June 1, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to read a tribute in the

House.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting to take a few minutes of the time

of the House of Assembly today to pay tribute to one of Newfoundland and Labrador's finest

and best known musicians, John White, who sadly has just passed away after a long and

productive life.

John White was known throughout this Province and beyond our shores as

one of Newfoundland and Labrador's best traditional singers and musicians; and he

practised the art well into his senior years at folk festivals and parties all over the

Province. He was a true pioneer of Newfoundland culture, carrying the distinctive styles

of song and music onto the airwaves through the medium of television that evolved through

his lifetime.

He became a national icon, a Newfoundland treasure, and his influence

was felt by countless musicians who grew up and performed under his wing. These musicians,

I am sure, will remember him each time they perform certain traditional Newfoundland

songs, and they will tell their audiences and children for generations to come about the

man that we all had the privilege of hearing firsthand. Through the magic of television,

we will have the privilege of seeing and hearing John White for many years to come, but we

will miss the man himself.

I had the privilege of having John White and his family as constituents

in St. John's South. His mother and her family lived on Patrick Street before she

developed advanced Alzheimer's disease. She was then placed in special care. For many

years, as her disease was progressing, John lived with his mother, and despite serious

problems with his own health, nursed and cared for her.

He was a caring man, a man full of fun and honour, a man with a big

heart, and a man much admired and much loved by those who have had the privilege of

knowing him. We can hold him up with pride to the world as the epitome of the true

Newfoundlander.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House send appropriate condolences to his

family.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I concur with the comments of the Member for St. John's South.

Actually, after Mr. White's death was announced yesterday, I did some commentary for the

media emphasizing the importance of what John contributed to everyone in this Province,

but in particular to our culture.

I remember growing up, some of the first television shows, actually,

that were a great success in this Province - All Around The Circle was due in no

small part to John White. I know that everyone in the music industry today mourn, and

indeed all of the Province does. He will be sorely missed.

He was very active, you know, even through his recent illness. Up until

three weeks ago, he actually took

part in a recording and we all looking forward now to

seeing this very last effort of a truly great man, one who contributed so much to the very

important cultural history of our Province.

As a government we will certainly ensure, on behalf of all us in this

Legislature, that the appropriate condolences and expressions of sympathy are sent to his

family.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in recognizing the contribution of John White to

the culture of this Province. Those who celebrate our culture, Mr. Speaker, through

performance or through a collection and respect for that culture, have a very important

place in our society, Mr. Speaker.

John White was very much a part of that, both through his performance

and through his concern and interest in the traditional songs of Newfoundland and of St.

John's. He played an important role in editing the Ballads of Johnny Burke and

published them. As previously mentioned, he was a well known figure at folk festivals,

through CBC radio and television, and his contribution to the local culture and

performance circuit will be remembered by all, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

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

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: More good news, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to announce a new, two-year Provincial Home Repair Program

for this Province.

This is a made in Newfoundland and Labrador program for senior

citizens, individuals with disabilities, aboriginals and low income families, including

social assistance recipients.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: This program was designed by Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing Corporation and involves federal/provincial expenditures of $14 million over the

next two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: This represents an increase of $3.8 million in

provincial funding allocations over the next two years.

It is significant, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that it enables clients to

undertake more substantive repairs to their homes, and it will more than double the level

of service to the working poor.

This new housing repair program will address the needs in a more

responsive manner. It will make it possible for seniors to remain in their homes and

maintain independent lifestyles for longer periods of time. It will enable low-income

home-owners to correct fire, life-safety and other major deficiencies in their homes. For

fire safety purposes, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will insist that

every home repaired under this program will have to be equipped with a smoke or heat

detector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: It will provide assistance for those requiring

respond to urgent repair needs of social assistance recipients. It will allow Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing to upgrade the quality of housing to approximately 2,000 low-income

households and provide emergency repairs and assistance to an additional 1,400 households

over the two-year period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated that this new program

will create more than 650 direct seasonal jobs in the Province's construction industry

over the next two years.

In part, this program was made possible as a result of the Social

Housing Agreement which the Province signed last year with the federal government. The

agreement provides more flexibility and allows Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to

redirect federal RRAP funding.

Mr. Speaker, both the Throne Speech and the Budget Speech enunciated a

renewed program commitment to Social Policy Reform; one that includes new ideas and

innovated measures to bring about meaningful change. The new Provincial Home Repair

Program will help those who are most in need to better provide for themselves and their

families. It is an important component, Mr. Speaker, of this government's social policy

reform.

It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to make complete packages available to

all members of the House immediately.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, of course, to thank the minister for a copy of his

statement. I can only say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, thank God

we have this minister over there because, with the exception of him, I believe he is the

only one who every once in awhile gets up and throws out a little tiny bit of good news

anyway.

We welcome your news today, Minister. It is nice to see that we do have

this extra funding. I believe at present there is something like a three-year waiting

program on RRAP, and I would be very interested to see exactly how far we go with this

program in cleaning up the backlog. I certainly welcome the news that each home will now -

if it does not already - have at least a smoke detector installed in it.

We can only say that as long as this provides employment it will allow

some of our seniors to stay in their homes for awhile, and it will certainly do much

needed repairs to a lot of the homes in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very welcomed announcement for many people. There are so many

people who have been waiting anxiously for the program to be announced and who are in

desperate need to have repairs done.

I want to congratulate the minister and the government on building some

flexibility into federal programs which often do not relate to the needs of people in this

Province. I would hope that flexibility continues with respect to the rules that apply so

that people are not excluded for arbitrary reasons when they have an equal need for

housing. I hope we will be able to work with my constituents, the minister's office, and

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, to deliver this program to as many people as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair,

does she have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise first of all and comment on the great speed and

efficiency with which this minister operates. It was only two weeks ago in the House we

were wondering where this program was, and here today we have a completely revised, more

flexible program for the people of the Province. I want to commend the minister on

incorporating that flexibility within the program and allowing seniors and people with

disabilities to be able to participate.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is welcomed news for

home-owners around the Province who avail of this program. About 130 people in my district

have been awaiting the announcement of this program in order to partake in it, to do the

necessary repairs and upgrading that they need done to their property. I hope we will

continue to see programs like this so they are able to meet the needs of these people who

are on low income.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More good news.

As the Province's Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it gives me

great pleasure today to inform the House about a new federal-provincial $5 million

Aquaculture Working Capital Fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Along with my colleague, Hon. Beaton Tulk, and the

federal Secretary of State for Fisheries and Oceans, I participated this morning in

announcing this new fund for the farmed shellfish sector.

A source of working capital is vital to the survival of our shellfish

aquaculture industry. Lack of such capital would be a major impediment to the full

commercialization of shellfish species. For most aquaculture enterprises, it takes a

minimum of three years before operations see a positive cash flow. In the interim, debt

must be serviced, and salaries and other operating expenses paid. In most, if not all,

cases, personal funding of the producers is exhausted in the process of developing the

aquaculture site beyond the experimental stage.

Many producers have reached the stage where they can begin full

commercialization, but only if they have the necessary operating capital to do so. Despite

numerous representations by the provincial government and industry itself, Mr. Speaker,

commercial banks and other similar financial institutions are not willing to provide

working capital loans for aquaculture operations. They do not deem fish inventory to be

acceptable security for loans.

The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture estimates that $5 million

in working capital support will be required to fully commercialize the shellfish industry.

I am happy to inform the House that the new Aquaculture Working Capital Fund we announced

this morning is providing that $5 million. It is funded by a contribution of $3 million

from the Canada-Newfoundland Agreement on Economic Renewal, and $2 million from the

Canada-Newfoundland Strategic Regional Diversification Agreement. This $5 million will

lever an additional $10 million of investment in the industry.

Until today, shellfish growers have faced serious funding challenges.

With this new fund, we predict that the total production of cultured blue mussels will

reach 1,600 tonnes this year, and will continue to have strong growth over the next

several years.

This is a strategic investment in a growth industry. It is an

investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It ensures that our shellfish sector will

reach its commercial potential to become a viable player in a rapidly growing and

internationally competitive industry. I must emphasize that only those companies who have

demonstrated their investment in the industry and whose business plans show they have the

capability of moving forward with shellfish commercialization will be considered for

assistance under the new fund.

I must note that today's announcement was made at Aquaculture

Association of Canada's Annual Conference and Trade Show being held here in St. John's.

This important forum is co-hosted by the Aquaculture Association of Canada, with more than

300 delegates from across the country registered for this important forum. A related event

to take place later is the official opening of a $1.2 million aquaculture training

facility at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University. Also funded in part

by the Agreement on Economic Renewal, this facility is a good example of government,

industry and educational institutions working together to advance aquaculture in the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, government is committed to the commercial development of

our aquaculture industry. We know where the markets are and we know what it takes to break

into these markets. Our ongoing research and development efforts and the new operating

capital fund have laid the groundwork for achieving that goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, he is 100 per cent right.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly positive news. I compliment the minister for providing the

news and providing me with a copy of his news release.

The shellfish industry in this Province certainly provides one

opportunity for rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador; when you see $5 million

put forward, and it is put forward in such a way that those people will be able, it is my

understanding, to access this money now.

Whereas what the minister states is true - the

complaint that I have heard is that people involved in the aquaculture industry,

especially the shellfish industry, find it very difficult to get operating money from the

ordinary loan agencies in this Province.

It is certainly positive news. I have one concern, that the minister

himself would have any direction as to where this money would be spent.

Thank you.

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

he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community

Services. A surprise, I would say to the Government House Leader.

Minister, on May 8 in this House you were asked by the Member for Cape

St. Francis why this Province will not cover the cost of new drugs to improve the quality

of life for individuals with multiple sclerosis. You said that evidence must be provided

clinically to support the usage of these drugs. Betaseron was federally approved in July

1995; Copaxon was approved in September 1997; and Rebif was approved in February of this

year.

I ask the minister: Why are you making excuses based on false

information?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not, and I did not, make any statement based on false

information. I will say again, that every single year the federal government approves

hundreds and perhaps thousands of new drugs on the market. Unfortunately, in this Province

we only have $50 million, which is quite significant, but certainly not enough to

introduce the thousands of new drugs that are introduced every year via the federal

government's approval.

In this Province, what we have done, Mr. Speaker, is try to make our

decision on the best evidence available. We, in conjunction with other Atlantic Provinces,

have put together a group of professionals with expertise to make recommendations to us.

We have asked them to do that on a number of drugs and we have made decisions on that.

That is where we are with this particular drug. My position, and the information, are as

factual today as they were when the previous member asked the question weeks ago.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 8, on three different occasions, to three different questions,

you referred to evidence based decisions. You went on to say that what we have to do

"is to have the evidence to support the clinical trials usage...," and so on;

and on other occasions, on each response.

Minister, over 80 per cent of Canadians have access to these new

breakthrough therapies that are assisting people. People in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Yukon; all these people can be relieved from their

suffering. Why can't Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the same opportunity?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With the hundreds of new drugs that are being introduced into the

market every year, people who want to avail of those drugs, if they want to avail of them

under our drug formulary provincial program, know they have to be approved on that

formulary. We try to make the best decisions.

As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the betaseron, for

example, for multiple sclerosis, there is a new drug called aricept that is there for

Alzheimer's patients, and the numbers of other drugs that come out each year. Right now,

you have probably heard, Mr. Speaker, that there are new drugs to treat cancer whereby it

actually attacks the blood circulation around the tumour. There are so many new drugs that

come out, Mr. Speaker, every single day and certainly every single month and year, that we

have to look at our pool of resources and make the best decisions on the best evidence we

have. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we rely on the experts for our information and stand by

the recommendations that they will make to us.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are three drugs that have been successful in dealing with

remitting MS. It has been almost three years since one of these, Minister, and we have not

added one of these three. All of the other provinces I named have one or two and some are

looking at three.

All I am asking you, Minister, is to approve at least one of these, if

not all three. Minister, do you expect people suffering, who can get relief from this, to

have to leave our Province to go to another province, as people have done, to try to get

treatment for a disease that is causing a great amount of suffering to them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister for Health and Community

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we do add these drugs, it is not because the hon. member across the

way has asked me to do it. If we add the drugs, it will be after we get the recommendation

and work with a group of expert physicians and other clinical pharmacologists who we have

working on our behalf in the Atlantic region. That is how we make our decisions. When we

change, if we change, and how we change which drugs are added to the formula, will be

based on the best information that we have received, based on our financial capability to

pay, when those recommendations are made by the experts in the field.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Experts all over this country have given their approval after clinical

trials have proven that these drugs are important in relieving suffering for people with

MS, and 80 per cent of Canadians now have access to them. People in Newfoundland and

Labrador do not have access, I say to the Minister. They have passed the test and are

federally approved.

Now while there is a fair cost associated with those drugs, and I

certainly admit that - the costs are well documented there - the cost of not making these

available can be substantially greater. Hospitalization of these people -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to

get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: In light of the fact that people, because they do not

get these drugs, have been hospitalized, have lost work, have had to resort to pensions

and have home care costs, I ask the Minister: Has she considered the cost of not approving

those drugs here to the economy of our Province, and directly to the budget of the Health

Department?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can clearly say we have factored in the cost of new drugs and what it

would mean to our formulary, just as we look at the cost of smoking to our health care

system, drinking to our health care system, new drugs to treat schizophrenia, alzheimer's

and cancer; all of those impacts. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have a body of money that

we have to use, in the amount of $50 million, that we distribute between our indigence

program and our seniors' program and we have to make the choices we think are best to meet

the needs of those that require the drugs. That is what we are faced with, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would like to be able to include every single new drug that

comes on the market once it has proven itself to be clinically effective. However, Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately, on this side of the House, we do not have the luxury of throwing

everything on the table. We have to make very tough choices and very tough decisions. We

have done that and we will include those decisions, we will make the choices based on the

best information we have, when it is made available to us by our Atlantic group. That is

how we will make those decisions, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On May 21 in this House, I introduced a Private Members' Resolution

therapies that have been clinically proven to significantly improve the quality of life

for any individual with multiple sclerosis. In fact, the Premier rose in his seat and

suggested an immediate vote which passed unanimously on this resolution.

I ask the minister now, in the absence of the Premier - and I think the

minister was attending meetings at that particular time: Would she now stop paying

lip-service and honour that resolution, and give people who are suffering from multiple

sclerosis their lives back?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the resolution in front

of me but I do believe the intent was to do whatever was possible within our means. At

least that was my understanding of that intention of that resolution.

I will say again, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that

this is not in any way an attempt to not acknowledge what happens in situations where

people have multiple sclerosis. It is not to undermine what people go through who are

suffering from schizophrenia, from alzheimer's, from cancer, or any of the other

debilitating new diseases or old diseases that we have, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying very

clearly is that we have a certain amount of money, we have hundreds of different drugs, we

will make the decision when it is brought to us.

Our Atlantic group, working in conjunction with Prince Edward Island,

New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, are working collectively on this issue, as well as other

drugs that have been brought forward to our attention to make a decision on, and that is

how we will make our decisions, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the

Minister of Environment and Labour.

Minister, this government, and you as Minister of Environment and

Labour, had the opportunity in the past year, since receiving the report of the Statutory

Review Committee on Workers' Compensation, to do the just and honourable thing for

workers' compensation in this Province by reforming the callous, uncaring, and

condescending workers' compensation system. I can only say today, Minister, that you have

blown it.

Why, for example, after years of slashing benefits, have you seen fit

only to give a small portion of injured workers a measly 5 per cent increase in benefits

when so many of them are struggling to survive so far just above or around the poverty

line? Why did the minister ignore the review committee's recommendations for a solid

increase in benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, as the

commission's finances improved we passed on that improvement to the injured workers.

Basically we operated, as I said, within the time frame of 2012 as a mortgage date. The

flexibility that was afforded to us, we passed that on to the people who are on the

system, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: What about those injured workers with long-term

disability who are unable to do their jobs because of injuries they have through no fault

of their own? Why has the minister abandoned them? Is he punishing them for not recovering

from their injuries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the

truth.

With the latest improvements that we made with the extra CPP benefits

going from 80 per cent to 75 per cent, the worker on long-term right now is getting

approximately 90 per cent of pre-injury net pay. Obviously we would like to be able to do

better and as the system improves we would like to do that; but at the end of the day, as

I said earlier, as I said on Friday, we want to maintain the integrity of the system to

provide for the injured worker a fund that is there when they need it.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, in any situation you cannot please all of the

stakeholders; but I think in this situation we have done what we could with the

flexibility that was there, and as the system improves we can do further benefits to the

worker and to the employer as well.

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

Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I also ask: Why is the government continuing to treat injured

workers with suspicion? This cap on rates entrenches many injured workers in abject

poverty. Does the minister accept that injured workers are off work legitimately? If he

does, how then does he expect them to cover their cost and pay their bills on the level of

income with which he has left them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, we want to operate on the premise that

every person who is on the system is legitimate. Obviously, if an injured worker is there

through no fault of his own - and I would assume that of 100 per cent of the people who

are there - then there is no witch-hunt from me.

Basically what I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is this: To maintain the

financial stability of the system, and viability, we are doing that. What the system can

afford to give the worker, that is basically what we have done.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to ask the minister today: What assurances can he

give the House and the injured workers that the opinion of their physicians will be the

opinion that is certainly best considered and listened to, and not overruled by the

Commission? Also, Mr. Minister, what assurances do we have that the horror stories about

deeming will not continue during the one-year, so-called pilot program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Basically, Mr. Speaker, I explained deeming on Friday.

It is not a one-year pilot project. Many of the things that we talked about - the

flexibility of the hours, the labour market information, the transferrable skills, the

involving of the injured worker in the deeming process - are already taking place.

What I asked the Commission to do, from the people who are there - a

person who is an employee's rep, a person who is an employer's rep, a person at large, to

monitor to make sure that what the Commission is actually saying they are doing is being

done. And I would hope they will not have to ask the minister to keep their feet to the

fire. These people who are on the Commission's Board of Directors represent the system,

and I would hope they would do their job.

Basically the deeming process, as I see it, has caused a lot of

problems for the injured worker, but I believe we are on the right track. We are doing it

now, and I believe that at the end of the year when the final report comes back to me, the

injured worked will indeed have found the system friendly to him.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Acting Minister of Justice or

Attorney General. They have to do with a decision last week, a unanimous decision as

rendered by the Court of Appeal, dealing with the matter of Mr. Ronald Dalton. At that

time, Mr. Dalton's second-degree murder conviction was set aside and a new trial was

ordered.

My question to the acting minister relates to the fact that in part,

Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal says the following: The resolution of this appeal leaves

unanswered the deeply troubling question of how this man could have passed eight years of

his life in jail before substantial grounds challenging the integrity of his conviction

were brought on for a hearing.

Mr. Speaker, there are many important issues, many fundamental issues

of justice that are contained in this particular decision. I ask the Acting Minister of

Justice and Acting Attorney General: Has this decision been reviewed by the department or

by government generally? And what steps are presently being taken to review this very

important decision?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The decision will be reviewed by the Department of Justice and any

appropriate action will be taken.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the comment made by the acting minister that there will be a review,

I would ask the minister: Will he include in this review the present provisions of the

Newfoundland Legal Aid regime which in many ways limit the access to justice by many of

our citizens? And, I would ask the minister: Will the review of this decision include the

present law and the present regulations as they exist to the Newfoundland Legal Aid

Commission restricting and limiting, primarily for budgetary reasons I might add, access

to justice initiatives and access to justice principles?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not really sure if that is part of an appropriate review. The

Legal Aid system covers certain matters; those would be criminal justice and family

matters. If the hon. member's issue is to expand it beyond that to include other forms of

aid that are not covered under the system, I am not sure that would be appropriate nor

arise out of this particular decision. If the decision points to some inadequacy of the

government or its system in providing appropriate representation then that, of course,

would be a matter for appropriate review.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would request a firmer commitment from the

minister, and it is for the following reason: At the end of the decision, Mr. Speaker, the

Justices, the three Justices, unanimously state that undoubtedly those charged with the

administration of justice and the provision of legal services in this Province will feel

constrained in due course when satisfied that collateral inquiry will not impede the

realization of justice on retrial, to receive explanation why a citizen languished in

prison for eight years before substantial challenges to the justification of his presence

there were brought before this court for hearing.

In view of this wording which is at the very end of the decision - the

unanimous decision, Mr. Speaker - I would ask for a commitment from this minister to

ensure that the provisions and the limitations and the present regulations as they relate

to the Legal Aid Commission in this Province will be fully reviewed and addressed.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What would be a fundamental concern is the issue of delay and, as the

hon. member says, why it was not brought forward for eight years. Having said that, just

from the quote the hon. member reads, it does not seem to me to be an issue regarding

regulations so much as perhaps the practice of the corporation and the commission, whether

or not the lawyer acted in a timely fashion.

Mr. Speaker, all we can appropriately say at this stage is that the

decision will be reviewed, that appropriate action will be taken. Whether or not that

necessitate a change in the administration of Legal Aid or its regulation I would be

unable to say right now, but we will certainly review the decision. Matters like this

cause us great concern and we wish to ensure that the system of justice works fairly for

all.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for

the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Mr. Speaker, while I would one of the first to celebrate the production

at the Hibernia site, as well as other oil finds yet to be developed, we will all agree

that we must put our environment at a very high priority. The Terra Nova Assessment Panel

has identified some of the shortfalls in how we are set up to protect the environment, Mr.

Speaker.

Considering this is Environment Week, I would ask the Minister of

Environment and Labour if recommendation 61 of the Terra Nova Assessment Panel, which

indicates that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador should establish a coastal zone

management plan for the Avalon Peninsula and the west side of Placentia Bay, has been

addressed to date? If so, what has been put in place?

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

MR. FUREY: All of these recommendations are being reviewed by the

C-NOPB, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. As you know, we have just

appointed a new Chair down there, Mr. Hal Stanley. He has not had a chance to be briefed

on all of these matters, but the recommendations as they are put forward are being

reviewed on a timely basis by the company and by both orders of government.

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, six months ago the minister stated

that within seventy-two hours the resources could be brought together to respond to a

10,000 ton oil spill. Can the minister tell the House if there has been any increase in

the amount of oil spill response resources located in this Province since the beginning of

this year, and if so how much?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the minister was absolutely accurate in his

statements at that time and they are still accurate today. As I said, the whole review of

the recommendations, particularly as they relate to the environmental proposals put

forward by C-NOPB and by the development plan itself, are being reviewed and the

recommendations are being acted upon in a very methodical and professional manner.

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I would ask the minister this, then. Considering

the fact that the oil carriers working with the Hibernia site contain more than ten times

the amount of oil that we are capable of containing in the event of an emergency, I ask,

Minister: Do you feel that the people of this Province should be given an explanation at

this time as to when we will upgrade the oil emergency response team to contain 100,000

tons of oil, which is what these carriers carry?

The people of this Province, Mr. Minister, I believe, are owed an

explanation as to why the people who work at sea for a living, the people who work in

tourism industry and so on, their livelihoods are put in jeopardy in the event of an oil

spill at this time.

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

MR. FUREY: The answer that I gave is the answer that I gave. The

minister has responded before, that within a seventy-two hour period the forces that are

required to deal with any kind of catastrophic emergency that the hon. member paints would

be brought to bear. The Coast Guard, Search and Rescue, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: My point is that these can be done fairly rapidly. Also,

I just forget the time frame right now but I think within a five- or seven-day period, the

companies tell us they can bring all kinds of expertise from around the world to be

brought to bear on any kind of large catastrophe, as had happened in the Shetland Islands.

You will note that when the ship went aground in the Shetland Islands there was not an

immediate response, although there was an immediate environmental catastrophic.

What happened was they would have to amass the forces from Europe to

come and deal with that. They could, up to a certain limit, deal with spills at a certain

capacity and volume. Otherwise - what the hon. member is saying is that we should have a

billion dollar site along the Coast of Labrador, and it should be there whether it is used

or not. I mean, it is an insurance policy.

The recommendations that were laid out by C-NOPB are very clear. They

are spelled out extremely clearly for the company to abide by, and the company, in concert

with C-NOPB, are working towards achieving that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation regarding the changes to the Public Tender

Act.

Several weeks ago the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

promised to overhaul the public tendering system and the government procurement practices

to promote local manufacturers and producers. When the minister finally took the lid off

his proposed changes last week, what we saw instead was the wholesale dismantling of the

Public Tender Act and the creation of a situation where government has the free rein to

dish out lucrative publicly-funded contracts to whomever they please without a public

tender call.

Why, under paragraph 3(2)(

i) of the proposed legislation is the

government proposing to give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology broad

discretionary powers to exclude from the Public Tender Act any project deemed to have an

economic development purpose?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must be reading from a different piece of legislation,

or a different script, because quite the contrary. We have not done anything in the

proposed amendments that I tabled in the House last week to weaken the Public Tender Act.

On the contrary, we have taken several measures to bring the Public Tender Act in line

with (

a) what is happening in other jurisdictions with whom we have signed trade

agreements, such as the internal trade agreement with all provinces, and the Atlantic

procurement accord, and (

b) we have brought the act, or we propose bringing the act, in

line with the recommendations that we received generally from all of the stakeholder who

appeared before us in the consultation process.

As I indicated to him the other day, there were about 120 people who

appeared, there were forty-two written briefs submitted, there were eight individual

presentations after the public presentations. The cumulative action we are taking is as a

result of all the representation made.

As a matter of fact, I was just looking through my notes here for a

piece that I found on my desk this morning from the Newfoundland and Labrador

Manufacturers Association's president soundly and roundly endorsing the measures that we

have taken. That type of support, together with the type of support we have from

municipalities, the boards of trade, the chambers of commerce, are really the basis for

the action we have taken. The hon. member, if he was fair-minded at all about it, and I am

sure he is, or at least he intends to be, will recognize that the amendments are the

appropriate ones at this point in time.

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

Francis.

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

The minister can rationalize all he wants but he is not answering the

question. Will the minister kindly tell us when a piece of government work does not have

economic development implications just how broadly will the minister be able to interpret

this provision? Because there will be absolutely no definition anywhere in the act to say

what she can and cannot exclude from the public tendering under this provision. She will

have absolute power, and it has often been said that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is waxing quite eloquently today with respect to the

effects of power and absolute power and that type of thing. We take it that he may know a

little bit of what he is talking.

In terms of the amendments to the act to give the Minister of ITT

latitude in using RFPs as opposed to tendering for economic development purposes, the

criteria will be very strictly defined in regulation. Essentially, in broad terms, and as

per the statute that we will be revising, there are about three things that have to

happen. Firstly, it has to be in the judgement of the minister. Secondly, it has to be

with the affirmation of Cabinet. Thirdly, it has to be on the basis of a reporting to the

House of Assembly for any exemption that we have made.

To that particular point, we are making that provision, that change in

the act, so that we are rendered in the same circumstance exactly in terms of ability to

recognize economic development value for the Province as every other province in Canada.

That change to the Public Tender Act will bring us only in line with the internal trade

agreement with which we have entered into with all of the other provinces in Canada. To do

less would put our industries in Newfoundland at a gross disadvantage as opposed to every

other province in Canada. Simply put, we are not prepared to leave ourselves in that

position. We need that flexibility, we need that tool to be able to work with. We will be

in no different circumstance, once the amendment is put forward, than all of the other

provinces in Canada. We certainly intend to ensure that that is where we are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to again bring to hon. members' attention that questions

for Question Period should not be related to legislation that is on the Order Paper. It is

my understanding that the questions asked relate to the amendments to the Public Tender

Act and the hon. member should restrict his questions to that which could be asked during

the debate. The questions here should be on matters outside of the legislative agenda.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

MR. J. BYRNE: I accept your ruling no doubt, Mr. Speaker, but the

point that I would like to make: For the sake of openness and transparency, maybe the

House of Assembly would give me leave to ask the third question that I would like to ask,

Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, rules are rules.

MR. J. BYRNE: No?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Government

Services and Lands a question maybe. Now please, members on that side of the House, don't

panic. Don't try and protect the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What do you mean? I can ask a question, can't I?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, actually on December 9, 1997, I raised

questions about the government's decision to make home-owners and perspective home-owners

pay the cost of having septic waste system assessments done. No longer are government

inspectors doing the work. I warned at the time that the change would cost new home-owners

dearly, especially those in rural areas, Mr. Speaker, but the minister said it might only

cost a couple of hundred dollars. Mr. Speaker, I have checked this out, especially with

engineering firms.

Will the minister confirm that, in fact, some people are now having to

dish out upwards of $1,500 because of this new policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question of what it costs to pay for septic tank designs for

cottage owners and residential areas; it can range in any number of amounts, Mr. Speaker.

It depends on who you want to get. If you want to go out and find somebody who is going to

charge an arm and a leg to get it done, fine. If you want to find somebody who will charge

you a very minimal amount, fine. But, Mr. Speaker, it is for the individuals to take that

responsibility now and not government.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, later on we will be moving to Concurrence

Motion but I am going to call first reading on Motion Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, if I could.

First reading of Bill Nos. 28, 30, 31 and 32.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," carried. (Bill No. 28)

On motion, Bill No. 28 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The Province,"

carried. (Bill No. 31)

On motion, Bill No. 31 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act," carried.

(Bill No. 30)

On motion, Bill No. 30 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, Concurrence Motion, Resource

Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Concurrence Motion, Order No. 3, Resource

Committee.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate but I do not know

how many minutes I have left. If I could be advised as to how much time I have left,

perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I would let someone else speak and I will join in again a little

later, if I have five minutes or so. Can anyone tell me?

Mr. Speaker, can the Table advise me as to how much time I have left?

AN HON. MEMBER: As long as you want, hon. member, with leave.

MR. HARRIS: With leave, I can have as long as I want.

I have six minutes left. I think I will save them, Mr. Speaker, and

join in debate a little later.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has already spoken in the debate and now he is - my

understanding is that we are speaking for thirty minutes. You can speak as often as you

want, as long as you do not take up any more than thirty minutes. Are those the rules we

are still under?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, fine.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before the member starts speaking -

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

MR. TULK: - there is a bill that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, but we will not take his time.

There is a bill on the next page of Orders of the Day which I wanted to

call first reading on, but that I did not see. It is, "An Act To Amend The Members Of

The House Of Assembly Pensions Act". I wonder if we could revert and call that, not

take any time away from him, and move on? If so, I move first reading of Motion No. 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 9.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An

Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act", carried. (Bill No.

33).

On motion, Bill No. 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: For clarification, I ask the hon. the Government House

Leader if he had called Motion No. 8?

MR. TULK: I called it, but I do not think (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, well the Chair will put Motion 8 as well.

Motion, the hon the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruise Ship Authority", carried.

(Bill No. 32).

Motion, Bill No. 32, read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: We are back to Order No. 3, the Resource Committee.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, just to speak for a

few minutes on this particular proceeding this afternoon in the House.

It is, once again, an opportunity for members on this side of the House

to make comment on various aspects of the Budget and various aspects of the Estimate

hearings, in particular the one that we are reviewing now, the Resource Committee. Of

course, all these committees and all these headings, Mr. Speaker, have to do with the

Budget which was presented several months ago. Of course, we have been, since that time,

debating this Budget, debating what little is seemed to be of benefit to Newfoundlanders

with, of course, members of this side of the House, repeating day-after-day what we find

to be simply weak and unacceptable as it relates to the Budget which was presented by this

government a number of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few points I would like to address, but I

would like to just preface my few comments, once again, by reminding all members in this

House of the very real problem which is being faced by government in years to come; when

we look at the overall deficit, in excess of $100 million in terms of funding, which is

available to the general coffers of this government in years to come.

I am referring specifically to the HST transitional funding and the

Term 29 award. Both of these fiscal arrangements entered into between the Province of

is only a matter of a short period of time; in fact, during the fiscal year of 1999, less

than one-year away, when we see significant amounts of money simply not being available to

this government as it relates to the HST transitional fund and the provisions of Term 29.

For example, in 1997, under the HST transition there was funding

available in the amount of $127 million, and because of the arrangement entered into last

year between our provincial government and its federal cousins, there was a Term 29 award

of $40 million, for a total of the two of $167 million.

In 1998 we see the same figures being available to us, $127 million

under HST transition and $40 million under Term 29. So the total of the two, $167 million.

In fact, this year, when we just use these figures alone, Mr. Speaker, we are not short.

However, when we look at the years to come, in 1999 we see a shortfall of $104 million and

that is made up of the $63 million that we received from the HST Transition, for a total

of $63 million, for a shortfall of $104 million. In the year 2000, HST transition reduced

by a further $32 million for a total of $31 million; nothing under the Term 29 award. So,

in fact, in less than two years, Mr. Speaker, we operate under a shortfall of $136

million. In the year after that, the year 2001, we will receive absolutely zero under the

HST transition award. We receive absolutely zero once again under Term 29. So we have a

total shortfall of $167 million.

So the question, of course, has to be asked: What are the projections?

We keep hearing forecasts from outside agencies, but I am quite curious as to what the

forecast of this government is, Mr. Speaker. What are this government's projections as it

relates to its ability to maintain its fiscal shop in order to ensure that the affairs and

needs of the people of this Province are being addressed and looked after on a day-to-day

basis. One hundred and sixty seven million dollars is simply not chicken feed, I say

Mr. Speaker. One hundred and sixty seven million dollars is a

significant sum of money and one has to question exactly how this government, in its

planning and in its budgetary process, will see fit to ensure that the adequate

arrangements are in place.

One place they could look, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps by

paying particular attention to the very real issue that was released last week, as it

relates to the UI surplus.

Now, there are a variety of opinions as to what ought to be done with

such a significant surplus, and we are talking billions of dollars. It is an unbelievable

set of circumstances that the federal government now finds itself in, where because of

premiums collected and because of monies paid out under the UI plan, we see such

significant amounts of money being held in surplus. It presents a real dilemma for the

Prime Minister and and his Minister of Finance in terms of how he ought to deal with this

surplus in a fair and equitable way to employers, to employees, to all of the provinces,

because it is a federal plan, it is a national plan, and perhaps most specifically to the

regions of the country that require and need it the most. So what is the approach that

will be taken by government, by the federal government, to ensure some equity and I guess

some reimbursement to those parties who have paid in significant amounts of money under

this particular plan?

Perhaps in terms of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, what role, what

leadership role, is our government taking in terms of taking a position, advocating a

position, to their federal counterparts in Ottawa to see what can be done to address the

real budgetary shortfall, which according to those statistics which I read out just a few

minutes ago appear just to be a matter of months away? What are some of the options that

may be available?

One option, one alternative with respect to the UI surplus, is a clear

and simple reimbursement to employers and employees, because it affects both, of monies

that are paid in on a regular basis; every pay cheque there are deductions. So the people

of this country, the employers and the workers of this country, pay into a fund which now,

according to the story as found in The Globe and Mail last week, at the end of 1997

had a surplus of $12.8 billion and grew by an additional $2.9 billion for the first three

months of 1998.

Can you imagine that amount of money simply being in an account simply

labelled and described as a surplus account? When we see in this Province the sorts of

real problems, whether we look at the fundamental grass roots day-to-day problems of

health and education and school closures, and programs in health simply not being

available for financial purposes, for financial reasons, but yet we see a UI fund with a

surplus of astronomical, unbelievable amounts.

Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked, what do we do? Do we simply

reimburse those parties who, in good faith and in accordance with the law, have paid in

significant amounts of money on a regular basis? That is certainly one approach and one

that is advocated by certain critics of the whole program.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there is another approach, one which I intend to

support at least in part, and that is recognition of the fact that there are regions of

this country - when it is necessary to call upon the fact that we recognize this to be a

Confederation and a federation of provinces, there are regions of this country that can do

well with the advance of these funds should they become available, and obviously for the

benefit of those regions which need it most.

The question can be asked: Why is it at least some of this surplus

account cannot be made available to parts of Northern Canada, for example, perhaps parts

of rural Canada, perhaps the urban core, of which we know there are many problems

throughout this country in our inner cities, and certainly regions including the Atlantic

region that could do well with a certain injection and a particular injection of monies

being available to it? Particularly when it is simply a surplus of funds and a predicament

for the federal Minister of Finance who simply throws his hands in the air and says: I do

not know what to do. What am I allowed to do in accordance with the act, in accordance

with the law? Should I return the funds? Should I reimburse those parties? Can I do a

combination of both?

One possibility I would suggest that the minister could consider is

putting a time line on this whole problem in which the federal minister now finds himself,

and that is for our government to play an active role in taking steps and recommending to

its federal counterparts ways on behalf of the people of this Province to find solutions

to this particular concern of the federal Minister of Finance. That is, for example, the

following: To say to the Minister of Finance, yes, we advocate a system of injection of

funds to the regions of this country for the reinstatement of certain programs, for the

continuation of certain social programs, to ensure that the people of those particular

regions are being protected and looked after.

Then maybe a six-month time line, or a twelve-month time line, could be

put in place. If in fact through ineptness or incompetence both the federal and provincial

governments have not seen fit to find a way to allow funds on a provisional basis to be

made available to the needy parts of this country, then obviously in fairness to those

people who have contributed to the plan there ought to be reimbursement.

It is a combination perhaps of the two concepts: of reinvestment, and

secondly reimbursement. It recognizes, in my view, the integrity of the system. It

recognizes the fact that people have paid in, in good faith, significant amounts of money

in accordance with the act. At the same time, in view of the fact that such an

unbelievable surplus exists, it recognizes as well that here is an opportunity - perhaps

not envisaged and contemplated by the federal government - available to government at this

time to take advantage of and make good use of the continuation of certain programs, the

investment in particular regions of our country, to ensure our people are protected and

secured.

It is an interesting dilemma but one, I would say, that in the true

sense of accountability and money management one would think a problem that should not

occur. Certainly there should be individuals within the federal Department of Finance who

would be able to envisage and perhaps project this sort of issue arising. Why are the

premiums so high? Why are such high amounts being deducted from the ordinary everyday

worker of this country to the extent that we find a surplus of such unbelievable amounts?

Why are the employers, the small businesses of this country, being forced under law to

collect and remit and make contributions themselves only to a slush fund which appears to

be there, and the federal government of this country does not even understand and know

what to do with?

It is an issue in which our provincial government could take a lead

role, I would say. Because this government ought to recognize that we are a region of this

country where reinvestment in its social network and in the day-to-day programs which are

essential for this Province to continue smoothly, this government could take a lead role

in recommending to its federal counterparts ways and means to assist.

Here is an opportunity. It is a rare opportunity. How often is it, I

ask the question, that there is this sort of reconciliation at the end of the day of its

accounting, only to find out that we see billions of dollars in a UI surplus, and the

dilemma in which government finds itself. What do we do with it? Yet the federal Minister

of Finance unbelievably takes the position, according to this article, that he must resist

a cut in premiums. Of course, consequently we just see this surplus fund growing on a

day-to-day basis.

What this government can do is perhaps take a lead role, I would

suggest, in finding ways and making recommendations to Members of Parliament, to federal

offices. Of course, our Premier is very familiar with members of the federal Cabinet as it

now exists in Ottawa. Let him use his influence and let him make suggestions and

recommendations as to how these funds may be made available. At the same time it can

restore and keep in mind the integrity of the UI system, because there is a vested

interest, obviously.

Employers and employees in this country have a vested interest in this

fund. This is their money that has been collected on a weekly or biweekly or monthly

basis. This is money to which they can lay claim and say: This is ours, we want it back.

So maybe a combination of the two: an early reinvestment with a time limit or a time line,

to be followed by simply returning and reimbursing these monies to those people who in

good faith have paid in.

It is a very unusual situation, I say, Mr. Speaker, but one that this

government could take a lead role in addressing and seeking solutions to what is

obviously, in many respects, a very difficult time for many people in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Job creation, what better way - here is a UI fund, here is a fund which

has its origin in the fact that it is to protect those individuals who have a job and lose

it. The reality in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is that there are thousands and thousands

of people who do not have a job to lose. They want a job, and out of necessity from time

to time they must leave our shores and go to other parts of Central Canada or other parts

of Western Canada looking for work. What better way, in terms of investing in the people

of this country and in particular this region of Canada, than to create job programs and

create employment through small business, through resource development, through student

work programs, through co-op programs in our high schools for example, what better way

than to use some of this surplus for the benefit of the many, many Newfoundlanders who are

unemployed, who are distressed, and who are contemplating leaving this Province, against

their will, because they simply have no choice?

There is an opportunity here and it is a rare opportunity, I say, Mr.

Speaker, because to see a headline in a national newspaper to the fact that we have a

surplus of any kind is certainly a rarity indeed.

Mr. Speaker, another interesting statistic which perhaps says a lot

about where we are in this Confederation of ours is an interprovincial income tax

comparison. It is a statistic based on 1997 statistics. Again, when we look at statistics

and when there is an interprovincial comparison made, Mr. Speaker, we are usually number

ten in this Province or we are number one. If it is the lowest or the worst or the most

difficult, we are usually number one. If it is a comparison of what is most expensive,

what is most difficult, what is most challenging, we are very often number ten. We are

either at one extreme or the other from a fiscal point of view.

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we realize in many ways we have

many things to be proud of and we are indeed a very fortunate society. We live in a

wonderful Province with many, many positive attributes; however, we have to live. We have

to put food on the table. Our children have to work. Families want to stay here as opposed

to leaving. But when we look at the financial or fiscal reality we are very often, as I

say, number one or number ten, depending on the question that is being asked, Mr. Speaker.

This interprovincial individual income tax comparison of 1997, when

there is a relationship and a study made of all ten provinces in terms of the highest

personal income tax paid, depending on income, and I should say regardless of income,

Newfoundland is number one. As number one, regardless of whether or not there is a taxable

income as low as $20,000 or as high as $100,000, the Newfoundland tax, the individual

income tax comparison, shows Newfoundland as the very highest. Our contribution in this

country is the highest, yet our cost of living, when that comparison is done, the cost of

living remains the highest. Our unemployment remains the highest. Our out-migration, in

terms of statistics, those moving in or out, and the comparison, the net loss remains the

highest.

It is an unfortunate reality, Mr. Speaker, and it is one that again,

when we look at statistics, when we look at facts and figures from a financial point of

view, we see Newfoundland in the forefront as having the highest personal or individual

contribution of any other province in this country.

Why is it? A very fundamental question has to be asked. How is it, when

we are a region of a country with many needs, with many demands, with the real fiscal

reality of where we are today in comparison to other provinces, why is it those people who

live in that region, who live in that province, with those financial and social problems,

yet have to pay the highest price for it? It just does not make sense. In a true

Confederation, one has to question, I guess, Mr. Speaker, what it is all about, when in

fact the person who is being called upon the most to contribute is the person who can

least afford it?

There is just no logic to this, Mr. Speaker; and again, another reason

why, perhaps, our government could take a leadership role in recognizing that if a surplus

of any kind exists, let it take the steps that are necessary to encourage development, to

encourage investment and to bring to this Province and to the people of this Province an

opportunity which is rare, for giving them the belief and the strength to say that, yes,

we can stay because there are programs, there are opportunities and there is, at least, a

system in place that we can respect and take advantage of.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker - I understand my colleague, the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, has a few minutes, and there are several other

speakers as well from this side of the House who want to make their contribution to this

very important debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes of the House's time to reflect on

the statement of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today in the House, on the

aquaculture industry and in particular the working capital fund that the federal

government has agreed to enter into with the Province. Mr. Speaker, this is a very

positive program, a long time coming I would say because it is something that ought to

have been recognized many years ago as a vital component of the development of an

aquaculture industry.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago, when I was on the Fisheries Committee in

Ottawa in the House of Commons studying aquaculture, we went on a trip to Norway. I

understand the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture himself has been to Norway. One of

the important things that was discovered and was part of the Aquaculture Report of the

Fisheries Committee, Mr. Speaker, was the need for specialized financing vehicles for the

aquaculture industry, because it was very different from other industries. There would be

a very big, not only capital investment, Mr. Speaker, but also an expenditure over a

number of years for food, for salaries and for feed for the aquaculture species before any

return was obtained from the business.

Now banks, Mr. Speaker, are not used to be dealing with that. They are

used to dealing with: You get your loan one week and you start paying it back the next. So

they are not used to waiting one year or two years or, in some cases, three years. I think

with salmon and other species you might have to wait as many as three years before you can

sell any of the product that you produce. So, Mr. Speaker, that kind of bank financing

made no sense and the industry was never going to develop without appropriate types of

financing that were different, and would have to be different for the aquaculture industry

than it would be for other producing enterprises, because you did not have the kind of

cash flows, or at least had a much longer delay before you had a cash flow, that would

allow you to assist in paying off your debt obligations plus meet your ongoing day-to-day

obligations as an enterprise.

This is, as I say, Mr. Speaker, welcome but rather late in the day. The

shellfish, particularly the mussel industry, has been around this Province for a fairly

long time and the need for this type of facility has been evident from the beginning. I am

delighted to see that it happened, Mr. Speaker. It is recognizing a need that exists and

hopefully will help to do the job in increasing our shellfish aquaculture sector.

I see also that the minister noted an event which he is attending, and

I have also been invited for this afternoon, at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of

Memorial University, an aquaculture training facility. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrific

industry for Newfoundland, particularly rural Newfoundland, because it has a lot of very

positive elements. It is the one industry that can't be developed without benefitting

rural Newfoundland, but it also has the advantage of having a lot of aspects to it that

are very important for a modern economy.

Scientific knowledge is very important to this. It gives jobs for young

people from rural and urban Newfoundland who are interested in biology, who are interested

in bio-technology, who are interested in genetics, who are interested in technical aspects

of the aquaculture industry, people who are interested in food science, who are interested

in product development, who are interested in all aspects of the food and biology of fish

and shellfish production for a modern economy and a modern market.

M. Speaker, it is a terrific, fabulous industry for Newfoundland and

Labrador, and any effort to improve that industry must be welcomed, and in fact must be

encouraged and promoted, because we have an opportunity here to play a very important role

in developing industry in Newfoundland. Certainly not the only, but one of the bright

lights in the future of this Province is the development of a highly motivated, a highly

enthusiastic, a highly educated and trained aquaculture workforce that can do a tremendous

amount in providing opportunities for people in this Province, particularly those wishing

to live and work in rural Newfoundland.

I am delighted to hear the news today because of the value and the

importance of this particular industry. It is one which I think has a very modern attitude

and approach to what is essentially a very old industry in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

After the House of Assembly sitting last Thursday night, and comments

from members opposite, in particular the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, over the

weekend in the news media, the negative connotations put forth by the member about the

sealing industry in Newfoundland, I thought I should clear up some of the misinformation

that out there, and the seriousness of this situation on the seals' impact on the future

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, as clarifying some of

the numbers, clarifying the impact, and why in Newfoundland and Labrador, or in Atlantic

Canada, we cannot talk the words, seal cull, seal management. It is definitely a problem

here.

I want to begin in Ontario. Three weeks ago they had a tremendous

problem up there with 7,000 black bear, an overabundance of black bear. No discussions, no

news media events, no Greenpeace, no IFAW, no politicians criticizing: They ordered a kill

of 7,000 black bear. Anybody can ask the question: Why did they do it? Well, there was an

overpopulation of black bear in the country causing major problems. Did they debate it and

ask for scientific research for years, and wonder what they were going to do with that

animal once they killed the animal? No, Mr. Speaker. The number of black bear in Ontario

was too numerous for them to wait and debate it for the next one, two, three, four or five

years. Time did not permit discussion on that issue, so they ordered a kill, and they

killed 7,000 black bears in Ontario, because it was necessary to do it.

Did they have the markets? No. Did they have a way to utilize the

animals? No. It was necessary to get rid of them. Did they question what should happen to

the animal after it was killed? No. The priority on the countryside, on the vegetation, on

the safety and the protection of people was an immediate kill of 7,000 black bears.

Has anybody questioned what is happening here in Newfoundland and

Labrador? The hon. Member from Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi should listen to this one. He

condemned me for a statement I made here in the House a couple of weeks ago - a lot of

talk in the public on it.

DFO just brought in a regulation - see will we get this in the press

this afternoon, this evening or tomorrow - DFO just brought in a regulation, and the

critic, the member for Bonavista South, I would think is fully aware of this one. The lump

fishery taking place in Newfoundland and Labrador today - every fisherman who is involved

in the lump fishery must put out nets. It is the only way to catch them, you have to put

nets out in the bay. Every fisherman who goes out to his lump nets has one, two, five, six

or eight seals in every net, depending on the numbers and where the nets are. The average

catch per season of seals in lump nets is 25,000 to 30,000; by catch, not a directed

catch, by catch that the fishermen have. They tear up the nets.

Now, what do the fishermen want to do with the seals? It is a perfect

animal. There is no damage to the pelt and there is no damage to the meat. It can be used

in a number of different ways, for animal food or whatever. The perfect pelt can bring a

top price on the market, and they would like to have the right to sell that animal. Keep

in mind it is not a directed fishery.

DFO brings in a regulation: You cannot net seals. That is fine. This is

not a directed fishery, this is a by catch. Because that regulation is on the books, they

say to the fishermen: You must dump those 25,000 to 30,000 seals in the ocean, let them

rot, let them float upon the beaches, let them become an environmental problem. We then

have to pay somebody, because of the tourist industry in Newfoundland, and because of the

smell and the stench on the beaches, to take them up.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi: Listen! We have to pay

people to take them off the beaches and bring them to the dumps and burn them. Twenty-five

thousand to 30,000 animals at $50 per animal, mammal or fish, whatever terminology they

want to put on it, could bring money into the pockets of those fishermen. There is a

regulation that no one gets condemned for. There is no criticism in the public, no

criticism in the press, no criticism anywhere. It is quite alright to do that.

What happened on the South Coast this year? The first time in the

history of the Province, there is a concentration of cod up in 3Ps on the South Coast.

What happened? In 500 years, the first time in the history of the Province, the DFO

estimated about 1.2 million seals in Placentia Bay, because that is where the abundance of

cod and food is. That is not a problem. Yet, at the same time those 1.2 million animals

are in Placentia Bay, people today on the West Coast of Newfoundland have every DFO office

taken over out there. They have the Premier's office in Corner Brook. Why? Because the

FRCC recommended this year that they would be allowed to catch 5,000 tons of cod as a

supplement to their income. The minister just recently reduced that from 5,000 ton down to

3,000 ton.

The hon. member is not going to stay around to hear some true facts, so

he cannot get any criticism. Three thousand tons of cod from five thousand ton of cod.

What do 1.2 million seals eat in Placentia Bay? Each seal consumes 1.4 ton of fish.

Multiply that times 1 million. How long will the fish last in Placentia Bay? Yet,

fishermen are striking today and fishermen are frustrated and fishermen are taking over

offices all over Western and Northern Newfoundland because the cod allowance was reduced

2,000 tons; what a couple of thousand seals would eat in an average year. That is not a

problem, Mr. Speaker!

I was listening this morning to a federal representative, John Mercer

from DFO, who did two or three interviews this morning on CBC about conservation measures.

They will not allow a fisherman on Coastal Labrador, who traditionally fished with a

twenty-five and a twenty-eight foot boat, to increase the size of his boat, because now

they want to go out and harvest shrimp. In order to harvest shrimp, which is in abundance

off their shores, they need a larger boat. For conservation measures, DFO says you cannot

increase the size of your boat. It does not make any sense. You set quotas, if the quota

is 20,000 ton and a fisherman wants to build a Titanic, that is his business. The quotas

are set. Conservation measures apply when DFO listens to the FRCC and sets the quotas. The

size of the boat in which you harvest that fish - if you want to invest the money or

whatever you can afford to build a boat large enough for safety, comfort and carrying

capacity to go out and catch that fish you should be allowed to do it.

The excuse they gave today, and have been giving for some time, is that

because we want to protect the quotas or conservation measures, we will not allow you to

build a larger boat. As a result of that, the fishermen in Black Tickle and a lot of

fishermen in coastal communities in Labrador will not be able to participate in a fishery

in Labrador this year. What happens to the fishermen? They are reduced to welfare. They

have the ability, they have the resource, they have the knowledge, they have whatever it

takes, but a regulation on the books and nobody bothers.

Conservation applies to people, conservation does not apply to animals.

There are 200 people living in Black Tickle, twenty fishermen which would mean twenty

small boats, and that is a conservation problem. Six million-plus animals is not a

conservation problem? That is what I don't understand, Mr. Speaker. What is the

practicality, what is the logic and where is the commonsense used in conservation

measures?

AN HON. MEMBER: You drove him out of the House.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I drove him out of the House, Mr. Speaker, because

now there is no reason to go out and criticize in the news media.

Mr. Speaker, this problem is not going to go away unless we make it go

away, not in time to save the fishery and the future of this Province. If we allow the

time to pass by, nature will make it go away. Nature will balance its own system, but the

price that we will pay for nature balancing its own system will be a wipe out of all the

fishing resources out there which means a wipe out of the communities. So you will not be

burning the animals in the dump as we are forced to do today, but you will be burning the

homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They will die of starvation.

MR. EFFORD: They will die of starvation and we will burning the

homes of the people who will not be living in any community because there will be no

communities existing.

The other question I will ask - I spoke in New Brunswick, in Nova

Scotia, in Ottawa, in Winnipeg and several places in Ontario and I am going out to

Edmonton, Alberta this week. The only place, Mr. Speaker, I will get any negative comments

on the request to have the reduction in seal numbers is here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In every other province in Canada the first question they will ask me when I am finished

speaking: Mr. Minister, why are you not doing something about that problem? We did it in

Ontario with the black bears. If we had 10,000 bison trampling our fields in Alberta we

would do something about it. Every other province agrees that there must be something

done, except the people here in this Province. I just do not understand it, Mr. Speaker.

It is right before our eyes, as were the foreign fleets until they

totally decimated the fish stocks and then we started to do something about it. Right

before our eyes now is a worse problem than ever the foreign and Canadian factory freezer

trawlers could ever imagine. Use your imagination! Six million-plus animals in the ocean

eating fish and it is not a problem.

I can see, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues all around me are listening

attentively to what I am saying.

So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is as much a surprise to me as it is to everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, just to speak on the Budget Debate a little bit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, stop picking on my mother.

MS S. OSBORNE: And his constituent, and stop picking on your

member.

MR. T. OSBORNE: And your constituent.

MR. MATTHEWS: My constituent, my member (inaudible).

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, on the Budget, an issue we raised just

today in the House of Assembly in Question Period was the issue of emergency response when

it comes to the oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, right now we have the ability to collect 10,000 tons of

oil only after a seventy-two hour wait to mobilize the resources to the area in which the

disaster had taken place. We are told that we have approximately seven days if we want to

mobilize enough resources to contain a major oil spill.

When you are looking at, in this Province, our fishery resources,

tourism, the bird sanctuary on the South Coast... We talk about the damage done to our

fishery resources as a result of the seal population, and that is true. We have to start

to look after the population of seals in this Province so they do not completely wipe out

our fishery resources. But if we have a major oil spill, my position is this: If we have a

major oil spill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have the same damage to our fishery that we

are having from the seals. It will kill off the fish population in the area in which we

have the major oil spill.

You look at Alaska, where Exxon had their disaster, and part of the

disaster was created because of the fact that they were unable to mobilize the resources

to clean up the oil spill quick enough, and the disaster was multiplied by the delay in

getting the resources there and mobilized and on the spot to contain the oil spill.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the oil industry in this Province, and

how quickly it is growing, and the potential to have a mega-mega-industry here with the

number of oil fields that are out there that have been discovered, and oil fields that

have yet to be discovered, it is time that this Province look at seriously investing the

money and resources located right here in this Province to respond very quickly to an oil

spill disaster or to a marine disaster. Because right now we are relying mainly on Halifax

and Prince Edward Island to disburse the responses, even for a marine disaster here.

We have to put together the resources in this Province. When we look at

the reason we are here, it is because people have made a living by way of the ocean, and

that will continue with the fishery. It will continue. We will have people making their

livelihood on our oceans as a result of the fishery. We will also have them making their

livelihood on our oceans as a result of the oil industry. We also have tour operators

throughout the entire Province, Mr. Speaker. So we have to put together proper resources

here in this Province not only for the oil industry, not only to respond very quickly to

an oil disaster, but to respond to a marine disaster.

We see time and time again Search and Rescue being dispatched from one

of our Maritime neighbours as opposed to right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, when

generally speaking we are closer to the disaster than they are in Nova Scotia or in Prince

Edward Island. What a tremendous waste of time, Mr. Speaker, waiting for them to make the

extra travel to get to the disaster when we are located right here in this Province.

So we have to start to pushing Ottawa to contribute in a major way, and

we have to look at resources in our own fiscal department here, our own Department of

Finance, to put resources in place right here in this Province to capably handle any

disaster, most especially an oil disaster off our coast. This is an area that affects all

of the people in this Province, the people working in the oil industry and in the fishery.

It is an area in which we cannot afford to gamble and hope, day-by-day,

week after week, that there is not an oil disaster. We should have learned, from the

situation that has taken place in Alaska, to be proactive as a result of what we saw

there, the amount of damage that happened with the Exxon oil disaster. We should now take

the steps to put in the proper measures to make sure, because Alaska and British Columbia

are not in the oil industry, at least not to the same magnitude that we are right now. Our

oil industry is only going to grow larger and larger.

We have to put the resources in place right in this Province so we are

not faced with the same type of disaster they were in Alaska, so that we are not faced

with a major oil disaster and not able to respond, and as a result the magnitude of that

disaster multiplies beyond repair. They are still cleaning up as a result of the Exxon

disaster in Alaska.

We all know that after seven days of waiting, especially certain times

of the year when we have high seas, rough marine conditions, that after seven days to have

those resources brought to our Province, assembled off our coast, after seven days that

oil is going to be so far spread out, pushed along our coast lines, probably destroying

the bird sanctuary on the South Coast, it just doesn't make sense. We cannot afford to

wait seven days. With rough sea conditions here, we just cannot afford to wait seven days

to assemble the proper resources here to start fighting an oil disaster.

Furthermore, anybody who knows anything about oil and the chemistry of

oil, after a couple of days the main sediments in oil, while oil floats, the oil starts to

break down. So not only are we facing the disaster, and having the disaster compounded by

rough sea conditions, we are also looking at the fact that chemically the oil will start

breaking down and sinking. Certain components of the oil will actually start to sink.

Seven days will just not cut it in the event of an oil disaster.

We can see that, we read about it. Still in Alaska we are hearing and

reading about the fact that they are still paying the price environmentally with marine

life, with sea birds and so on. There is just no way we can wait seven days to respond to

an oil disaster.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The allocated time for Concurrence Motion has expired.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All in favour of the motion, say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

Morion carried.

The House has concurred with the motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from His Honour,

the Lieutenant-Governor, addressed to the Hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

who is unavoidably absent.

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board:

I, the Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit

Estimates of sums required for the public service of the Province for the year ending

March 31, 1999. By way of further supply and in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these Estimates to the House of Assembly.

Sgd.: ________________________________

A. M. House, Lieutenant-Governor

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the message be referred to the

Committee of the Whole on Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the total contained in the

Estimates be carried and that a resolution be adopted to give effect to the same.

On motion, Report of Resource Estimates Committee carried; and that a

Resolution be adopted to give effect to same.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has passed the

amount of $2,882,076,000 contained in the Estimates of Supply and ask leave to sit again.

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

presently, by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of

the Whole on Supply with respect to the Estimates for 1998-99 together with a Resolution

and a Bill consequent thereto be referred to a Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

Ways and Means, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please! Bill 26.

"An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For

Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31,

1999 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service, (Bill 26).

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the

granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the

financial year ending March 31, 1999 the sum of $1,871,986,800.

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through to 4, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill

consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have passed a

certain resolution and recommend that Bill No. 26 be introduced to give effect to the

same.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain

Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year

Ending March 31, 1999 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. (Bill

No. 26)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 15, Motion No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2, the hon. the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province, Bill No.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into

Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

A bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan

By The Province." (Bill No. 15)

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

is unavoidably absent. This bill would authorize the government to raise $200,000,000 by

way of loan for the purpose of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I stand today to speak a few minutes on Bill No. 15,

"An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province". The

bill references

Section 38(1) of the Financial Administration Act, and that particular

section reads as follows:

Where, in

an act, authority is given to the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council to raise by way of loan a sum of money, unless there is some provision to the

contrary in the act, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may raise that money by the issue

and sale of securities in a form at a price, whether at par value or less or more than par

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may approve, and the principle amount of and interest on

all security so issued and sold is a charge on and shall be paid out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund.

So what we see each year, Mr. Chairman, is a similar act being

introduced in this Legislature. The wording is essentially the same from year to year. The

only thing that varies is the amount.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is true, I say to the Government House

Leader, and that message is perhaps much the same as well.

Mr. Chairman, it is

an act which essentially allows government, or

gives legislative authority to government, to raise money by way of loan for the

continuation of its budgetary obligations.

It is interesting when we look at a finance bill. It is interesting

when we talk about where money comes from. If we look at the Budget Highlights 1998 ,

there is a

section there under

Summary of Current Revenues By Source. In illustration is

gives us an account of where the money actually comes from. We see, for example, the most

significant amounts are essentially taxes; but upon scrutiny we see most of the taxes

which are received by the Treasury of this Province is, in fact, done at the cost and the

expense of the federal government.

Look, for example, where it says Provincial Income Tax. Then, under

Personal Income Tax for the Estimates in 1998-1999, we see the figure of $627 million, and

then revised in 1997-1998 to $543 million. But essentially this is a function of the

federal government, not the provincial government. The collection of this tax is a

function of the federal government and, of course, the benefit which is derived is the

benefit to this Province.

Just to look at the figures here under the

Summary of Current Revenues

By Source you will see Sales Tax, the estimates of 1998-1999, $450 million. But this

collection procedure as well is largely a responsibility of the federal government. The

Province has really nothing to do with it. The Province simply receives the amount but we

see totals in excess of $1 billion, well in excess of $1 billion, to the benefit to the

Treasury of this Province, under Personal Income Tax of $627 million and Sales Tax of $450

million largely the responsibility and as the result of the efforts of the federal

government.

What is the role of the provincial government, of the provincial

Department of Finance, in the collection of or in the application of these particular

amounts? Under Gasoline Tax, clearly provincial; under the Newfoundland Liquor

Corporation, again, clearly provincial. We have Tobacco Tax, Corporate Income Tax, and

Other Provincial Sources, those figures totalling almost $600 million, for a total

provincial estimate of $1,891,312,000.

Again, it is interesting when we see the actual breakdown of current

revenues. We see significant amounts, in fact the bulk of that amount, largely the

responsibility of the federal government. Then when we look at, in particular, the

responsibility and the role of the federal government by way of Equalization Payments, we

see again close to $1 billion, $896 million. We see Other Federal Sources of $500 million,

totalling $1.3 billion. Where the money comes from is obviously both the obligation of,

the responsibility of, and largely a result of the work of, the federal government and not

of the Province.

Yet in Bill No. 15, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By

Way Of Loan By The Province", one has to ask: Why is this procedure necessary, that

it be carried out on an annual basis? Again, the wording of this legislation is

essentially identical from year to year. The bill allows for the Province to raise via

loan money to correct deficiencies, whether they be actual or estimated, in the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, to manage securities, and to maintain sinking funds.

This is largely, again, an accountability issue. This is an insurance

plan, I say. This is when government, were it not for legislation such as Bill No. 15,

would fall flat on its face simply because the money is not there to manage the securities

which had been put in place, and also to maintain funds, sinking funds and investment

funds, that have been negotiated between this government and the bond market.

Also, the principal amount of securities issued under this authority of

this particular act shall not exceed $200 million. So this is the amount which does vary

from year to year. In fact, in one year, in the research which I have done in terms of

looking at other similar pieces of legislation, we see higher amounts in other years. In

this particular year, not to exceed $200 million over and above the money applied since

April 1, 1998, to the management of securities and sinking funds.

The monies raised under this act is in addition to monies raised under

any other act, so this is a particular piece of legislation for this particular purpose,

and there is no interference or conflict between this legislation and others. However,

with the coming into force of this bill the Cabinet may not raise by way of loan further

sums of money under the Loan Act of 1996.

Just out of interest, we can look at some of the amounts that had been

used as limits, I guess. Yes, it was simply a fiscal limitation in other years. In 1991

the act was simply called the Loan Act of 1991, the wording essentially the same as Bill

No. 15, which is the bill we are debating today. The limit in 1991 was $325 million. Then

we had, in 1992, Bill No. 21. It was The Loan Act of 1992. The limit, interestingly, that

year was three hundred and sixty-five. There was a limitation

section on each act.

The 1992 act, I will just read it, says: The principal amount of

securities issued under the authority of this act shall not exceed in the aggregate the

sum of $365 million in addition to the aggregate of all sums of money applied since April

1, 1992, to the retirement, repayment, renewal or refunding in whole or in part of

securities issued under this or another act; and (

b) all sums of money applied since April

1 of 1992 to the Newfoundland Government sinking fund or another sinking fund established

for the retirement or repayment in whole or in part of securities issued under this or

another act.

Also under

Section IV of that particular act, Mr. Chairman, it states

that: Subject to

section V, the sums of money authorized by

Section II to be raised for

the purposes mentioned in that

section are in addition to all sums of money authorized to

be raised by way of loan under another act.

So, interestingly, we see this kind of wording to differentiate between

the Loan Act of 1992 and its relationship with other pieces of legislation; but clearly we

have in the Loan Act of 1998 reference to the fact that we are only talking about this

act. In fact, it states specifically that the money raised under this act is in addition

to monies raised under other pieces of legislation.

The Loan Act of 1993, again the wording is identical; however, the

limitation in 1993 is $250 million. So what would be an interesting question, I guess, for

the Minister of Finance is: What constitutes the difference? Why do we have a difference,

sometimes as much as $100 million or $150 million in the limitation? Under

Section III of

the act, why is it $200 million? Why is it $300 million or $350 million or, as in the case

of 1993, $250 million.

Just continuing on with the review of the legislation, just to see the

differences which have been applied, we see in 1996, under

Chapter V, again the same act,

same wording, the limitation, the lowest amounts of the recent review of the legislation,

showing $150 million. I will just read that section, under

Section III of the 1996 Loan

Act: The principal amount of securities issued under the authority of this act shall not

exceed in the aggregate the sum of $150 million in addition to the aggregate of: (

a) All

sums of money applied since April 1, 1996 to the retirement, repayment, renewal, or

refunding in whole or in part of securities issued under this or another act; and (

b) all

sums of money applied since April 1, 1996 to the Newfoundland Government sinking fund or

another sinking fund established for the retirement of or repayment in whole or in part of

securities issued under this or another act.

The limitation under

Section V of the 1996 legislation states that:

Notwithstanding the Loan Act of 1994, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may not, after

the coming into force of this act, raise by way of loan further sums of money under the

Loan Act of 1994.

AN HON. MEMBER: A blank cheque.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Completely, I say to the member, it is a complete

blank cheque.

The amounts, I say to the member, are astronomical: $350 million; $375

million; $250 million; $200 million. It is just like taking candy from a baby. That is the

impression the legislation gives.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at the amounts - and again in the Loan Act

of 1998 we see the limitation of $200 million - the question has to be asked: Why the

deficiency? Why is there such a void? Why is it necessary on a yearly basis, particularly

since 1991, I notice with interest - why is there a deficiency of such exorbitant

proportions, Mr. Chairman? The amounts are just astronomical. Why is it that when doing

its forecasting and going through the normal and routine budgetary process we see amounts

of, from time to time, in excess of $350 million, or even the limitation amount of this

bill before the House of $200 million? These are exorbitant figures I say, Mr. Chairman,

and the question has to be asked, why?

I guess if this type of budgeting is the order of the day, Mr.

Chairman, it is no wonder that when doing the budgetary process some of the estimates were

so outlandish and so far apart in terms of what was budgeted for last year and what the

revised figures were for last year and what the new amounts are in terms of estimated

amounts for 1998.

It is a question of process, Mr. Chairman. It is a question of

procedure. It is a question of accounting. It is a question of accountability, and that

goes to the very root of the obligation which members opposite must meet on a day-to-day

basis when responding to and dealing with the very real issues confronting the people of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an accountability issue. Why is it

necessary that such extravagant amounts of money are required and being requested on

behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on an annual basis?

Again, in Bill No. 15 we see some $200 million.

Mr. Chairman, the Budget Highlights; I know the Member for Cape St.

Francis, when dealing with the Budget Debate, often refers to the Budget Highlights

1998 when he speaks in debate. He reviews, for example, the priorities of government.

He reviews in detail where government has fallen down in its obligation to the people of

the Province. It is all found in the Budget Highlights because in government's attempt to

highlight and I guess make known to the people of the Province what it is proud of, by the

same token it can be used as the basis of criticism of where this government has shown

weakness and where this government has not been able to fulfil its obligation to the

people of the Province. It is only a matter of just going through the various headings,

Mr. Chairman.

Health care; the member directly in front of me, the Opposition House

Leader, on a daily basis questions the Minister of Health and Community Services on real

day-to-day concerns as they relate to the health industry in our Province. Very often his

questions are highlighted and very often his questions require public attention. Very

often if it were not for his questions I say, Mr. Chairman, many of the defects and many

of the loopholes and many of the problems which confront our ordinary citizens on a

day-to-day basis would be overlooked.

We see problems in education. The Education critic, the Member for

Waterford Valley, he, too, on a regular basis asks questions of the Education Minister

dealing with problems as they are found in the classroom; problems as they are found in

the teaching profession; problems experienced by teachers on a day to day basis; questions

with respect to teacher pensions; questions with respect to: How is it government can deal

with problems and issues as they confront schools and communities, yet school boards

supposedly have made those decisions in the best interest of those schools and

communities? The Member for Waterford Valley, as Education critic I am sure, will continue

doing that because there are important questions. And ministers opposite have to be held

accountable, Mr. Chairman, on a day-to-day basis not only to their own portfolio but in

terms of government at large, government generally. What is the direction of this

government? What is the fiscal obligation and the budgetary responsibility of this

government in terms of its obligation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr.

Chairman, it is important that these questions be asked.

We have, in the Budget Debate, reviewed not only the issues as they

relate to health and education on a regular basis. We have talked about the very serious

problem of out-migration, and how tens of thousands of our fellow-Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have found it necessary to leave our Province in recent years. A sad

statistic, a statistic and a fact which in my view is completely being overlooked and not

being given the attention it so rightly deserves and yet, for some reason or other, it is

beyond me.

There should be no Ministerial Statement given in this House, Mr.

Chairman, that ought not be prefaced with the wording: In view of the serious problem of

out-migration in this Province, we make the following announcements... That is the

importance that should be attached to the very real problem of out-migration. There should

be no government initiative, no Ministerial Statement, no piece of legislation, without

having as a fundamental part of it and reason for it the fact that so many of our

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are leaving Newfoundland on a day-to-day basis.

We hear, Mr. Chairman, of the great announcements, the great

mega-projects. Unfortunately, at this stage at least, it is only something that we can

perhaps one day look forward to. Voisey's Bay has become a concept rather than a reality.

The whole Churchill Falls agreement, we have not seen proof of what this agreement is all

about. The people of this Province have not had the benefit and the opportunity to pay

attention to this agreement in terms of its real benefits to the people of this Province.

The oil industry, although on a day-to-day basis there are elements of the industry which

continue, the question has to be asked: Have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians reaped the

benefits totally and ultimately in response to an industry which was to have taken off in

leaps and bounds? Have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whether directly or indirectly,

reaped the benefits attached to such an important industry?

The answer in response to that question, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion,

has to be `no'. There are other opportunities that we have not availed of; there are job

opportunities which Newfoundlanders are very often deprived of; there are opportunities

both in the offshore and the related industries onshore that have not seen the full fruits

and benefits being accrued to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and, Mr. Chairman, that is

most unfortunate.

So what we have and what we are confronted with today, Mr. Chairman, is

an ongoing debate on why it is necessary for government to once again be given a blank

cheque in its failure to be accountable to the people of the Province of an amount of not

in excess of $200 million. Significant monies I say, Mr. Chairman. One has to question

government's ability in dealing with such an important issue on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would ask members opposite to think very

carefully and critically as to why it is necessary for legislation to be introduced in

this House similar to Bill 15; why it is necessary for

an act such as this to be

introduced in this House dealing with the issue of raising money by way of loan by the

Province. We are talking about the people of this Province once again being put on the

hook. We are talking about the people of this Province once again being responsible for an

amount not in excess of $200 million and that is no small obligation. That is no small

undertaking, Mr. Chairman, and it is an undertaking which government ought to take very

seriously and the people of this Province, indirectly, must take very seriously because of

the approaches and the policies of this particular provincial government.

With those few comments, Mr. Chairman, I now defer to one of my

colleagues to continue on the debate of Bill No. 15, the Loans Act, 1998.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise to participate in the debate on Bill No. 15. This being a

finance bill, we have had considerable discussion since March 22 when the Budget was

tabled and, of course, a few days before that we had the Throne Speech tabled in the

House.

Mr. Chairman, we had anticipated, when the Budget was read this year,

we would see some rather bold initiatives being brought forward by this government.

However, to date, we have not seen a great deal that we could say represents bold

initiatives. We did see, after much pressure by the Member for St. John's West, the

government change its mind on the Child Tax Credit, after seeing the former Minister of

Social Services, now the Minister of Health and Community Services, stand in her place and

repeatedly, over many, many days when she was minister, say that there was no way they

were going to change that, and the current minister doing the same thing for weeks and

weeks on end.

We do know that government relented and finally we have a situation

where the assistance to those families who are on low incomes, wanting to find work and

unable to find work, will not, shall we say, be helped out, or their assistance programs

will not be found through cutbacks to the very poorest of families in the Province.

Mr. Chairman, when the Budget debate was on we brought to the attention

of the government the issue of school closures and school consolidation. We had, in

January, some protests here at the building relative to the whole issue of the procedures

being followed by certain school boards. Some school boards have gone through a very

detailed process, and we applaud those school boards who are taking their time and trying

to make the right decisions. However, the school closure issue is still with us, and we

note that the Avalon East School Board, having closed some schools this year, has

indicated that next year as many as ten or twelve additional schools will be closing in

the Avalon East School System. From the eighty-two schools that are now operating, in the

next several years we could be looking at seventy schools or somewhere around that.

We have to ask the basic question: How many schools are going to be

remaining in Newfoundland and Labrador in a few years? Certainly with the consolidations

that are taking place in this Province - and I know what has happened in the greater St.

John's area in the last few years, the number of schools that have closed. We know that,

last year, eight schools closed in District 2, the great Northern Peninsula and Coastal

Labrador, and three more are scheduled to close this year. That is eleven schools over the

last twelve or fifteen months.

Mr. Chairman, we know what happens in some communities when schools are

slated for closure. It is often said that the school is part and parcel of what a

community is all about. Mr. Chairman, we wanted to raise that issue. We wanted to get some

more information from the government relative to school closures and get the assurance

that people's voices are being listened to and that the focus is always on what is best

for the child.

When I talked to people from the great Northern Peninsula in the last

month, they told me they were quite willing to bus their children longer distances, they

were quite willing to see their children leaving home earlier in the morning and arriving

back later in the afternoon, they were quite willing to see their community school close,

but what they wanted was more programs for their children. It was promised in educational

reform, but in many parts of this Province it is not being delivered. In other words, we

know that parents want improvements in curriculum and improvements in program options, but

these programs are not being delivered to the students of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, we had a big production last year on a three-year fiscal

and economic plan. In fact, we were told that in the next year or so all you would need to

do was put the flesh around the bones that were there and that it would be quite simple to

do the budget. What we see this year is no more detail than there was last year, a big

production over a three-year fiscal and economic plan. We still haven't seen any more

details than three pages of documentation. Mr. Chairman, these kinds of generalities do

little for the confidence of the people of the Province and do little for the confidence

of the business community.

When Clyde Wells was premier he talked about doing an economic plan, a

great production of that, and had an Economic Recovery Commission. However, by the time

this Premier got into office, one of the very first things he did was scrap it, because it

didn't produce the kind of jobs and diversification that had been promised. What did he

replace it with? Absolutely nothing. We have gone from having an Economic Recovery

Commission to having no strategy whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, the issue that was not addressed in the Budget was the

out-migration issue. Every single day we hear tell of people pleading for the government

to give them some strategies on how they are going to rescue the rural communities from

what amounts to a death sentence. We know that the data for out-migration is alarming to

everybody. We have seen the television programs on CBC where we see families leaving Port

aux Basques and going elsewhere in the country. It is alarming because many of these

families who are going represent our most able, most educated, our youngest families, the

child-bearing age group. It has tremendous implications for the continuance of our

communities, and in some ways the continuance of our society.

Mr. Chairman, we are breaking all records. People are leaving

Newfoundland by the thousands. We know the data means that our communities in rural

Newfoundland are becoming, in many cases, nothing more than homes for senior citizens.

Families will tell you that their children and their grandchildren are now located or

living in other provinces, particularly in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. In fact,

last year we lost nearly 8,000 predicted, and we are predicted to lose another 9,000 this

year. Instead of a strategy to deal with it, we see a government indulging in self-pity

and wringing its hands and not coming up with anything other than one excuse after

another.

Mr. Cha