolet many times,

I say to members opposite, many, many times. I do not know how any business

survives on the Labrador Coast -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - when you look at the transportation -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is talking about the

Labrador Coast, yes, I think that we on this side would agree with him that much

needs to be done on the Labrador Coast, but he should have heard the Member for

Torngat Mountains the other day talking about the changes that have taken place.

How the social assistance rolls have decreased, what is it, eighty per cent, in

some of the communities up there that he has been working at. He has worked a

great deal at it and he is to be commended for it.

The hon. gentleman should stay aware of the kind of things

that certain members in this Legislature are doing, -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - rather than - Harvey what is wrong - rather

than whining over there, they should be out trying to -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are working with the member over

there.

MR. TULK: We are working with the member from -

PREMIER TOBIN: Who has brought us good suggestions.

MR. TULK: Who has brought us good suggestions to help

her, but the hon. gentlemen, all they do is get in here and whine and criticize

rather than putting forward something positive.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Members here, especially this member, agree that the Member

for Torngat Mountains is doing a good job and he is getting good benefits for

his people there. I say to the members opposite that we are still going to be

far short of what those people on the Labrador Coast need and desire.

I will make the statement again. I don't know how any

business survives on the Labrador Coast with what they have to contend with,

with transportation needs, weather, the cost of getting goods in, the cost of

getting goods out. They are certainly at a big disadvantage. Government has to

step in and help. Government has to continue to subsidize freight to the

Labrador Coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: If the minister can go up there and

create a good sawmill and get people working, that is good stuff. I've been up

to Port Hope Simpson many times, I say to the member, and sailed in that long

inlet there many times, in fact, in December month. I've never travelled up in

the chopper at the expense of the taxpayers of this Province. I've never done

that, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: If you talk to many people, Mr. Chairman

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: Point of order, Mr. Chairman

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I have to inform the House that

the hon. gentleman has indeed travelled in a helicopter at taxpayers' expense

last year when we were out trying to get some wood for some people out in his

district. I have to tell you something else. We almost lost him! The door came

open, and if I hadn't reached over and grabbed him he would have been out

through the door.

AN HON. MEMBER: You pushed him!

MR. TULK: I was tempted! I must say I was tempted, but I

reached out, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. TULK: Hold on, there is a reason. I say to the hon.

gentleman there is a reason why I reached out. I reached out and I grabbed him

because he comes from my wife's home town. I know they would be terribly upset

if the hon. gentleman, as Tory as he is, fell out through that helicopter door.

Mr. Chairman, he has travelled, and I saved his life in the process.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Government House

Leader is 100 per cent right, but he didn't finish telling you the story. He

landed the helicopter about 300 feet from my door and let me out. The chopper

picked a place to land. I said: There isn't any point in me flying back to St.

John's, I may as well get out here. Friday afternoon. His wife's cousin had a

dog tied on to a house that was there. When the helicopter landed the dog took

off. Took the chain, took the door of the house, went across the road and put

somebody off the road who was driving down in a car, and the dog hasn't been

seen since! That is a true story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader,

there is no point in you going back in the district of Terra Nova and expect to

get many votes from Musgravetown because they won't be forthcoming. You aren't a

very popular fellow. They knew it was you.

Mr. Chairman, a little bit of humour there, but this is a

very serious bill. It is nice to see government putting forward an initiative

for the Labrador Coast. Nice to see government putting forward an initiative

hopefully that will help those many people who so long in their history

contributed greatly to the economy in this Province.

The people on the Labrador Coast seem to maintain the working

skills and the togetherness that we have experienced one time in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador. If you could only go down there in places like

Williams Harbour and see what the people have done there, the things they have

moved and the buildings they have put up, and how they have banded together to

make the community survive, you would hardly believe it. You would almost think

they had to get a crane in to lift something from one place to another. You

would wonder if it just dropped out of the sky and fell there, because they are

certainly very innovative.

MR. E. BYRNE: They've never landed in Bonavista in a

helicopter, have they (inaudible)?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, that is for sure. Mr. Chairman, very

innovative people.

This particular bill, the Labrador Transportation Initiative

Fund, they should have people from the Labrador Coast, they should have people

from the Labrador portion of our Province on that committee that is going to be

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Hopefully it won't be all political

appointments who are past Liberals or donators to the Liberal Party to be put

there to further their own gains, Mr. Chairman. Labrador is certainly well

represented with the minister that they have here in the House of Assembly and I

feel certain that this fund will go a great ways to bringing some equality to

the people's lives in that particular area.

That is all I have to say on that. Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for

the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the

Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1998, sums not exceeding

$353,000,000.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution

and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise,

report progress.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity

North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have

considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they

have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill, Bill No. 33, be

introduced to give effect to the same.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty

Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public

Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1998 And For Other Purposes

Relating To The Public Service," read a first, second and third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 9, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Mechanics' Lien Act". The Minister of Government

Services and Lands introduced the bill.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just a couple

of notes on this particular bill.

The Mechanics' Lien Act is

an act that was enacted many, many

years ago. With the new electronic means that we have for filing, we need to

bring the legislation up to a process whereby we can accommodate the

registration of liens through electronic methods. Certainly the bill that is

here today will accommodate the computerization of the mechanics' lien registry.

In addition, there is a provision to deem a lien to be registered at the point

of delivery, certainly making this act consistent with the Registry of Deeds.

Computerization will make the registration of liens more

efficient, and certainly the priority of interest will be easier to establish

through this amendment, and this effort will certainly improve service to the

business community.

There are just a couple of more quick notes. The Mechanics'

Lien Act governs the process of establishing the lien against property in the

Province. Basically, a lien can be created against property when materials are

provided or services are rendered to a particular property. Certainly in this

case timing is critical to determine the priority.

Currently, the mechanics' liens are registered manually in a

series of index boxes, which has been done over the years, and certainly with

the IT we can improve on that and put it into a computer program. Certainly a

computer registry system has already been developed and tested so we aren't

doing anything really new. Certainly the computer registration system will be

more efficient, making it easier to determine priority and easier to search for

liens already registered.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very straightforward amendment that will

improve government's service to the business community. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say a few

words on Bill 37. What were the last words he used? The minister said it was a

housekeeping or minor amendment, is that what you said? What were the last words

you used?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a minor amendment. No, it is a major

amendment, I would say to the minister. There is no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister said: In case you aren't

aware, we use computers for that. I wonder if the minister knows how to turn on

a computer. I've been using computers for twenty-five years, I say to the

minister. I know a few things about computers and, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Give me a chance! The minister says: What's

wrong with that? Don't be so defensive. I might be up here to compliment you on

this yet. I might be saying it is good, I might say it is good, but I don't

know. If the minister keeps bawling and yelling at me I will bawl and yell right

back, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was up introducing this major bill, he said, and

I think it took him three minutes, or two maybe. He said it was a minor bill.

Now, this is a major bill, Bill 37. I agree it is a major bill, and I will show

why it is a major bill, as time goes by. I don't know how much time I have but I

have papers here everywhere on this, all kinds of notes made, as you can see.

Look, all highlighted. I made a few notes when the minister was up speaking so I

will address his notes first, I suppose.

He said that the present mechanics' lien legislation was

enacted many years ago. There is no doubt about that. Because if you go to the

registry to dig up the information it is all hard copy, written out,

photocopies, and what have you, going through files and different types of

things like that. The intent of this bill I would imagine is to be more

effective, more efficient, and to speed things up. When we talk about that type

of a situation, of course there are costs involved to implement a new system,

this computerized system for the mechanics' lien registry. There has to be costs

to implement that. The minister never addressed that when he was on his feet,

the cost to implement this new system. How many computers are we going to have

to purchase? Another factor. We were talking about efficiency in the system. How

many jobs may be lost because of this, I wonder? Did he address that? No, he

didn't.

I remember in the House of Assembly last week and this week

asking the minister questions with respect to the on-site septic waste disposal

and wells water supply. There are going to be jobs lost there when of course it

becomes more efficient and we become more computerized. Jobs going out the door

all the time. That is a cost in itself, not only respecting the dollars to

implement and to buy computers, and to buy the programs, to maintain the

programs and what have you.

Also, this is going to be put in place to save dollars. There

is no doubt about that. This Administration, since it was elected back in 1996,

and the previous Administration to that back to 1989, have been on a

cost-cutting binge with respect to government. Because of that cost-cutting

binge, we have seen hundreds and hundreds of people laid off. It was only the

other day I think that one of the ministers was on his or her feet talking about

the voluntary departure system that was implemented by this Administration.

There were quite a number of people who were forced out the

door. They were forced out the door because they didn't know what was going to

be done with their pensions. There were talks of cutting the pensions, and there

were all kinds of fears out there. I personally know a number of people who had

to leave government and different Crown corporations, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing for example. So every move that this administration makes, it seems to

me they are either taking money out of the pockets of the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, one way or the other or, causing people to leave the Province or

laying people off. So this bill, although it appears to be minor, could be a

major bill with respect to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Are they

going to charge more, Mr. Speaker, for a search at the Mechanics' Lien? What is

the charge now for a search at the Mechanics' Lien, anything? It is a minor

charge now, ten dollars but we know from the previous Budget, last year's Budget

and the Budget before that; the Budget for 95-96 showed three pages of license

fees and permit increases, doubling and tripling, but there were no tax

increases in that Budget they said, and in the 96-97 Budget, we saw six pages of

license fees and permit increases.

Now, when this is implemented, there is no doubt about it,

you can mark it down, Mr. Speaker, the cost to do a search at the Mechanics'

Lien Registry is going to increase. I think it is somewhere around ten dollars

now to do a search but I stand to be corrected on that figure. It is not a lot

of money but in the meantime, you can mark it down, when they bring in this

system, it will be an increase in what a person has to pay to do a search. The

minister mentions that this action will basically be in consistence with the

Registry of Deeds.

Now we all know, Mr. Speaker, that the Registry of Deeds was

computerized a few years ago and what do we see, Mr. Speaker? We saw from zero,

no charge, I think it was a dollar, a nominal fee, and now, you have to go in

there, purchase a card, you pay for your photocopies and for companies that are

in there searching all the time, there is a monthly charge, I say to the Member

for St. John's East, how much do they charge now at the Registry of Deeds to do

a search?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: At the Registry of Deeds, it depends on

the value of the property.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, it is all geared to the property value.

Now, I ask some questions off and on to the Member for St. John's East because

he is an individual who constantly uses the Registry of Deeds and is quite

familiar with what has happened in the Registry of Deeds. I am somewhat familiar

but not as much as the Member for St. John's East and other groups within the

Province, but I know that, when they computerized the system, it went from one

dollar to a fee that now relates to the cost of the property that you are

researching so, Mr. Speaker, again, another hidden tax on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well now, I heard a comment from the Member

for - what is he for, Bellevue? - talking about paying salaries.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if they want me to talk about members in

this House of Assembly being paid salaries, there are members in this House of

Assembly who are well worth their salaries I say to the Member for Bellevue and

I think that, any member sitting in this House of Assembly and is doing a decent

job at all within his own district and looking after the concerns of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, the money is well spent I say to the member and I

am sure that all members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, oh, oh, oh the Minister of Government

Services and Lands is bringing up a good point in what he said. If there are

companies out there, a survey company for example, was doing work in 1976, would

he be charged the same rate today as they were in 1976? Well the answer to that,

I say to the Government Services and Lands, is that they are getting less for it

today than they were in '76. They are getting less with the increased costs they

have to pay, increased fees for insurances, for permits and to the associations

and what have you, they are getting less today but government is not getting

less for the services they are providing I say to the Minister of Government

Services and Lands. The government is not getting less.

Every door you go through now within government, every office

that you go into and look for a permit or a license or a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, they are trying to deflect me from the

real issue here, Mr. Speaker, and the real issue here is the increased fees that

this government has brought in since 1989; that is what they are doing, they are

trying to distract me and get me away from that because they are completely

embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, completely embarrassed about that over there on that

side of the House, and I saw yesterday in this House of Assembly, for the first

I often heard about Liberal Red, Mr. Speaker, but when the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture was on his feet yesterday, I saw Liberal red for the first time

in my life, I can guarantee you that. When there were questions put to him and

he turned as red as the beet, I knew what the Liberal red was all about.

Now, if you want to continue on and be the distraction that

you are going on with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am serious here. You listen to me and

tell me what I am talking about here. I am talking about the license fees, the

permit increases in Newfoundland and Labrador brought upon us by this

administration which are completely irrelevant to this Bill no. 37, I say to the

Minister of Government Services and Lands because once this is implemented, he

cannot stand in his place over there and tell me there will not be an increase

in the charge to do a search in the mechanics' lien. He cannot tell me, right

there now, he did not tell me how much it was going to cost to implement this,

which is a major consideration. He did not tell me how much he was going to

charge to do the search and he did not tell me how much he was going to save in

the long haul.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have not asked him.

MR. J. BYRNE: I have asked him three or four times and I

thought the minister would be taking notes to answer these questions when he

gets up to respond. That is what I am up to, but I am not getting that, Mr.

Speaker.

But he talks about this being more efficient and no doubt

that this will be more efficient, hopefully it will be, but for everything we do

there is a reaction, if there is an action, there is always a reaction and what

if the reaction -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is physics, I did physics, I know

something about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: An opposite reaction, an equal and opposite

reaction. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, did you pass physics?

MR. FUREY: Did I pass physics?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

MR. FUREY: I passed physics, but (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is about it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I did well on physics and I did well on

post-secondary physics too.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I never did chemistry, but after high

school, I went on and did post-secondary physics, I say to the Minister of Mines

and Energy. I wonder what he did.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will tell you right here and now, I have

no problem in admitting, I did not do physics. I did biology and one of the

rocks that I studied was the minister's head, granite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to - what is the member for - Humber

East, the maw mouth for Humber East. Why don't you sit down and be quiet.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Do you want it? You think I cannot do it,

do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Don't be so childish, immature and simple

minded, my son. I can do it, you need not worry, I can do it. What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Five hundred, make it worth your while.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, can you protect me from the

maw mouth over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious

bill and I being distracted and the Minister of Mines and Energy is the worst

over there, trying to distract me. I have to go down to my notes now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Physics, I am telling you, I should never

cease to amaze you, I say to the member and that should confirm it for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have my son.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill no. 37; "An Act To Amend The

Mechanics' Lien Act" briefly, it is going to accommodate the computerization of

the mechanics' lien registry, but the main concerns are the questions about the

security with respect to the electronic data base and will there be a lack of

hard copy, I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands? Will there be

a lack of hard copy? Will the information that is put into the system, will it

be backed up? Will there be a hard copy stored because we know any computerized

system now are subject to packing, they are subject to what they call - the

computers are down or electrical current going through the system, electricity

going off or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are hacking your way through

something.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I am hacking my way through something.

If the Minister of Mines and Energy would pay attention, he

would learn what that government is doing, and what they are trying to do. I am

asking the Minister of Government Services and Lands serious questions, and this

crowd over here are making fun of Bill 37. It is a serious bill that the

minister is trying to introduce.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a speech

with such depth and such breath that I wonder if the Speaker would protect me

from members on this side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House now, let me think,

about five years I suppose, and the Government House Leader, the present

Government House Leader, the clone of the previous Government House Leader, is

on his feet daily on points of order, and I don't think yet that man has had one

point of order. Of all the times he has been on his feet, not one point of

order, and for a Government House Leader to not know what a point of order is,

is shameful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we are on second reading of a

bill. We should be debating the principles of the bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the bill,

and maybe the Government House Leader will be more serious and take the

seriousness of this bill. The Minister of Government Services and Lands is

introducing this bill -

MR. TULK: That is what I just said.

MR. J. BYRNE: - and he is very serious.

MR. TULK: You didn't hear me, did you?

MR. J. BYRNE: But you are not making it serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

In detail, of course, the government now is shifting from

paper records to computerized systems because of speed, the cost-effectiveness,

and the ease of manipulation of data. Of course, now when people go to the

Registry of Deeds, or the Mechanics' Lien Registry, the system that is in place

now is old and antiquated, and what have you; but now, with this new system,

maybe there will be an improvement.

Again, I say to the minister, when he gets on his feet to

respond in due course, maybe he will talk about the cost to implement it, the

charges that will be charged for the new system, and how much money they are

looking at saving overall.

The Minister of Mines and Energy wants to ask a question, and

in due course if he wants to get on his feet and speak to this bill he is

welcome to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, is that right? That is a good point, I

say to the minister. That is a good point, but if we do get hacking... We can

get people who get in hacking and erase information. Did you ever hear tell of

that, to erase information? That is a concern. Did you ever know that? Now, when

you sit back and are going to make a comment, you should think about the

consequences of your comment, and what you are talking about. I say to the

minister, don't be embarrassing yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I know how to use a computer. That is

why I have some concerns about this.

The information that will be in the system, of course, is

going to be the name and address of the service, and the people who will be

involved in the lien, and the amount of money that may be involved in the lien

itself, and the agreement and what have you. I suppose that is something that

may need to be looked at in due course.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will say one thing, Mr. Speaker. I know

when I am on my feet to speak on this side of the House, I can guarantee you one

thing, the crowd over there that pays attention, they are all the time trying to

interrupt. When most of them are on their feet answering questions, as I

mentioned earlier this morning, it is a job to stay awake, but not when I am on

my feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, four years in Grade IX.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment raises some concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: Grade VI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Grade VI. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with

this crowd over there? Are they afraid of the truth and the facts? It is pitiful

the comments that come from that side of the House. The comments that are

supposed to be, trying to be, witty and intelligent are witless and dull.

I have the ear of the Government House Leader. Now, is there

a danger in limiting the filing of information on paper, having it on the

electronic data base, I ask the minister? What happens if there is computer

failure, power outage, electro-magnetic disruption, accidental erasure of the

data, tampering, or computer hacking, resulting in the loss of original

information?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I tell you what we do on our side. We have

researchers. We go to these people and we make points to these individuals and

ask them to do a bit of research for us. What the problem is, and why there was

a 69.1 per cent failure rate in that Administration, is because of the research

that they do, or the lack of research that they do, on these issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true, not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are hearing it from the horse's mouth.

I am saying it. I ask, where is the back-up? Will there be back-up copies, I ask

the minister? This bill does not require the department to create even a back-up

list, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would be wise to amend the bill by adding the

requirement that a certified hard copy duplicate be made. Maybe the minister

should look at making an amendment or a change to the proposed bill to require a

hard copy to be made.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have to put my glasses on

every now and then to look across the House. Do you ever watch the show The

Muppets ? Well, there they are, the crowd up in the gallery - like the two

old crones.

AN HON. MEMBER: You look like the chef who lost his hat.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the chef who lost his hat? I

don't know what the man is talking about. Now, they had me distracted again.

There is no doubt about that.

I say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands that

hopefully, when he passes this bill and he is asked legitimate questions in the

House concerning this bill, that he can answer them better, and do a better job

on the questions I asked him the other day in the House of Assembly with respect

to the on-site septic waste disposal system. He never had an idea. With respect

to questions, there are forty-one questions, and not one question answered of

the forty-one questions on the Order Paper. That will tell you now what this

Administration is doing and how busy they are.

With respect to this registry, I would say to the Minister of

Government Services and Lands, the Department of Government Services and Lands

is responsible for a number of registries: the registry of deeds, the mechanics'

lien registry, the Crown lands registry. Is there any movement afoot, I wonder -

and I asked the minister this last year - any movement or plans by the

Administration to combine all these registries? Another major concern of mine is

the privatization of these registries.

What is on the go, I would ask the minister, if I could get

the minister's ear. I wonde