December

13, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 75

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just apologize to my hon. critic opposite but this is a

very brief statement and the major contents would be in materials that are

tabled.

On November 3 of this year, Mr. Speaker, I advised the House

of Assembly of government's decision to begin the process of phasing out the

John Cabot (1997) 500th Anniversary Corporation. In keeping with that

commitment, Mr. Speaker, I bring to the House of Assembly this afternoon the

three financial summaries that were promised at that time: firstly, a complete

financial

summary of expenses incurred from May 22, 1992, when the corporation

was established up to the statement of November 3, 1995; secondly, Mr. Speaker,

the expenses incurred as a result of government's decision to wind down and

phase out the corporation; and thirdly, a revised budget, Mr. Speaker, for the

period carrying forward from December, now, 1995 to March 31, 1998.

Mr. Speaker, government has assembled a small management team

of six persons with two additional staff seconded from the Department of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Mr. Mike Buist, the department's Assistant

Deputy Minister of Parks and Recreation, and former Manager of Marketing and

Communications for the Cabot Corporation itself, will assume responsibilities

for managing the celebrations. Government is dedicated, Mr. Speaker, to work

collectively with volunteer groups and associations throughout the Province to

make 1997 a most successful venture for everybody in the Province. With that,

Mr. Speaker, I table the three statements referred to in this statement. Thank

you.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I called over at 1:50 p.m. today because I heard there was

supposed to be a press release, and I still do not have it, but I heard it from

the minister and that is enough. After all these years of asking for

accountability it is about time that they are being accountable. The eight

people, we will see what the eight people will have to do on the 1997

celebrations. It took John Cabot less time to find Newfoundland than it took

this minister to find his conscience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, I have said all along, and I

will say again, that this minister and this government would not run an out

house over a river.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Your department is now permitting people who are requiring

Level II to be admitted into personal care homes when they could only admit

Level I before. Your department has promoted the merits of keeping people in

their own community and since the City of St. John's has no personal care homes,

I ask the minister: Are you now going to force people from the city here into

personal care homes across the Province?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention, nor

do we have any policy, or any intention to put policy in place, that directs

people or forces people to move from any one particular place in the Province to

another. In the first instance, people want to reside in their own homes as long

as they can, in or near their own communities as long as they can, and

certainly, we support that concept and that principle that I think we will all

eventually want to be able to have the option of so doing.

We are not directing or redirecting people to any particular

location in the Province. We have people who live hundreds of miles away from

St. John's and when it comes to a time in life when they need long-term care,

they prefer to be in a place like St. John's, lots of times because they have

family in this area and that type of thing. But on no account is government, by

policy direction, suggesting to anybody that they move anywhere in particular

for purposes of residency.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister now admit that the waiting list for

admission to nursing homes is far beyond his department's ability to cope with,

and the only avenue they have now to deal with this demand is to put Level II

people into personal care homes where it only costs, according to the estimates,

$2,400 per person per year, compared to almost $60,000 per year in a nursing

home?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member poses a suggestion in the form

of a

preamble to his question that is factually incorrect. We have adequate

long-term care facilities in the Province to deal with the needs of the people

who require long-term care, and that includes the region of St. John's,

notwithstanding the proposition that he continues to put forward that we have

enormous or lengthy waiting lists.

At the moment, to further ensure that is the case, or prove

otherwise, we have a full continuum of care review being completed as we speak

by the Health Research Unit at the Medical School, Memorial University, headed

by Dr. Pat Parfrey. He is reviewing the continuum of care from personal care

homes, enriched needs in the person's own home, and long-term care needs. The

preliminary report and indication I have from him is confirmation that we have

adequate long-term care spaces in the Province, including St. John's, although

there is, relatively speaking, more pressure in the St. John's area than in

other areas, to take care of the requirements that we have.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, that is not what a minute of a

meeting which he and other ministers attended, in a special committee, set up.

They have identified 518 names on a list in St. John's and 544 more potential,

at a recent meeting, I say to the minister.

Now, I will get on with my next question. By virtue of

placing Level II people in personal care homes, you now have privatized Level II

care. Other provinces in Canada have licensed private nursing homes. The

minister is now faced with hundreds of beds that do not meet his own

departmental standards and these are run by government and by churches. I ask

the minister: Having taken the first step, is it now your plan to address this

critical capital requirement that government cannot cope with by allowing the

licensing of private nursing homes?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I gather from the

suggestion in the first part of his question that he agrees with the direction

that government is taking and that is, allowing higher levels of care to be

given in personal care homes where they meet the standards in terms of

programming and life-safety issues and so on, so given the understanding that he

agrees with that direction, I accept that commendation of government's policy.

In terms of whether or not we are prepared to look to the

private sector for additional long-term care spaces, I want to say to the hon.

member, who wishes he was the minister, that, at what point in time this

government finds itself with a situation where we know that there are needs for

additional long-term care spaces, we will have no hesitancy in my judgement, to

consider as one of the options, going to the private sector and allowing them to

have an opportunity to provide those spaces, providing they can do it at an

equal to or better than rate than any other means of doing it, be it church-run

homes or government-run facilities.

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier.

The federal government has embarked upon a course of

fundamental change and significant cuts to a number of programs. Now the federal

government is eyeing the Canada Pension Plan.

Does the provincial government have a position on the Canada

Pension Plan, on CPP benefits for elderly people and the disabled? Will the

Premier indicate whether his government will be seeking to maintain the Canada

Pension Plan as it now exists, whether the government will be passive in the

face of reductions or changes to the Canada Pension Plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two realities that conflict a

bit that must be balanced in this whole question.

One reality is, the genuine need and entitlement of people

who have contributed to the Canada Pension Plan, particularly those who do not

have other adequate sources of income. The second reality is the ability to pay.

What's happened to the Canada Pension Plan fund. Now, if you insist on causing

the pension plan to pay that which it cannot afford to pay, and insist on

maintaining it at a level that's not capable of being sustained then you wreck

the thing totally. It is far better to make a reasonable adjustment to the

extent that is necessary to ensure that you can at least produce the essential

that is required.

Now, I've paid into the Canada Pension Plan all my life. I

expect that I will be able to earn a living as a lawyer, maybe, if I ever get

back to the practice of law, so that I won't need the Canada Pension Plan. So it

is right for the federal government to tax it back from me and give it to the

person who needs it. Those are the kinds of ways that you can deal with it, but

you can't sustain the unsustainable merely because of a blind position on it.

You've got to look at all of the realities and balance them.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Premier to

table any formal position his government has adopted with respect to the Canada

Pension Plan. Is there such a position, or is the Premier just reflecting his

personal observations about the plan?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The member didn't ask me to table the

government's position except in this question now, but that wasn't her first

question.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is at

this moment meeting with his fellow ministers of finance from across the

country. Amongst other things they are dealing with the pension plan issue. I

will wait until we see what the federal government's firm proposals are. When

the minister comes back I've no doubt that he will discuss it with Cabinet.

Government will take a position on it then.

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

Opposition.

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is

indicating the same kind of a passive approach to the Canada Pension Plan as the

government took with respect to the UI-EI conversion and TAGS. I say to the

Premier, the cumulative affect of federal government cuts, reductions in

transfers to the provincial government, as well as cuts in these programs, is

hitting this Province very hard. I ask the Premier: How hard will the federal

reductions hit this Province over the next five years? What are the projections

worked up by provincial government officials of a loss to this Province of all

the federal government cuts over the next five years?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Very substantial. I've spoken with the

Prime Minister about it. As a matter of fact, I was on the phone with him on

Monday night about it. I told him about the assessment that was being done, and

I told him what our preliminary indications are. In fact, I've drafted a letter

to the Prime Minister to spell this out. In fact, it hasn't gone. I've gone

through a couple of revisions of it since it was drafted yesterday, to emphasize

to the Prime Minister the level of concern and the kind of impact federal

policies can have on the economy and finances of this Province.

Now, I owe it to the Prime Minister to pass the information

to him first rather than dealing in the House or through the media with the

contents of my discussions with the Prime Minister before he has seen the

letter.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question either for

the Minister of Energy or for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I

guess I will put it to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if many Newfoundlanders are aware

of it, but there are plans to build a national park in the Torngat Mountains in

Labrador, and there have been adjustments already in proposed park boundaries

with regard to certain mining interests and certain concerns of the Native

peoples; however, certain mining companies have indicated that they still have

interests in the area and they are reluctant to explore or do much with the

uncertainty with regard to the boundary. Could the minister tell us: What is the

status with regard to this particular park? And will there, before any

boundaries are finalized, be any at least preliminary or electronic surveys of

mineral potential before the area is closed off forever?

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. member is well aware of the fact that

there has been a very full and detailed public consultation process with respect

to the possible declaration of a new national park in Northern Labrador in the

Torngat area. Those discussions have taken place in the local area, in other

parts of Labrador, on the Island, for special interest groups that are

particularly concerned about that development. It has been very well received to

this point, and very encouraging from the point of view of the fact that we

might have another fairly significant land mass that will be designated as a

national park and become part of the national park system, and another way for

us to promote Newfoundland and Labrador and these kinds of protected areas.

There are the concerns that myself and the Minister of

Natural Resources have been discussing as well with the interests that have

staked certain claims in the area for purposes of exploration, and under the

federal legislation should we make the land available for a national park, which

we hope, by the way, may happen as early as this spring, then under that

legislation they do not allow for the multiple use that we are leaning towards

in the provincial policy decisions as reflected in reserves lately in the

Province where we have allowed for limited time exploration for mineral

resources, hydrocarbons and so on before declaring it a reserve of any permanent

sort, so those issues are still being worked through. Those groups have made

representation in the public hearing process and they are being considered now

in light of the fact that we are trying to reach some kind of a deadline in the

spring for the actual declaration of the park.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The best kept secret

in this Province I think is the possible existence of a park in Labrador.

I have another question. I would have put it to the Minister

for Natural Resources but he is not present. It is a question I would probably

like to put to the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, if parliamentary

assistants are allowed to answer for the Ministry. It is with regard to the

protests in Eagle River.

Quebec power is being brought across the border, cheaper

power than what is currently available, but the current diesel rates are going

to be charged, and that is upsetting the people in that particular area. I would

ask the Ministry why the government won't give the people of Eagle River a

break, why it won't charge them the lower rate. Why is it charging them the

higher rate of the current diesel generating? Is this a specific thing with

regard to Eagle River, or is this part of the government's plan to generally

eliminate subsidies and giving a break to rural areas with regard to electrical

rates?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government doesn't set

the hydro rates to begin with. But a couple of days ago when in fact the Member

for Eagle River came to see me, told me what the concerns were, and said to me

essentially: I don't believe the position that Hydro is taking is justified in

the circumstance. Would you do a review of it? So I put in place a meeting

process, and I'm happy to advise the House that this morning at 8:30 I met with

the minister and with a couple of representatives of Hydro to get them to spell

out for me exactly what their policy was on the matter. Because there is a

change of circumstance occurring in the Labrador Straits area.

As a result of that meeting this morning we have asked that

the matter of the appropriate charge for electricity in the Straits area be

referred immediately to the Public Utilities Board to determine what the rate

should be, and that action is under way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

a question for the Premier related to the amendment to Term 17. I'm wondering if

the Premier has been officially advised by the Prime Minister that the amendment

to Term 17 will not be dealt with by the parliament of Canada now before the

Christmas break. Does he have an undertaking from the Prime Minister as to

exactly when this matter will be dealt with in the House of Commons?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am still having discussions with the

Prime Minister and I am really not in a position to give a firm position on it.

It seems rather obvious that it won't in fact be dealt with by parliament in the

next twenty-four to forty-eight hours but I am continuing discussions with the

Prime Minister and when I am in a position to indicate something further I will

forthwith it by the House.

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

House Leader.

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

very apparent then, I say to the Premier, that it won't be dealt with, at the

earliest sometime in '96, hopefully in early '96. What is that going to do then

with government's educational reform? Are you going to proceed in the areas that

you can proceed without the amendment to Term 17? Will we see a restructuring of

school busing, curriculum and teacher certification? Will government proceed

because it is possible that we won't be able to fully deal with it until

probably sometime in '97, depending on when the federal government deals with

it? So what is the Premier's plans for educational reform in the interim?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a

fair and reasonable one and it is an important one in the current context. It is

critical, I believe, to the full and early reform of our education system that

the government not be delayed in carrying out what is the clear wishes of the

House and the clear wishes of the people of the Province. So we want to be able

to implement it. The problem with delaying a month or two, in terms of approval

at this stage, is it does not simply delay it a month or two on the other end.

You could live with that but in order to say start implementing changes by next

September we have to start giving notice and designing what is going to be done

to do it by the end of January or early February in order to be fair to the

school boards, the people involved and everything in order to do adequate

planning. So this is a matter that is of great, great concern to the government

of this Province and we are endeavouring to find a way to deal with it very

effectively at the earliest possible opportunity. Now I don't want to make

things more difficult right at this stage but I would hope in a few days I will

be in a position to advise the House further as to the course of action that we

intend to follow.

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

House Leader.

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

Conceivably this thing may not be dealt with in time to get

things rolling until '97. Let me just ask the Premier this, has he given any

consideration to further discussions or negotiations with the churches? Has he

thought about that as a way to resolve this? It seems that they were very, very

close to a total resolution. Has the Premier given any thought to proceeding in

this manner so that we can get on with the much needed reform that we all want,

a better quality education for the students of the Province? Has he given any

thought to that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is unthinkable that the

Province in time to allow them to address these problems. I cannot believe that

that will be a situation.

Now on the second question, no we have not given any thought.

The churches have made their position so abundantly clear that there is no

possibility, in my mind, of reconciling. The final position that the churches

put with us was what the government feels is - the minimum that the government

feels is necessary to address our education problems in the Province and enable

us to provide the best quality of education within our limited and decreasing

financial means. So I don't see any possibility there. If the churches have

changed their view on it, I would be most happy to hear from them. I would be

the first one that would respond but if the churches view is as it was when we

left them, there is no possibility. It would be a waste of their time and a

waste of ours.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier

as well.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, Petro Canada announced that they were

making applications to Canada Newfoundland Offshore Development Board which is

obviously welcome news for the entire Province. The spokesperson later for Petro

Canada confirmed that there would not be a GBS system for the production. I

would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he can tell me, now that Petro

Canada has confirmed that it is going to be a floating system, if it will be a

steel floater, if it will be a concrete floater, Mr. Speaker, if it will be new

construction or will it be the conversion of a semi-submersible drill rig?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, unless I am greatly mistaken,

I did not think that the representative of Petro-Can confirmed that it would be

a floater. I think they indicated that that seemed a probable one and I agree

with the hon. member, that that seems probable. At the request of government,

they are looking at all opportunities and all possibilities and, in fact, that

is what the Development Plan Application will determine - some of these

questions; that is what the process will help them decide.

If I were to make a guess, my guess is, it is far more likely

to be a floating system than it is to be a gravity-base system but I don't think

gravity-base has been absolutely ruled out. They have given the government

certain undertakings with respect to considering all possibilities, so I would

be surprised if they are at a stage where they are ruling out gravity-base at

this time. Maybe they are, but I would be surprised to find that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West,

on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier that it was

confirmed by Judy Wish, spokesman for Petro Canada, who said: `Terra Nova

partners will be using a floating system to extract oil from the ocean floor but

the type hasn't yet been decided. We haven't made a decision whether it will be

a submersible or semi-submersible.' Mr. Speaker, she has confirmed that it would

not be a GBS.

Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of Hibernia obviously has been

felt throughout this Province with the GBS being constructed in this Province.

Let me ask the Premier: Will the government be insisting in these negotiations

with Petro Canada that, whatever form it is, Mr. Speaker, whether it be concrete

or steel, that it will be built in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government is still

negotiating with the Terra Nova consortium and until those negotiations are

complete, I am not prepared to be discussing and negotiating the details in

conversation back and forth in the House. It would not be in the best interest

of the people of the Province and it would be, I believe, offensive to the

people with whom we are negotiating. I can say this, that the government has

made its position very clear that the greatest possible level of benefits must

accrue in this Province. The companies are very much aware of that and very much

aware of the strength of the position, and very much aware of the resolve of the

government to ensure that that is, in fact, what accrues.

Now, the best possible circumstances, the best of all

possible worlds, is that the government not be involved in day-to-day dealing

with nuts and bolts, every individual nut or bolt that is to be used, is to

leave that to the experts who know, but to ensure that the conditions on which

it is left to the experts, is that they will cause the maximum possible level of

activity to take place here. That is the government's preferred approach, if

that can be achieved, and that is along the lines that we have been discussing

the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this,

then.

Is the Premier - I am certainly not interested in having

names of companies or anything such as that - but would the Premier tell me, Mr.

Speaker, if there are any groups or consortiums in this Province, who have bid

or made proposals to Petro Canada and their partners to have the work done in

Newfoundland, and if so, how many companies would be involved with Newfoundland

partnerships?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The Terra Nova consortium is following a

course of advising the most complete list of companies whom they can identify

that they think would be interested, knowledgeable and capable in the field of

what is going to be needed and what the potential is, whether it is a floating

ship shape, a semi-submersible, concrete, a gravity-base, or whatever it is,

whatever kind of thing can be done, and inviting them to form alliances with

companies within the Province, with companies outside the Province, because we

have to readily admit that the expertise and competence to build that does not

exist solely within the Province. We have to have capital and expert knowledge

and experience come to the Province to help develop abilities here to do it.

Now thanks to Hibernia, a fair level of expertise and

confidence have been developed within the Province and that will be put to good

use, I have no doubt, in the Terra Nova platform as well. But the process they

are using is inviting those whom they know to be interested to develop alliances

to make proposals; then, I think they will call for actual proposals for the

kind of process or approach or develop a method that would be used, whether it

was say, a floating ship shape or semi-submersible or something. They may make

their decision only after they see a variety of proposals and look at what is

likely to be most reliable, most efficient, and most cost-effective and, above

all, be the safest operating in that environment.

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

Kenmount.

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

My questions are to the acting Minister of Social Services or

to the Minister of Justice, and deal with the day care centres that are operated

in government buildings, particular Confederation Building.

Notices were given out on November 24 that children of

parents who work for the government but not on site here in Confederation

Building have to find alternate day care spaces as of January 1. This is an

unnecessary disruption in a child's life half-way through the work year. What

possible rationale could we have for disrupting children in this particular

manner at this time?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague,

the minister, who I believe is on her way back from Calgary where she was

attending a meeting of Ministers of Social Services across the country, let me

give the answer. It would fall into two parts. The first with respect to the

rationale is that notice of this change was given, I am told, several months

ago, so there was some considerable warning given to those who might be affected

by the change. The second point I would make is to advise my hon. friend and the

House that the matter is under review and let us see what develops.

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

Kenmount, on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister

could advise if the children of those government employees who recently lost

their jobs as a result of the lay-offs have been told to move their children as

well, if his review would include a compassionate approach to these families and

to the parents of these families, to these children as well, because these

families are going through a very difficult time. I ask the minister if he could

show compassion towards all the families that were involved in the lay-off,

particularly if their children are involved in the day cares?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. The

hon. gentleman has obviously been receiving copies of the letters that have been

sent to a number of us on this, and it is a fair question.

Let me say that the government have both the compassion to

deal with these people fairly and the courage to do what we believe to be right.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls.

MR. MACKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment, and it is

related to the proposed hydro-electric development project at Northwest River.

On November 29, the minister issued a statement regarding the

acceptability of the environmental impact statement as it related to the

Northwest power development. The minister stated that the proponent, Genergy

Incorporated, has agreed to a two-week extension to allow for further

consideration of public and government response to the environmental impact

statement. The minister's decision date was yesterday, December 12, so my

question to the minister is: Can he inform the House if his department has come

to a decision on this project?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

question.

As of this afternoon, a decision has been rendered, and we

will be asking for a further assessment as to the information that has been

submitted from the public. A further addendum to the environmental impact study

will be required. The deficiencies that have been identified by the

Environmental Assessment Committee of our department and other government

departments, including DFO, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans -

they have identified a deficiency list which is not satisfied by the present

EIS, so that work will be undertaken over the next few months. They will submit

the addendum in the time period to be worked out, and that will be a public

document also to be reviewed further.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Social

Services Legislation Review Committee. The Social Services Committee reviewed

and approved for enactment by the House of Assembly the following bills:

"An Act Respecting The Investigation of Fatalities". (Bill

36)

"An Act To Amend The Leaseholds In St. John's Act". (Bill 40)

"An Act Respecting Standards Of Conduct For Non-Elected

Public Office Holders". (Bill 41)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I shall on

tomorrow move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate for further

consideration of second reading of Bill No. 35 entitled -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I obviously will have to start

again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Hon. members, Mr. Speaker, are showing the

wisdom -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The members opposite, Mr. Speaker, are

proving the wisdom and the necessity of what we are about to do. I will have to

start again.

I give notice that I shall on tomorrow, move, pursuant to

Standing Order 50, that the debate or further consideration of second reading of

Bill No. 35, entitled "An Act To Amend The Hydro Corporation Act, The Electrical

Power Control Act, 1994 And Other Acts," standing in the name of the hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources, and any amendments to that motion for second

reading, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any

amendments relating to second reading of Bill No. 35 shall not be further

postponed.

All members will have an ample opportunity to debate the

bill. We will be calling it tomorrow and we will deal with it at second reading

tomorrow, Sir.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in response to a question raised by our colleague, the

Member for Mount Pearl, on December 4 as to whether there was an environmental

study completed before the Kitchener Pelley farm was permitted to switch from

root crops to a dairy operation.

MR. WINDSOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DR. HULAN: In 1984, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the

minister is coming from, but I asked no such question of him on December 4 or

any other day.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, it was the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount. Waterford - Kenmount and Mount Pearl being so close together, I made a

little error.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: Certainly, the Member for Mount Pearl will not

be there the next time, so I will not make that mistake.

In 1994, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kitchener Pelley was issued an

environmental approval for a thirty-head dairy operation in Harcourt under

section 23 of the Department of Environment act. The required review for this

permit was carried out at that time by the Department of Environment.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a

petition on behalf of 852 people in this Province who are opposed to the

legislation regarding the opening of stores on Sundays and request that this

legislation be taken off the Order Paper.

The fax machines in our office haven't stopped.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, no, not at all. They haven't stopped -

with this minister. As I said yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations since Confederation has been the only person that I know of in this

Province who has been able to unite the labour movement and the Board of Trade

in St. John's. He is the only fellow who has been able to unite the Board of

Trade, the labour movement, the churches, the employees, the public. The

unfortunate part for the minister is that he has united them all against the

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the people of this

Province are very concerned about the piece of legislation that this minister

has introduced into the House regarding Sunday shopping. I know, the Member for

Port de Grave, for example, opposes Sunday shopping. At least, I've been told he

opposes it. I understand there are many members opposite who are opposed.

I'm not so sure that the minister supports it. The reason why

I say that is because nobody asked him to bring it in.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He told me he didn't support it.

MR. TOBIN: He told you he didn't support it. Mr. Speaker,

the minister wanted to slip this piece of legislation through. He came to me one

day and said: We have this legislation, there is nothing to it, it shouldn't be

a problem to get this through. I said: I cannot speak to you on that issue, you

will have to check with the House Leader. You will have to check with Bill on

that. He talked to my colleague for Grand Bank and he said, Tom, you will never

get it through. The people of this Province will never support that piece of

legislation.

What we are seeing today in this Province is the fax machines

in the Opposition offices going mad with signatures coming in. There is one

today from the St. John's area and I have more I will be presenting in due

course, from the Lewisporte area, and more from the Placentia area. Mr. Speaker,

I could go through them forever. The calls from Clarenville over the weekend, I

say to the member, and he knows what I am talking about. The businesses out

there are united in their opposition to it. The Chamber of Commerce in this

Province surveyed their membership and 80-odd per cent of the members in this

Province told the President of the Chamber of Commerce that they are opposed to

Sunday shopping. The Board of Trade has been very explicit in their opposition

to Sunday shopping.

MS VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, he is not. Bren Fahey is here in St.

John's. As a matter of fact he is now President of Newtel Mobility. He stated,

and not just to me, but stated it publicly on the airways yesterday, that they

are opposed to it. The President of the Federation of Labour has stated their

opposition to it, all their membership. Frank Taylor from the retail wholesalers

AN HON. MEMBER: That is who gave you that.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is who gave me that,

Frank Taylor. The retail wholesalers people are opposed to Sunday shopping in

this Province. This government wants to have people working seven a days a week.

Now they made it quite clear that there will be no new jobs created as a result

of this legislation. I think it was brought in when the Premier was on his trip,

and that is why the minister wanted to sneak it through while the Premier was

gone.

This piece of legislation is not good for the people of this

Province, and I can tell you one thing, that gag order that the Minister of

Justice just got up and brought into this House, after only two speakers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, for a second.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave? No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to give the member leave does not mean he is going to

stop talking. Let me say to the hon. member that we have addressed this issue,

and the member knows that in regulatory reform it was an issue that was causing

us concern, not so much that the stores could not open, but the enforcement of

the legislation that was there. We have dealt with it. We brought in an

amendment. We did not tell the stores to open. All we said, simply, was that if

stores so desired they could open, but I guess in dealing with many, many groups

and talking to many, many groups, probably the most appropriate thing, and I

have asked the staff of my department, to put together a White Paper to deal

with the issue.

I suggest we will probably think about moving it on to a

committee, so I say to the hon. member that we will deal more in depth with the

subject. I think it is fair to say that it needs to be consulted more so we will

leave it at that.

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

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

to rise to support the petition presented by my colleague from Burin - Placentia

West. No, the minister did not say he was going to withdraw the legislation,

certainly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are going to put it out to committee

to gauge the views of the public. Is that really what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Hydro.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I mean there is a lot of

legislation that comes to the House that should go out to the public for

scrutiny and input, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I

mean we just saw closure invoked on Bill 35 that certainly should go out to the

people of the Province before it is put to this House but I want to support the

petition presented by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I am sure that the

group would have wanted the minister - would present the petition to the

minister but of course they knew the minister would not bring the petition

forward to the House of Assembly.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West indeed is correct, the

minister did come to see me to ask about the possibility of putting this bill

through. He did not think it was a very controversial piece of legislation. He

thought it was sort of minor and of course, Mr. Speaker, with my being around as

long as I have and with my parliamentary wisdom, I more or less set the minister

up. I set the trap for him. I baited the trap for the minister and once I got

him on the hook, Mr. Speaker, knowing full well what was going to happen out and

about the Province with the uproar from the business community, from the

Federation of Labour and the employees, I had hooked him. I hooked him in good.

MR. ROBERTS: You are a master at that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A master? I am not a master at -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) business?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Master of nothing, I say to the

Government House Leader, master of nothing, very little anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I think I know what happened. I have been trying

to think about this and really why did this come about? I think I know what it

is because I believe it was on a Monday that the minister asked me to have a

word about the bill and at the same time the Premier was abroad. I think what

happened was that the Premier must have been abroad shopping on Sunday and said

this is a marvellous idea for the Province. So what did he do? He called Tom:

Tom what a marvellous idea. I am at Harrods in London. Tom why don't you put

that bill in the House of Assembly now? Because this is a wonderful - I enjoy

shopping on Sunday and I think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be

able to shop on Sunday. Now I think that is what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think that is what

happened. Of course the poor minister, the next day, came in to me and said:

Billy, come up I wants you. There should not be any trouble with this bill. I

said to him across the House, it will never see the light of day, I said to the

minister. It will never see the light of day. Now what has happened out and

about the Province, I say to the minister? Seriously, I say to the minister - I

say in all sincerity to the minister that I am pleased to see that he is going

to put the bill out for public scrutiny and to gauge - but I think it seems - to

me it seems self evident of what the mood is out and about the Province. The

business community are adamantly opposed to it, there is no doubt about that.

The employees are adamantly opposed to it. So I guess what is left to gauge

would be the mood of the consumer. I guess that is what it boils down to and

having watched television, listening to The Open Line Show and monitoring

the papers, it would seem to me that there are more people opposed to it, I say

to the minister, then I thought. More opposed to it then I thought. I know the

minister quoted a public opinion survey done and I believe - I think it was

Market Quest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, right after we had the storm and I

think the minister allowed a Sunday shopping day because of the inconvenience

caused by the blackout but I don't think that was a good time to really get a

true evaluation of public opinion, I say to the minister. I think there is a big

shift out there now. I would not be surprised to find out that the majority of

the people of the Province are opposed to it. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I

want to support the petition presented by the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thanks Bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You're very welcome, sir, anything for

you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My friend from

LaPoile will be with us in just a moment.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Hold on now. Let's see what straight line my

friend from Burin - Placentia West is feeding me now.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, if the

only friend I've got is the gentleman from Burin - Placentia West and the only

friend he's got is me, we are both in a great deal of trouble.

Your Honour, just before I call the business, the members of

the House might want - I could do it now or at 5:00 p.m. - the way in which we

will be asking the House to deal with business the next couple of days. We will

begin tomorrow afternoon, which will be a government day, of course, by dealing

with the Provincial Offenses Act.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We will begin with that one?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I don't expect that will take very

long.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Fine; that is up to the members.

We will then ask the House to deal with the Committee stages

on Orders 25, 26 and 28. These are the three bills that the committee dealt with

this morning and reported back with a clear bill of health.

We will then deal with Order 30, which is the Mineral Impost;

that is a very minor piece of legislation, and we hope it will be dealt with

quickly. We will then move into the Hydro second reading debate, and one should

anticipate that the Standing Order 50 motion will be adopted, which means every

member may speak once for twenty minutes, so however long that takes it will

take.

I anticipate that on Friday we will be in Committee stage on

the Hydro bill, and members should anticipate sitting late tomorrow night and

possibly late on Friday, so they can make their plans accordingly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: Members should anticipate sitting late

tomorrow evening, and possibly late on Friday so we can deal with these things.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are going to shut her down on

Friday, are you?

MR. ROBERTS: No. Then, that will leave us, for next week,

the Pension Benefits bill, the three supply bills that are in Committee of the

Whole, the Minerals Act which has been distributed; it is Order 36.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is a big one.

MR. ROBERTS: That is an important one; I agree with my

friend, the Member for Grand Bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is the smelter bill.

Then, there is the Mining Tax Act which will not be printed

for this afternoon; I hope to have it available for distribution tomorrow. It is

an important bill.

There are two which are not yet distributed. One is a Public

Accountancy bill, and I have no knowledge of that because that is the one in

which I am conflicted; it is Bill 42. And the Attorney General's Act, I expect,

will be printed tomorrow. It is the usual. It is Bill 48. Neither of those is in

the House as yet.

There may be one or two other minor pieces of legislation. I

will speak with my friend behind the Chair and my friend, the Member for St.

John's East about those, but that is what members should anticipate, so we will

be asking the House to sit late tomorrow evening. How late depends on how many

members wish to speak, of course, but every member will have the right to speak,

and we will get through that. It will not be later than 1:00 a.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Standing Order 50 - we will not be sitting

later than 1:00 a.m. unless we begin Committee right away, which we might if we

are so minded.

Mr. Speaker, with that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bullish.

MR. ROBERTS: I am always bullish as opposed to bearish, I

say to my hon. friend.

Your Honour, with that said, perhaps -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: After what my hon. friend mixed for me last

night, Mr. Speaker, it was a grand party.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a bad concoction.

MR. ROBERTS: No, a bad mixer but a good concoction.

Your Honour, would you be good enough, with that said,

please, to call Order 6. I believe my friend, the Member for LaPoile is

anticipating you will, and I think that is why he was standing on his feet a

moment or so ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6, the hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It wasn't for the interest of being anxious that I was on my

feet. I thought that the Government House Leader was predisposed and the truth

of the matter being that it had not reached 3:00 p.m. yet, so it wasn't

automatic, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution put before the House today is one

of which it will be very interesting to see what history writes about this kind

of proposal that the Government of Newfoundland has made, should we be able to

participate with us on this kind of venture.

The Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises Act

passed back here in January - well, prior to January, implemented in January of

this past year - has shown us some success. It is such that not too many things

that this government has brought in have received the unanimous support of the

Opposition members, and the EDGE Act, as I understand it, was just one of these.

A consultative process that we effected throughout the Province on the EDGE bill

was a good one, and we received input from people from various parts of the

community - from labour, from the Chambers of Commerce, and the Board of Trade

here in St. John's. We got a good overall view, and we made changes according to

the input. It was a good process and it made for good effective legislation

which has reaped benefits for the Province up to this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a case where, because of the

groundfishery difficulties that we have been experiencing as a result of the

shutdown of the groundfish fishery - which is not the reason for the creation of

the EDGE legislation, but it is something that is having an impact on the

economy of the Province. And therefore, it is something that we have to keep in

mind when looking at how do we best approach the creation of new industry in the

Province, given we are operating from a lower base because of the fact that

30,000 or more individuals are displaced by the closure of the groundfish

fishery.

Based on that, what would be one of the better ways that we

could effect a potential improvement to the EDGE legislation that would attract

more businesses to the Province? Not that EDGE itself has been a problem,

because really we have signed fourteen contracts to date with companies that

have gained EDGE status. These companies have indicated a potential capital

investment of some $100 million, and that, in effect, has created some

employment.

I note in The Globe and Mail recently some

advertisements by one of the companies, Lo-tech Engineering, seeking to hire

people, that are not low wage jobs. These are trained professionals that they

want to work with them in developing some of the new marine-based technologies.

You have many others as well that the EDGE legislation has brought to the fore

and has brought here to the Province and certainly will improve the overall

situation for us in creating new jobs for people here, and people who may have

to come here from somewhere else. The numbers that we see out of these fourteen

companies based on their projections - and again, these are projections, but the

companies will ultimately have to meet the criteria established under the EDGE

legislation to maintain that status, and their estimates are that we will create

some 600 permanent jobs.

From there, what can we say that the Province would like to

have in the way of a share on the part of the Federal Government? Because we are

willing to forego the tax implications with the current EDGE legislation. Would

it be helpful if the Federal Government were, on a limited basis, able to offer

us a certain amount of relief on the corporate income tax side to the

profitability of these corporations that are created? We feel, as a matter of

government policy that has been enunciated by the Premier and other members of

the government at different times, that the implementation of a double-EDGE,

notwithstanding the analogy that could be drawn, I suppose, to the double-edged

sword, but to double the effectiveness of the EDGE legislation in mirroring the

tax implications that the Province has put forward by allowing relief for the

federal income tax provisions.

We did mention with respect to this that there are

limitations, that we are willing to have limitations if the Federal Government

are willing to participate in this with us. The Province has partnered with a

number of municipalities throughout the Province. These municipalities - I'm not

sure how many, I think there are some thirty municipalities that currently are

involved and have approved the EDGE legislation, that they will participate with

the Province - and that is a municipal-provincial partnership that may very well

go further if, in fact, we get the Federal Government involved in this.

Now, we mention a limitation. The Federal Government, by

virtue of the creation of the TAGS program, have taken responsibility for the

fact that the groundfish fishery has been shut down. And really, if you look at

the history of the Provincial Government's policy on fisheries matters, time and

time again, over all of the years that this government have been in office, and

when the party opposite was in office as well, there was a continuing policy

that we did not want increases in the total allowable catch that were being

proposed by federal scientists and supported by federal ministries throughout

all of those years leading up to the disastrous closure. And these are matters

that are on the record, there for all to see, that the closure is a result of

overfishing. There are some other factors but it is acknowledged that it is

damage caused to those who have been excluded from their work by virtue of the

federal shutdown. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have this situation where, as a

result of the federal management of the fishery, or mismanagement, some would

say, over the years, these people are now displaced.

As a result of that, then, why not utilize the program that

we are working on, the EDGE Program, which is seeing a lot of activity in

participation by the private sector; a lot of interest has been generated in the

Province with the tax benefits provided. There is very little outlay of capital

on the part of the Province and there would be very little outlay on the part of

the Federal Government if they were to mirror our - the implications of this,

because in a lot of cases, these are new industries that would be created, in

new areas of industry. People who come here to start in this normally would be

carving out a niche that would probably not be done anywhere else in Canada, or

elsewhere, if we create it here.

It is a matter of the people who work on these kinds of

projects and there are a variety of different projects but these projects will

create - you know, the fact that people create more than just to develop and

cultivate the wealth that is in the ground and the natural resources we have, we

can add value by virtue of the industriousness of the people in our society; and

looking at that and what we create from the EDGE Program, then to have the

Federal Government participate and mirror the income tax provisions just to have

it limited to the number of jobs that have been displaced out of the fishery on

that the number of jobs that will be displaced would be roughly half.

They suggest that the fishery, when it may be ready to

re-open, would be down-sized to about half of its previous size, and therefore

that displacement of jobs may very well be the kind of target they were looking

for in having the limitation placed on double-edged status companies. And who

knows if those companies may grow way beyond that, but at the very least, based

on the projections, with a shared evaluation on the part of the Federal and

Provincial Governments, grant us that status and then we would be able to allow

for a reasonable number of job replacements for those that have been lost due to

the groundfish fishery closure.

The number of municipalities, as I mentioned, the property

and tax benefits are a very important part of this and the fact that the

municipalities who have, they would be giving up on this basis really, more than

the Province would because normally in new businesses that would start, you

would see as far as provincial income tax for the first number of years,

businesses would manage to avoid taxation because of the fact that they are new

investments, they have the write-off provisions under the Income Tax Act, they

have the fact that normally starting off, businesses are not as profitable as

they might be later on if they are successful, and all of these things are

coming into view when a business is first started. So that is one thing that the

Province normally does not give up in the first few years of a business'

inception.

Now, as far as a municipality is concerned, because their

taxes are based on the property tax provisoes that are accounted for in the

legislation, then they would be giving up money right away. When a business

moves into town and occupies a property or builds a property, then the

municipalities mirroring and getting involved in this, certainly is a direct

cash benefit that they provide to the businesses that set up in the

municipalities, and that is not to be taken lightly, the sacrifices that have

been put forward by the municipality. It is their interest in trying to be

involved and to attract business to their area of the Province. I note that one

of the major communities in my district merit the EDGE provisions and is

interested in participating. That is down in Channel - Port aux Basques, and

there are many others throughout the Province who have the wisdom to do so.

We also have to look at certain things about attracting

business to the Province. What is this government doing? The Opposition's

support of the government measure is one thing and we were very glad they stood

with us and supported this. They supported the fact that we consulted widely,

and that we listened to the consultations. They did have a few concerns but in

the overall they were willing to support us on this measure and we hope they

will be willing to continue that support in the extra measures that are being

EDGE that much more of a factor in having new business locate here.

Of course we have to look at other parts of the country. We

know there are situations that arise. When they do a measure like this for the

benefit of the Province of Newfoundland it may then come back that other parts

of Canada may want similar treatment, or treatment of a similar nature, and

that, of course, will bring about a problem that is a problem that has arisen in

the past when you talk about free trade zones, when you talk about anything that

offer to another. In this case it is a special situation, a situation on which

the government of the Province has suggested that we are willing to accept

should certainly be able to agree.

Now, what has the Province been doing with respect to the

EDGE legislation, and approaches to business? There have been numerous speaking

events in cities throughout Canada, the United States, in Europe, even

throughout the far East and into China, that have been attended by Minister

Furey, the Premier, and others, and these have been very fruitful and have

resulted in a number of contracts that have been brought back by the private

sector companies involved, and have resulted in a good effort as far as some of

our institutions.

We note the recent signing of a memorandum of agreement and

the creation of Canada and China, or as they say the China/Newfoundland

institute that C-core were involved in in China which was just recently opened

by Mr. Furey. These are provisions that have really made for good business

effort on the part of the Province. What else are we doing to attract new

business to the Province? There are a number of things. One thing I am very

pleased with is the recent publishing of a lot of new literature and information

for the benefit of the business community out there throughout the rest of the

world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: By leave. If I could just conclude with the

information about the various brochures?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. RAMSAY: The kit which is in this folder, for the

benefit of hon. members, is quite a good job. My compliments to the staff who

have done this up with the ten year tax break, and focusing on a variety of

different industries here in the Province, and putting it forward in as

attractive a way as possible. Also, for the benefit of those who cruise the

worldwide web we have, of course, developed our web site which is provided

through Compusult on a contractual basis on behalf of the department. There is a

message there on this, and most of this literature is available through that

site by request.

We have sent out a huge amount of information to businesses

that are interested in doing business here in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador and we are hopeful this is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, no

pun intended with respect to the iceberg vodka corporation, but that it will be

the tip of the iceberg on many new and exciting ventures that will come to the

Province, and that our efforts will certainly be vindicated and that we look

forward to the support of the loyal Opposition to Her Majesty in carrying out

this mandate given to us on behalf of the people of the Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the voices of other

hon. members and then conclude the debate later on. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand to support

the member's private member's resolution. I think it is a good one. Whether it

comes about or not remains to be seen. About six months ago I talked to the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr. Furey, about the very same

thing, and asked him would this be a possibility of the federal government

participating in this government's EDGE program and EDGE legislation. As hon.

members know, the EDGE legislation was supported unanimously by the Opposition.

We felt it was a good piece of legislation. We made suggestions in terms of what

amendments we saw could be made to strengthen the legislation, which were made,

which would help in attracting new business to this Province.

To the member's motion, I would skip to the "therefore

be it

resolved" part of it where it says: "that this House of Assembly endorses

government's efforts in aggressively marketing and promoting the EDGE program as

a mechanism of encouraging new business growth in the Province and thereby

providing new employment opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians."

We support that. But there is an area that we have not

focused in on in terms of the EDGE legislation, and that is the food industry in

this Province. Last year the food industry in this Province, in net dollars, was

a $1,565,000,000 industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Retail food?

MR. E. BYRNE: Retail food. From salt meat to crackers to

groceries, chicken, poultry, fish, eggs, you name it. The sales for 2 per cent

milk in this Province were $240 million, just for one product. The meat industry

- or we will just look at ground beef, excluding patties, not beef patties, $160

million business. Ground beef, in this Province alone.

When we look at EDGE where EDGE has an opportunity to really

make an impact it is in the food industry, and we haven't really attacked that

industry, and we really haven't promoted it from a Newfoundland standpoint

because there are tremendous opportunities not only from a business sector but

from a job creation sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. The big thing, Mr. Speaker, of that

$1,565,000,000 that this industry represented in the Province last year only

$150 million of it came from products made in this Province. Ten per cent of

what we consume, of what we buy in food in this Province is made here locally.

There are a number of reasons for that, not the least of

which the dumping that takes place in large national chains in this Province.

Large national chains, through their outlets and through Loblaws and TRAs of the

world which compete with local products by what they call lost leaders,

competing head to head with a local product of the same quantity, whatever the

case may be, and out-pricing them. Lowering their prices purposely, losing money

on that product purposely. People have said to me that this does not happen,

people in the industry, people who represent these large national chains, but it

does and it does every day in this Province.

Two and half years ago there were 250 employed on Kenmount

Road at Canada Packers. This is just one small example, and I can go through

many. Today there are thirty. Mostly because products from Quebec end up on our

shelves down here ordered through by TRA, Loblaws, et cetera. We have people

displaced. John Ackerman, terrific businessman, entrepreneur of this Province,

who is in the business, has about thirty-five, forty people employed right now.

He could employ another twenty to thirty people alone in blueberry pie filling.

People will laugh at this. I've talked about it before. But in blueberry pie

filling alone, for him to get his product on the shelves, if government

departments, if the cafeterias downstairs, if the cafeterias in community

colleges, if the cafeterias in hospitals and at the University, supported that

business alone in bringing in his pie filling and blueberry pie fillings, he

could employ twenty-five to thirty more people today. Today! But he can't even

get into our own cafeterias.

Now, if that is not an individual, a Newfoundland business

person, who deserves to get EDGE status to put him in a competitive situation, a

more competitive situation on the one hand because he is competitive. He can

guarantee supply of a quality product. He can compete with the price that is

happening nationally and he can guarantee that it would be here for ever and a

day. The only thing that he cannot get into Mr. Speaker, is the loop that

national chains have and the stranglehold they have on the Province and the food

industry right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: We can do it. We have to take more

aggressive action right here to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) legislation.

MR. E. BYRNE: Legislation is a very powerful tool. It is

a very powerful tool.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I agree. I remember when I was president of

the student union at Memorial University in 1984, 10 per cent of the fresh fluid

milk that Newfoundlanders consumed in Newfoundland and Labrador was produced

locally, only 10 per cent. Today it is about 90 per cent, I believe, 92 per cent

because of the creation of the Milk Marketing Board. I sat on the food committee

as a student rep at the University when the Milk Marketing Board came before us

and what we were drinking and what was being served to us was powdered milk,

basically. Using Newfoundland water, reconstituted milk coming from Halifax,

PEI, other places, Quebec, et cetera, married with cream, butterfat content and

then served to the university community as a whole.

In terms of what we were doing, we were supporting industry

outside this Province. We were saying to local industry, local dairy farmers who

each and every day created jobs, tried to create wealth, we said to them we did

not - one of the largest suppliers are outlets for their product, for fifteen to

twenty years, was not even taking in their product. Why? It was not because the

university community did not want it so much, it was because of the contracts

negotiated with food service companies and this is what we had to get at. We had

to be very practical in our thinking about how we get people into the loop, to

get more people involved in that business that could create more jobs.

So what we did as a committee, there were eight people on the

committee, we looked at all the tenders and we made a recommendation to the

administration, all unanimous recommendation that on certain products, on milk,

we said that it must be fresh fluid milk at the University campus. That is all

we would accept. We would not accept the reconstituted milk that was coming from

other provinces and it passed. As a result, Beaver Foods at the time, entered

into substantial contracts with local producers and it began from there. The

same thing can happen in this Province through its Edge Legislation, if we can

get more people participating in the food industry. This industry alone in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, has the possibility to create 4,000 to 5,000 long lasting

jobs but we must attack it aggressively.

We will look at the poultry industry; boneless, skinless

chicken breast. Last year, one product, boneless, skinless chicken breast, the

amount of money spent was $176 million in the retail trade. That is what people

in this Province spent on buying that product. Not all Country Ribbon, not all

Newfoundland Farm Products but what is happening at Farm Products in those value

added products that they are developing, they are getting a greater percentage

of the market and a greater share each and every year as time goes on. What does

that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that each and every year, as we move on, there

are four, five, six, seven, eight, nine or ten new employees being hired down

there because people in this Province are buying that product. We are not buying

product coming in from outside the Province but there are three factors that

have to be consistent if we support this. There has to be a guarantee of supply,

quality has to be uppermost and price must be competitive and Newfoundland

companies are proving that each and every day. So there are tremendous

opportunities for us in that industry alone and we must move towards it in a

greater fashion and in a more expeditious fashion because we are not doing it

right now.

About two weeks ago a businessman in town came to see me,

represents a group, Newfoundland association of consumers - I forget the exact

name of the group, a newly formed group - and he said: Go down in the cafeteria

right now and see if you can pick up a bottle of apple juice or orange juice

made by a Newfoundland company. I could not. I could not find one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that?

MR. E. BYRNE: Down in the cafeteria, about four weeks

ago, about a month ago. There is some down there now, a little bit, but two

types of juice, one out of Ontario, Fairlee - this is factual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Windsor.

MR. E. BYRNE: Windsor, yes, out of Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst water you can have.

MR. E. BYRNE: Admittedly the water - it is all

concentrate. Most orange juice concentrate comes from Florida and Brazil, in the

world. That is the orange belt of the world that supplies all the other world in

terms of concentrate. Concentrate is shipped; it is about 10 per cent to 90 per

cent water. Out of Lake Ontario, the water in Lake Ontario goes into the juice

in Fairlee. It is mixed through sixty-five different chemical solutions to make

it pure, and that is what is served on the shelves downstairs, down here - that

is a fact - yet, local juice producer Sunnyland Juice, brings in concentrate, a

local producer, the cleanest, freshest water in North America right here, no

chemicals added to make it clean -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. E. BYRNE: Sunnyland Juice, employs about twenty-five

people, and if he could get in this market, in the cafeterias in this

building... Government stands up and says we support the Newfoundland

Manufacturers Association `Manufactured Right Here' campaign, and when people

come from China to visit the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and he

takes them down to our cafeteria, or he takes them to local business, he cannot

buy a bottle of Newfoundland juice, in the cafeteria of the Confederation

Building of Newfoundland and Labrador, produced by Newfoundlanders. There is

something fundamentally wrong with that, and that is an area where EDGE can work

and it can work very well, but political will must exist to do it.

We will look at french fries as another example.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You are right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) don't say to these people:

No, that is not made in Newfoundland; I am not buying it,' it will never change.

MR. E. BYRNE: I wasn't aware of it. When I first became

aware of it, I asked to see the supervisor downstairs, and I said: Why aren't

you carrying Newfoundland juice? Well, no reason, couldn't explain anything to

me. The supervisor couldn't, because they never had the authority.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The price is competitive, the same price.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same price?

MR. E. BYRNE: A little bit cheaper, actually. You can go

down now and you can find, right over in the corner, on the last shelf right

over by where you make your own sandwich, and the lettuce and salads and stuff,

right over you will find the two shelves, incredible, downstairs in our own

cafeteria, absolutely incredible.

Mr. Speaker, to the other part of his resolution he said: AND

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the Province's

request that the federal government participate in the EDGE program by mirroring

the corporate income tax provisions of it in an appropriate manner until such

time as the full-time equivalent jobs that were lost due to the federal closure

of the groundfish fishery have been recouped.

Mr. Speaker, we support that. I support that wholeheartedly.

I don't see any member in this House not supporting it, but the question we must

ask is: Will the federal government do it? Does the political will exist within

Canada, within the federal government, within the Prime Minister's office, to

promote a national policy for this region that empowers the people of this

Province as opposed to exploiting them? That is the question that is fundamental

to this Private Members' resolution. I hope and I pray that it does. I fear that

the political will does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at what has happened in the past two

years in terms of the federal government's involvement in this Province, and if

we look at what is about to happen over the next two or three, the Premier's

responses today in terms of the grave concerns that he has, that he has written

about to the Prime Minister in terms of the total impact of the federal

government's pulling out and reducing subsidies and reducing transfer payments,

the impact that will have on this Province in the next two to three years, is

frightening. He knows it. He said today, while the media were here, that before

he wanted to get into it publicly he owed it to the Prime Minister to let him

know what his thoughts on it were, first. So I wait anxiously to hear what the

Premier has to say publicly about this issue, and sum up by saying -I only have

about a minute or so left I believe, do I? One-and-a-half minutes left?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: No. I will sum up. There are other members

who want to speak on the issue. I am anxiously waiting to hear what the Minister

of Tourism, Culture and Recreation has to say - because his department is a

leading producer in the new economy, creating new wealth and new jobs - what he

has to say about this private member's resolution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I

will sit down.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I rise -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Quit while you are ahead, `Kevin'.

MR. AYLWARD: It is the best speech I ever gave so far,

Mr. Speaker. I think I should quit while I am ahead. The way I was quoted on CBC

last Friday evening, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure I should be bothered standing

up. But I have a lot to say about this issue and I am glad that the Member for

LaPoile has brought it forward because this is talking about the economy, it is

talking about how do we drive our economy, how do we get some new opportunities

going in this Province. And that is the most important issue that we can all be

talking about these days, about trying to find out what will be our future and

how do we create a future for our people.

The EDGE Program is one program of a number that the Province

has instituted and brought forward to try to deal with ways to make it

attractive for business in this Province to do more, to provide incentive for

people locally to do business here, and also for people outside who want to come

in here, to make it more attractive for them. I look at the EDGE Program as

almost a provincial tax-free type of situation a way for regional centres around

the Province, to be able to attract business to local regional centres. Where we

have industrial parks where we have a hard time filling them up, this program I

think, along with, hopefully, federal assistance, will help in getting new

companies started. It is starting to have some success but it can have a lot

more.

A program like this can be very attractive to companies that

are starting out and also to companies that are set up. I know that in the last

few months and in the next few months, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology and all of his officials, his departmental personnel, have been

actively pursuing a whole list of business prospects. The government has

undertaken a business prospect, the initiative, Mr. Speaker, which I think, is

going to start paying off some dividends. If you are going to go prospecting,

though, for business, you have to have something to offer, and the days of

offering money and the funds up front, those days are over. The days of offering

an incentive to come in here and do something and employ people, then you

receive a benefit - and that is the way it should be - that program is what we

have with the EDGE Program. That is a different philosophy, and I think, an

excellent philosophy. It is time we adopted it, and we get out of what we were

doing in the past, providing a whole range of funds to companies that were

somewhat questionable and so on. And in this way, we have to have up front

private investment into a company, into a local area, and once they meet the

criteria, then they can qualify.

They create jobs by doing this. They create employment, they

create work for people, people who have something to make a living at. And when

people are working, then the economy starts to generate. So the program itself

is a very good one. I think it is going to start paying us dividends in the very

near future. They are doing that now, but as we start more advertising and more

communicating to companies out there, I think you are going to see a lot more

interest. And I think we are going to see some more developments, not only on

the Avalon or in St. John's, but also in the regional centres: Gander, Corner

Brook, Stephenville, Grand Falls, Marystown, Port aux Basques, Lab City - all

the different areas of the Province, areas where you can now go out and you can

say to a company that may be looking to come to the Province, or are already in

the Province, that may be looking at expanding its activity or doing some

further activity. You can go to them and offer them a pretty darn good incentive

that would enable them to set up, to employ people, and to get a tax benefit

while they are operating.

That makes more sense, Mr. Speaker, than what we were doing

in the past. What we are doing right now is we are trying to get the financial

house in order, which is a difficult process. Ontario is doing the same thing. A

lot of other governments in Canada are doing the same thing. The governments in

the United States are doing the same thing. State governments are doing the same

thing. We are not just off on our own with our own problems. Everybody else has

these problems.

We have to make this Province one of the most attractive

places on the planet to do business and that is the goal of this government. The

goal is to make it attractive. The goal is to make it so that when you get in

here and when you look at coming here, that there are very good solid reasons,

that it is not a pie-in-the-sky attitude, that it is not a: We will give you $2

million or $3 million, and come on in for six months and see you later, pal. No.

What we want to see are concrete businesses coming in here and businesses that

are already here expanding with the assistance of this type of program. I think

that the program is going to work very well.

With the number of prospects that we have coming up in the

near future, with the very positive policy that the Minister of Natural

Resources has brought forward that has stimulated the exploration activity of

mineral development in this Province, with Voisey's Bay coming forward and the

smelter also, besides the mine, with hopefully, Terra Nova in the near future,

along with potential West Coast oil development, plus potentially the fishery

down the road, and hopefully, maybe even on the South Coast - I know there is an

expanded sentinel fishery next year; given a lot of those factors, along with

the pulp and paper industry that is going well right now, there is a very good

business plan for the future for the economy of this Province.

It is coming around and it is getting there. A lot of it is

private sector driven, which has been the goal also of the government, and I

think the goal of all the people of the Province, to have private sector

investment as much as you can, not basing your economy solely on government

spending, which when you've got a deficit like we have had in the past number of

years, and you are trying to get back to a decent deficit position, decent

balance position, then it is the game plan. It is a good game plan. It is one

that is very strong. I think that it will pay us major dividends in the very,

very near future.

As we go to those bigger projects which are now on the

horizon, which will give us an oil industry business we have never had before,

which will give us a much larger and enhanced mineral business than we have ever

had before, which hopefully, we will see enhanced opportunities in pulp and

paper and in the resource sectors, we also have to push and promote our

manufacturing sector which has expanded in the last three or four years.

As a matter of fact, the Newfoundland Manufacturers

Association deserve a great deal of credit for what they have done. They have

become very active in the promotion of their `Made right here in Newfoundland'

campaign. It has worked quite well. I think it is having an impact on consumers

and it is also helping create new jobs in the Province by doing that. The

Manufacturers Association have done a lot of work. Last year they hosted the

Canadian manufacturers Association in Newfoundland and Labrador here in St.

John's. There were rave reviews from a number of people on the national

executive of the Manufacturers Association who were quite impressed with what

the Province has to offer and with the infrastructure that we have in a whole

range of regional centres. We have a major infrastructure in some of the

regional centres of this Province. We have a number of airports that are very

important for business activity. These airports now are going to become more

important for business activity.

Given all that infrastructure, and given the manufacturing

groups in the Province that are pushing and promoting, and given this new

legislation, the EDGE program, that is a very good, solid base from which to

start, and it is starting to pay dividends. A lot of small companies have

started up. Despite the government dealing with its deficit, these companies, in

the business environment they are in, are starting up new opportunities. And

there are a whole group of others, that are looking to expand and looking to

opportunities in this Province.

A lot of procurement work has been done. I know the Economic

Recovery Commission has done an evaluation of import substitution opportunities,

looking at how we replace, here in this Province, what we are importing by

producing it here in the Province. That work is also paying dividends. I know a

number of companies are looking at producing goods that we are now importing.

Where we were not even looking at it three or four years ago, they are looking

at it now.

You have to do your homework first if you are going to change

your economy and get that economy on a solid footing. The homework has been

done, Mr. Speaker, and the dividends are going to start paying off very, very

shortly.

The small business sector in this Province has been working

hard despite tough times, but a lot of them are doing well and making it. They

are making it in these times, and are going to make it better in the future, and

when we get the bigger projects which are now on the horizon off the ground they

are going to have an even bigger economic base from which to work. I think we

are going to see this in the not too distant future, You can see the

opportunities they are going to create, Mr. Speaker. They are going to get

bigger for the small business sector in this Province, and they are also going

to have some good, reasonable programs to deal with instead of the monies we

provided for God knows what a number of years ago.

What it does is, it allows government to concentrate on the

other activities it needs to concentrate on, especially these days with less

funding we have, and less money we have, concentrate on providing the social

services that are so needed in the Province, and at the same time getting out of

the way of business, Mr. Speaker. That is another thing we have been doing over

on this side of the House. I think there are over 1000 regulations, are there

not?

MR. MURPHY: 1480.

MR. AYLWARD: My colleague, the Minister of Employment and

Labour says 1480 regulations are going to be dropped, or almost dropped -

MR. MURPHY: They are going to be looked at.

MR. AYLWARD: - just about dropped, as a matter of fact,

in the next few months, dropped off the books of this Province, that were

impediments to business activity and that were requirements for people who

wanted to do anything, to have to go through at some point in time in

applications for business and so on. Even when you take out the 1480 which we

are going to drop, we are still going to have I do not know how many more

hundreds that are still there. We are still looking at those and there is going

to be a process put in place to review those on a five-year basis, so that every

government has to look at it every five years so you can figure out whether or

not it is the right thing to be doing, or do you need the regulation.

In some cases you do and in some business activities you do,

but in others, in a lot of other ways you don't, and you can allow business

activity to proceed without having to put them through reams of bureaucracy

which they have had to tackle over the last number of years. Those measure are

also under way, and given the EDGE program, which is not a `throw money at a

program', it lets you make your investment, you create some jobs, and over a

period of time you will receive a benefit, but you are also creating jobs. That

is a better philosophy, I think, from which to operate, and we will see the

benefits of that in the near future.

The Federal Government have to look at this Province and help

this Province more. There is no doubt about that. We are dealing with a

situation that is pretty daunting, when you look at it, in this Province. It is

pretty daunting when you have had you biggest industry basically take a major,

major hit, and where you have communities in certain parts of the Province which

have had to review their whole future as to how they are going to survive, their

whole economic base. That has been tough on the psychology of our people. It has

been tough to deal with.

I was just reading a report that was released a few weeks ago

from the national Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, along with the

provincial Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. They did a report on

sustainable communities, and I think all members should read the report because

it is an excellent report. It deals with the future of these communities and how

people believe they have a future, and how they believe they should go forward

in the future. These people did an excellent report. A lot of volunteers worked

together to put it together and I suggest it would be very good reading for all

of us.

It also suggests, too, that there is a very bright future out

there and that we have to pick up our boot straps and go forward. That is what

we have been trying to do in putting programs forward that work for business,

that do not work against business. That is the other line, the bottom line, that

we have to make it easier and we have to ensure that the business climate is as

appropriate and as attractive as we can make it, and I think this program, the

EDGE program, and getting federal assistance in maybe tax breaks for business to

set up in Newfoundland and Labrador until the fisheries crisis is over, I think

that would be very appropriate, as the government and the Premier have

suggested. I think it would be a very big help here in this Province.

Our geographic position is one of advantage, not disadvantage

any more, with the worldwide web, with information technology. Europe is very

close to us, and we are the jump off point. We have to be promoting ourselves in

that way. Geography is not as big a factor as it used to be, so we have to

promote that. The government has adopted a strategy to deal with that. The new

on-line network that we have put in place through the information technology

sector in this Province is starting to create some new opportunities. In medical

care I see some of the software and hardware that is being produced in the

Province, ideas that you would never have seen four or five years ago.

We have some strong sectors that have built up in just recent

years on information technology. I believe we have a very bright future in that

area, and I think the EDGE program is going to help very much so as we create

new opportunities and look forward to the bigger opportunities that are just on

the horizon, not very far away, the oil industry that is going to be off our

coast in just a very short period of time, the Voisey's Bay mine that is just

now (inaudible) moving.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. AYLWARD: It's too bad, and certainly it has been a

pleasure. Thank you very much.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like a few

words on the Private Members' resolution by the hon. Member for LaPoile.

The call upon the federal government, of course, to get into

the EDGE program is nothing more simply than political posturing. The feds have

absolutely no intention of relinquishing their corporate and other taxes with

regard to new and emerging businesses in this Province, and especially not in a

case where the EDGE law is very specific with regard to what businesses can

apply for such assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I was thinking as I sat down and reviewed the

resolution from the hon. member talking about the twenty-four companies with a

potential - potential, I stress - to create 600 jobs using $100 million. I think

that is something like $150,000 a job. It brought me back, I thought, to the old

Sprung project. If Phil Sprung and his notions were around today under the

current rules with regard to EDGE, I think it is a company that would fit

perfectly under the requirements. It is not an industry that is natural to

Newfoundland in any great way, and I think it created in the order of 300 or so

jobs when it was going, so it is rather passing strange that had this program

been initiated some years ago the Sprung project would have probably fit

perfectly under the bill for an EDGE project.

Given the fact that the hon. members opposite have been less

than kind to the endeavours resident in the Sprung project itself, it is rather

amusing to think that Sprung, especially with 200 or 300 jobs, would have fit

perfectly under the EDGE program and would have been announced in this Assembly

to resounding applause from the opposite side.

As I said, the core of this resolution is calling on the

federal government to get involved in EDGE, and it is brought forward by a

government backbencher, because obviously the government ministry understands

that there is no chance under the sun that the feds will get involved in this

particular program, and it is a safe government resolution to allow the

government members to talk in relatively positive terms about a program that we

in the Opposition have said, for its own limited use, it is a good program and

it has created a certain number of jobs, and we congratulate those involved.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate thing about the EDGE thing is

the way it is targeted. Very few local businesses can really get in on it

because it has to be something new, different and not natural to Newfoundland.

So as a result, we have to send ministers of the Crown scurrying around the

globe, at tremendous public expense, trying to track down weird businesses that

will come and settle in Newfoundland on the pretext of no corporate income tax

for a ten year period.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to create the kind of business

climate that is going to generate jobs and attract investment you need a more

general incentive to business. Not something as specific as having to find some

unique little business that does not tread on anybody's toes in the existing

economy and therefore can qualify. If this particular provincial government were

to eliminate the payroll tax that is a tremendous burden and a great

disincentive to employment in this Province, Mr. Speaker, they would do wonders

to creating jobs. The 600 potential jobs that we are talking about here, Mr.

speaker, I am sure there have been many hundreds more of jobs cost in this

Province or prevented from occurring in this Province because of the payroll tax

instituted by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister may as well

talk about taxes because this government is good at doing taxes by another name.

The Hydro bill that they are now going to shove into the closure fast track mode

tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, is one of those bills that allows them to tax the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador and have an arms length, not even quite, Crown

corporation take the blame.

They got Sister Davis in the city of St. John's some time ago

to take on the role of consolidating their hospital situation in here. What is

better then have someone of the cloth bring forward some of the nastiest stuff

that the administration got to do? That way someone who people are loath to

criticize in any heavy way, at least in a heavy political way, they get to carry

the can on a very ugly piece of business with regard to the consolidation of

hospitals. With regard to Hydro of course, they bring in tax increases through

the back door that they don't want to do politically up front because it would

be very damaging.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the matter at hand, the local

business community has some considerable concerns about EDGE because it does -

it is not so much what it does to them, it is what it does not do for them, Mr.

Speaker. It is not an incentive of general application that allows a natural

expansion of local business interest. What we have is, if a local company comes

up with a unique expansion - I suppose one that does not tread on any existing

toes in the existing economy - that is weird and unique, if they import some

product from Mars or develop some product that they can export to Mars then

fine, they will qualify for the tax exempt status but, Mr. Speaker, that is not

what this Province needs in general terms. EDGE is good, as far as it goes, but

a more general incentive package, with regard to business, is what is needed.

What we need is the generation of a real private sector economy in this Province

and not a singular, unique, weird, private sector economy. I am surprised the

word, `weird' was not in the EDGE legislation because in terms of the

Newfoundland economy any project that receives funding has got to be somewhat

weird, somewhat offbeat or certainly not in a position to cause any grief to

existing companies in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, corporate taxes are a disincentive to business,

obviously. One of the things that has been talked about in this Assembly,

probably in private members' resolutions previously, was the notion of some sort

of tax free zone, free trade zone or whatever in a certain geographic area to

promote business. I suppose if you had some tax relief for business, if you had

it provincewide or at least sector wide or in certain geographic centres, you

might do a better job if you had a wider application of a tax incentive program.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government obviously is not going to get into, as this

resolution calls for, dealing with specific types of projects in this particular

Province when you have, obviously, have not areas throughout Canada that could

use federal help one way or the other in terms of creating economic development.

They have been loath to get involved in that sort of thing. Their own economic

initiatives in the Province, through the ACOA program, have produced some

successes, Mr. Speaker, but the record of failures as well have been quite

extensive. One wonders if the feds are inclined at all to delve into this

economic development business. Because to a great extent it is essentially a

local concern and they seem to be drawing back considerably from that and

letting the engine of the Canadian economy, mostly residing in central Canada,

and I suppose to some extent in Alberta and British Columbia, do the job. So I

don't see the feds investing much time or energy into supporting a program

which, since its inception, is supposed to have created only 600 potential jobs

in this particular Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have in this Province right now a shrinking

private sector economy, a very shrinking public sector economy, very few new

jobs being created, and a general range I suppose of despair throughout the

entire Province. Once you get outside the St. John's - Avalon region where you

have the best employment prospects in the Province, I mean, it is absolutely

desperate throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The unemployment rate in my district would be much higher

than it is now, but when the people moved to Ontario and British Columbia the

unemployment rate has to stay down. Because anybody interested in work in

Newfoundland and Labrador now is gone. What we have in a lot of communities that

I represent are very few working families with children of school age. It is

becoming absolutely desperate. The school consolidations are not going to

require, to a great extent, a constitutional amendment. What we are having is a

demographic reality going to bring about that, because there are no jobs being

created of any significance in the Newfoundland economy. I shudder to think what

would have happened to the economy of this Province had the Hibernia project not

gone ahead as it did.

The hon. the Premier when he was first elected turned up his

nose at the Hibernia project, referred to it I think as nothing more than a

couple of fish plants. For several years we've had upwards of 6,000 people

employed in high-paying jobs, highly-skilled jobs for the most part, in that

kind of a project. When we see those 6,000 jobs winding down and taking probably

500 to 1,000 jobs who actually run the Hibernia oilfield when it is up and

producing, the potential 600 jobs under EDGE pale in comparison.

We have in rural Newfoundland many rural development

associations being eliminated or squeezed out of the play. I know in my

particular district when they could access various programs of the federal and

provincial governments the local rural development association in Green Bay kept

150 families or more per year out of the local welfare office. That is going to

go. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has made it quite clear that

these new zonal boards are going to be the way of economic development in rural

Newfoundland. If we get the local zonal board promoting a single EDGE project we

will be lucky. At the size of these projects, you are talking ten, twenty,

thirty jobs for most of them. That is going to do very little to replace the 150

jobs that were somehow scrounged up by the very diligent work of the local

development associations.

I don't foresee the EDGE program doing much for my area. In

the Springdale area we have a wood manufacturing plant that makes pre-fab log

homes. It has been struggling, sputtering along, barely keeping going over the

last number of years. Its biggest problem has not been the provincial taxation

regime, it has been a lack of assistance from the government generally in

marketing what is an excellent product. The only place you can really sell

pre-fab log homes in Newfoundland is in the export market. Newfoundlanders are

not going to pay $35,000, $40,000 in any great numbers to build summer cabins.

Most of them are built in bits and pieces by families as they can afford to do

them, and buying pre-set packages in the $30,000 to $40,000 range is not the way

the vast majority of Newfoundlanders are going to do it.

However, if you got into Europe and some places where it is

probably against the law to look at a tree, let alone cut one, if you could get

a freighter-load of fifty packages of pre-fab homes into Europe made of

Newfoundland logs, manufactured and fitted in the pre-fab packages here, you

might have an opportunity to create a few dozen jobs in my district and sell the

product overseas. But for some reason the same government that did provide some

assistance under one of its programs, I guess, through the old development

department, to get some money to buy the manufacturing equipment - they helped

finance that - they fell far short when it came to the required assistance in

actually exporting the product overseas. A lot of local small companies do not

have the expertise to really get into the European market in a big way and sell

a product that could claim a good price in Europe because of the ability to cut

forests for trivial things like vacation homes and what not simply is not there,

but somehow the government fell flat on that, and instead they come up with a

program like EDGE which, in its limited way, has done some good, but it has done

very little to turn around the Newfoundland economy. It is not going to replace

the 20,000 or 30,000 people who gain employment from the fishery, and it is

certainly not going to replace the 6,000 working at Hibernia.

Today the Premier was questioned with regard to the Terra

Nova project, and we wait with bated breath for the announcement not only of the

revenue package from Terra Nova but, equally as important, the industrial

benefits package. We want to see this government come up with something that

will use some of the talent, some of the expertise, especially the technical

expertise developed during the Hibernia times, to carry over into the

construction phase of the Terra Nova project, and we hear some pretty scary

stories about some sort of floating barge being towed from overseas to this

Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to rise today and support the resolution

proposed by my colleague from LaPoile. Obviously this is a very good resolution,

and after listening to members opposite it must be very good because, try as

they may, they have a very, very hard time trying to find any criticisms of this

side of the House at all.

I just listened to the Member for Green Bay. I was surprised

at the Member for Green Bay when he started to indicate that he would like to

have seen this legislation a few years ago because he would be able to get

Sprung included as an EDGE corporation. I cannot believe, after the record of

the previous government and the decisions by the people, that the official

position that the Member for Green Bay is putting forward now is to bring back

Sprung. He wants to bring back Sprung again as a way to encourage economic

development into the Province. I was really surprised and quite shocked that he

would be advocating now bringing back Sprung as a plank in the Tory economic

development platform. I cannot believe that he would be clamouring and telling

us to please keep that legislation there because when we get in power we will

bring back Sprung as a way to be able to encourage economic development in the

Province. He must know that the views of the people are very, very well known on

this.

The Member for Kilbride obviously is leaving. He wants to put

distance between him and the Member for Green Bay on this very issue, but I

suppose it is not hard to understand. If you were the Chief of Staff up there

when the directive went out from the Premier's office, no more talking to the

media by anybody below the Premier's office on this very issue, everything had

to be channelled directly to the Chief of Staff, Mr. Hewlett of the day, who

then had to decide if they were going to answer any questions on the Sprung

issue, so I was quite surprised, but I guess I should not be, that the Member

for Green Bay wants to have this legislation kept in place so they can bring

back Sprung.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very important issues to

be brought up here in this resolution. The first and foremost is that we want

the federal government to participate in the EDGE program for a very, very solid

and meaningful reason, and that is obviously the decision in 1992 by the Federal

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the day, Mr. Crosbie, to close down the

northern cod fishery and indeed the decisions after, to extend that closure,

that moratorium to all of the groundfish species in all the zones adjacent to

our Province. To be able to do that, Mr. Speaker, and at the same time,

acknowledge that it was the federal government's responsibility to do that and

we are very pleased of course that the record in this Province will show that

when it came to setting the total allowable catch for northern cod or the 4Rs

3Pn gulf stock or the American plaice or the yellowtail flounder or any of the

other groundfish species that are adjacent to our shores, when it came to that,

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture here of the day and the

government of the day spoke very, very clearly and very adamantly told the

federal government that we did not support an increase in the total allowable

catch.

As a matter of fact, we recommended very specific lowering of

the total allowable catch for the species that I mentioned, and to be also fair

about it, Mr. Speaker, the previous government did the same thing. I remember

Mr. Peckford, when he took on the fisheries minister of the day, Mr. McGrath,

and called him some nasty names and to come to the defence of Newfoundland and

Labrador because they were talking about extending some access to the Northern

cod, to this Nova Nord, this consortium of companies in the Maritimes and

obviously he couldn't stand for that because he knew, and his advice from his

government was that, we could not withstand any more increase in the TAC in

spite of what some of the federal scientists were saying.

We were listening to the people in this government and the

people previous were listening to the fishermen of the day who were telling the

governments, both levels of governments that the total allowable catch was too

high, that the fish were becoming smaller and scarcer and indeed it was time for

some drastic, conservation measures to be put in place. So obviously, in 1992,

after this decision was taken, this unprecedented decision was taken to close

the northern cod fishery and a subsequent decision to extend that moratorium to

other areas of the Province and other species, implicit in that, and also I

guess, to be fair, the federal government, when they announced this did

acknowledge their responsibility. They acknowledged they had absolute

responsibility for the management of the fishery and they were going to set up

adequate compensation to make sure that the people here got the benefit of the

adjustment that was necessary.

Now when the TAGS, The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, was

announced just two years ago, May 15 or so of '94, Mr. Speaker, the government

of the day set out three elements of that response and the first element of

course was the Income Support Program, that was put out there from $406 a week

down to a low of $225, this was the basic income support that was given to all

legitimate fishers and plant workers in this Province because they were being

forced out of their industry. They were being told you are not allowed to go

back into the fishing boat or into the fish plant, therefore we accept the

responsibility for income support.

Also, Mr. Speaker, they acknowledged that there must be some

kind of an adjustment and there must be some kind of a mechanism to allow these

people who wanted to get out of the fishery, who wanted to also diversify within

the fishery, that they should be given some support in terms of training and

that was put in place, another important part and it has worked in many cases. I

know that the training has a black eye in some corners of the Province and some

of the programs that they have put in place, some of the recommendations that

came from the fishermen's union have not been welcomed and they have not been

successful, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there, there

aren't fishermen and plant workers out there who have had good, solid training

from the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy and will be able to make the adjustment

that is necessary to get on with their lives. Many of them are gone to work as

my colleague the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations so well knows. He

is administering the provincial side of this program and doing it very well.

The other very essential element of this strategy that was

announced on May 15 or so of 1994 was that there would be a response from the

federal government to diversify the economy so that we would be able to have the

alternate employment available as a result of the displacement of some 13,500

full-time jobs. That would be the net effect of what was happening in the

closure of the groundfish industry. That is the element of the program, and the

federal response that has yet to come to fruition. That is the element of the

strategy that the people of the Province want to see. That is the element of the

strategy that the provincial government wants to see further elaboration on, and

obviously some real meaningful efforts be put in place to see that that aspect

of the strategy is accomplished.

We did have an agreement in principle a few months ago on

$100 million for economic diversification which looked at the aquaculture

industry, which I know the Ministry of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is

certainly very keen on. It is a very important part of the diversification of

the fishery. The aquaculture industry offers tremendous potential. We are very

much at the primary stage of developing a tremendous industry. I had a chance to

go to Norway last June and see the industry over in Norway working. They have

seen the industry over there now produce some 300,000 metric tons of salmon

worth over $600 million a year in Norway. Fifteen years ago they didn't have

10,000 metric tons of salmon, in particular, being processed from the

aquaculture industry.

Right now in Norway they have something like 800 independent

fish farms that are offering very solid, meaningful incomes to three and four

people in each of these enterprises. They are becoming the rich people of that

nation because the salmon and the extra processing that goes with it is being

developed, and they are being very successful at infiltrating the market in

Europe. I don't doubt that they will be coming across this way.

We are placed very competitively in Atlantic Canada,

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have the opportunity to develop this aquaculture

industry and be able to access the greatest market in the world in the United

States. We are going to do that. In order to do that we need to put some solid

investment into the aquaculture industry. We are doing it as a provincial

government now down in the Fortune - Hermitage district, in Belleoram, and I'm

sure that we are going to have good success with it. But we need more capital

funding in particular to put in place the nurseries, to put in place the

technology, to be able to get the fingerlings to feed out to the people in the

Province who want to take this on as a fishing enterprise. In order to do that

you need some substantial seed money put in place to have that kind of ability

and be able to offer, at least in the primary stage of this industry, those

fingerlings out to the people who want to take them and feed them and,

obviously, put them up to a marketable size.

That is a very important aspect of diversification of the

fishery that we have to see approached in a meaningful way. While there was some

funding identified in that $100 million I don't believe it was enough funding.

Obviously we have to get a further measure to go towards that industry if we are

going to make any kind of meaningful exercise out of it.

One of the very important parts of it is to see that this

industry is put all over the Province. While I was in Norway I also had the

chance to look at the latest technology in land-based aquaculture.

Normally, aquaculture is a sea based exercise and it can be

done if the water temperature is of the right temperature. The pumping can be

done at a very economical level so that the fish can grow but they have to be in

at least 5̊C or better to be able to do that. Mr. Speaker, fortunately in Norway

they have those climatic conditions but here in this Province we do not. That

does not mean that all is lost because over in Norway now they are on the

leading edge of technology. They have developed systems over there of land based

technology where they can bring in the water and have it pass through the heat -

I am not sure what the proper technical term is but basically what they do is

bring the water in and they hold it at a certain degree of temperature. As the

water is then passed out, cleaned and other water is brought in, 80 per cent of

the temperature is retained in the aquaculture containers. They are able to have

an indoor land based aquaculture industry continue all year long.

If they are doing that very well with halibut they can do it

with cod. They have obviously done it with char and salmon. Indeed, Mr. Speaker,

there is absolutely no doubt that the aquaculture industry can be alive and well

in this Province, in all parts of this Province, to be able to do the types of

things we are doing but we need that extra assistance, we need that extra edge -

to play on words - we need that extra opportunity, Mr. Speaker. The federal

government has admitted that they are the primary managers of our fishing

resource. They hold the strings to a lot of the resources that we need to be

able to do this and one of them, of course, is to be able to take the

appropriate measures under the tax system to be able to mirror what we are doing

with tremendous success, I might add, in the EDGE corporations that we have

approved so far here as a provincial government.

So I would encourage all members of this House to be

cognizant of what we are asking the federal government to do, the basis upon

which we are approaching them and indeed the benefits that could be derived from

them getting involved and getting involved only until the 13,500 jobs have been

recovered. We don't want this to continue forever, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: One minute. We don't want this to

continue forever and be at a competitive advantage to our other colleagues and

citizens of other provinces. We just want it to continue until we have an

opportunity to recover the significant economic consequences from the closure

and the moratorium of all the groundfish species adjacent to our shores, Mr.

Speaker.

So I would close by congratulating the Member for LaPoile on

this very opportune resolution and to ask all members of the House to support it

because at this point in our time we need this kind of initiative from the

federal government like we never needed it before. I w