December

1, 1994 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 73

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's Gallery, Mr. Gordon Gibson, the former Leader of the Liberal Party of

British Columbia and a member of the Legislature of that province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, an internationally

recognized day to heighten AIDS awareness. The theme of World AIDS Day is

"Families - Take Care, an appropriate message given the reality of AIDS in the

90s. AIDS is now a global phenomenon and we are all at risk no matter what our

age or race or gender or what community we live in. Newfoundlanders along with

people throughout the world are struggling to come to grips with this fact. It

is only through the collaboration and consultation of many different groups and

individuals in the community, that we can face the realities of HIV/ AIDS,

develop a greater understanding of the disease and identify the needs of persons

living with HIV/AIDS in the community.

One year ago today, the Department of Health introduced a

comprehensive HIV/AIDS strategy with the following components: prevention and

education; testing and treatment and care and home support. This strategy was

the result of collaboration amongst numerous groups and individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to update

hon. members on the activities that are ongoing with respect to HIV/AIDS

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of the recommendations contained in

the strategy are concerned with the dissemination of HIV/AIDS information to

mass audiences and to specific targeted groups. I am pleased to report that this

initiative has been undertaken in all regions of the Province. Literature on

HIV/AIDS has been developed and this information is accessible. Some radio and

newspaper ads have also been developed.

Staff of the various community health agencies have

undertaken a number of projects to broaden the understanding of HIV/AIDS,

including awareness of the needs of persons living with the disease. These

projects include such things as education sessions and workshops for care

givers, health professionals, teachers, students, youth groups, women's groups,

parents, employers and employees and residents and staff of group homes just to

name a few. As well, AIDS education is currently incorporated in the Junior High

School curricula.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to report today that anonymous

testing for HIV is available throughout most of the Province and that pre and

post test counselling services are provide.

The department is also working towards assessing the home

care needs of persons living with AIDS. A number of AIDS support groups have

been established throughout the Province to fulfil some of these needs.

A great deal has been accomplished in the past year. This is

not to say, however, that every recommendation contained in the strategy has

been fully and completely implemented. The initiatives outlined in the strategy

are ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the point that consultation,

collaboration and action are required at the community level. HIV and AIDS are

no longer characterized by anonymous faces living in distant centres. The

Departments of Health and Education together with various community agencies and

the general public are doing a great deal to emphasize these and other facts

about AIDS. The continued cooperation of the community is essential to fulfil

the mandate of the HIV/AIDS strategy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While it is easy to

applaud and praise the government for taking some action here in this area, I

caution the minister too that we can never do too much for the prevention of

AIDS and HIV in this Province. We've seen 3 million new cases of AIDS this year,

1 million cases in North America, and 17 million in the world today.

Over the past number of years we've seen seventeen people in

this Province infected with AIDS and HIV through transfusions. This Province at

the time did not show the compassion and the concern that was needed to enable

those people to be able to live the rest of their lives in some dignity and care

for their families. I caution the government to accelerate in any way possible

methods to be able to send the message out on prevention of AIDS, because

prevention is of utmost importance. Today, with the rapidly increasing number of

AIDS cases, it is far from under control. In fact, the cases are increasing at a

very alarming rate. I would caution the minister and urge him, and through the

agencies of government and community health boards, to accelerate in the fastest

possible method the prevention and the information that is getting out to the

public and to make sure that the public is fully aware.

I have to compliment him on what has happened to date in

terms of promotion, but they lacked the compassion in the past, and I urge them

not to make the same mistake again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to inform the House that I will be withdrawing Bill

48, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", which would enable the Director

of Motor Registration to refuse anybody a driver's license with unpaid school

taxes. The reason for withdrawing this bill, Mr. Speaker, is because there was

an omission there. We were suppose to also put in the bill that anybody who did

not pay child support was to be refused a driver's license, so that is an

omission from the bill that I will be bringing back at a later date with the

inclusion of enabling enforcement agencies to collect child support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the minister has finally backwatered on

something. There are other bills that he is trying to put through that should

also be backwatered. He talked about an omission. Well, the minister is an

omission and I urge our Premier to have a long talk with that boy.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House we had a

startling admission by the Minister of Finance. The minister admitted that he

deliberately withheld a critical legal opinion dealing with the Trans City

contracts from the full Cabinet, even though the Cabinet at a meeting on October

22 had asked for further consideration of this matter, and for further

information.

Now, the document made public yesterday was perhaps the most

damaging document in this entire messy scandal. Also, yesterday, the Premier

stated in the House that he not seen, nor had he been briefed on the legal

opinion, and that the information had been kept from him.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance what possible right did

he have to withhold any information from the Cabinet, and from the Premier, let

alone information that Cabinet wanted, and in fact needed in order to make a

very important and controversial decision?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me say that it would take quite a bit of

time to deal with the

preamble by the member. Suffice it to say that I am not so

sure there is anything in his

preamble that is true. It is probably his

interpretation of something that happened.

Mr. Speaker, I explained the process in a statement in some

detail, a legal opinion was sought, obtained and examined by the committee. The

points brought out in the legal opinion were taken into account and I explained

to the hon. gentleman that these points were considered by Cabinet as well as

some other information concerning the projects getting started, the delay, the

increased costs by delay. And on balance, Cabinet decided that we should now

proceed with these projects, however, giving certain direction that if the

process were tried again, some things would be done differently to handle the

perception problem. Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, considered all information in making

its decision. So what the hon. gentleman is saying is totally untrue.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to get his story

straight and their acts straight over there. Yesterday, he told this House that

he did not provide this paper to the full Cabinet. Now, did he or did he not

provide the paper to the full Cabinet? that is the question.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is

using one of his usual tactics. He is taking - and it is understandable, I

suppose, he has to try to mislead, but it is my duty to correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance cannot accuse another member

of purposely misleading the House.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw anything that is

unparliamentary, thank you.

He is making a misstatement, mis-connection in this affair.

First of all, I indicated that the paper, the memo - I ask the hon. gentleman to

listen if he wants the answer - the memo with my signature on it was not

presented to Cabinet. Now, all of a sudden, he is taking that to mean that some

other documentation was not available to Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, if the hon.

gentleman is honest, goes back and looks at what was said, he will realize that

is what - the discussion at the time was about a memo that was dealt with

internally in the committee and had nothing to do with the pluses and minuses of

going ahead with the contract. Cabinet was fully aware of the pluses and

minuses, and on balance, made a decision to save this Province one heck of a lot

of money, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: - and created jobs at a time when jobs were

desperately needed. So, Mr. Speaker, Cabinet made a decision and that is all I

can say about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am not finished yet.

Cabinet, at the time, made a decision based on all of that

evidence, and there was no essential evidence withheld from Cabinet in that

process.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is even more surprising than

I thought it was. The minister now is trying to wiggle out of what he told the

House yesterday. He told the House yesterday, the members of the full Cabinet

didn't have access to this document at all.

I asked the Premier in the House yesterday, was he aware of

the contents of this document, and he says he was not. Now, I ask the Premier:

Which is it? Were you aware of the contents pointed out in this document, or

were you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am asking the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I am not finished yet, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will take it one question at a time.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one question at a time.

To the Premier: Was he or was he not aware of the contents of

this document? That is the question.

MR. TOBIN: Get your lies straight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West can't tell the

government to get its lies straight. I ask the member to withdraw the statement.

MR. TOBIN: I didn't get your ruling, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the ruling is, it is unparliamentary

to tell any other member to get their lies straight, so I ask the member to

withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: I withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will explain it once again so that the hon. member is aware

of what he is asking, and then perhaps other hon. members can think about this.

I indicated yesterday, in a statement to this House, that a

memo prepared for consideration by the committee was not presented to Cabinet.

Therefore, the memo was not presented to Cabinet.

In the hon. member's question, he mentioned a legal opinion,

and he referred specifically to a legal opinion, which is a totally different

document, so let's not confuse the two.

I have indicated that the original memo was not presented to

Cabinet, that in my presentation to Cabinet I presented a recommendation that we

proceed, after explaining the pluses and the minuses and so on with relation to

this proposal. That is exactly the way it was done. Therefore, all that

information, the information itself, was made available to Cabinet, and Cabinet

ultimately made a decision.

I will stand by what I said before. That particular document

he refers to, which was a memo that was dealt with by the committee, did not get

presented to Cabinet - absolutely.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board is having such a difficult time getting us to understand this,

perhaps he can answer this question: If all the information contained in this

appendix to 91-91 - it is listed as an appendix to a Cabinet paper - if all the

information contained in this was verbally reported to the Cabinet, why didn't

he just simply give them the document?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained that in some

detail yesterday. This was prepared and signed for consideration by the

committee of Cabinet. The committee of Cabinet did in fact make a recommendation

to Cabinet. It wasn't that one. There was a different piece of paper and a

different

summary presented to Cabinet and Cabinet made a decision on balance,

taking all of the pluses and minuses into account. It is just that that

particular document itself was not presented to Cabinet because that was not the

view of the committee.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to get the answer straight, did

the minister or did he not tell the Premier, did he tell the full Cabinet, every

point that was made in this appendix that was made public in the last day or so?

Was the Premier made aware, by the minister and by the committee, of all the

points contained in here? Is that what he is saying?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet, in its

discussion, was made aware of the pluses and minuses - the minuses being the

perception problem as pointed out in the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) said you had never heard

(inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Cabinet was made fully aware of all the pluses

and minuses of this particular proposal and made a decision on balance based on

the recommendation of the committee. That is the way that it happened. I'm

assuming that people who were in Cabinet at the time understood the pluses and

minuses before a decision was made. It is as simple as that. I would again, Mr.

Speaker, take the opportunity to point out that we got three high-quality

buildings at a cost much lower than we could have done it ourselves. We got the

work started quickly, providing much needed jobs at the time, and we ended up

with a financial deal that was in the best interests of this Province - that is

what we ended up with.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: We will debate that on another day, because

there are a lot of minuses contained in here, including the fact it was going to

cost the people of this Province millions of dollars more - he showed me that

yesterday - and including the fact that they were verging on breaking the law,

that they were not acting within the spirit of the public tender act. All of

those legal things are contained in his own document.

I want to get back to the Premier. The Minister of Finance

and Treasury Board tells us here today that he told the Premier of all of the

points contained in this document back in October 1991. He told the Premier and

the Premier was made aware of it. Yesterday in this House the Premier said in

response to a question asked by me, on page 2641 of Hansard: "Mr. Speaker, I

have no recollection specifically of anything that is in that" - in that

document. Can the Premier tell us why he made that statement yesterday in view

of what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board just told us today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the answer I gave

yesterday. The first time I saw that document was the day before yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, that is the answer I gave in the

House. I will read the whole answer so there won't be any doubt: "Mr. Speaker, I

know that the answers that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has given

are not what the hon. members opposite want. I know they are not what they want.

I know it disturbs them that it does not lay a foundation to allow them to make

their unfounded allegations they have been making. I am well aware of that, Mr.

Speaker. I know that it does not suit the Opposition, but it happens to be the

full and total information, and I have total confidence in the Minister of

Finance, unrestrained, total confidence, that he is telling this House exactly

what he knows and exactly what he did. I have no quarrel with..." that.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, I just indicated from my seat without

formally addressing the House that I saw that document for the first time

yesterday..." - now that would be the day... saw that document for the first

time - "and that happens to be the truth. The Minister of Finance told me he

found this document and he brought it to me to show me, and the obvious decision

was that it had to be made available to the court process immediately so I think

it was made available within hours. It was made available immediately, so, Mr.

Speaker, the correct and proper procedures were taken, and I commend the

minister for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection specifically of anything

that is in that. I have never seen that document before until yesterday." Now, I

have never seen anything that is in that document before until yesterday. "Now,

whether or not any individual statement that is in it was brought to the

attention of Cabinet at the time, I do not specifically recall, but I am quite

prepared to take a look at the document and see." Now, that is completely

consistent with what the minister just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The question I asked the Premier - since he is referring to

the same Hansard - just before he gave the answer, was this, my question to him:

Did anybody tell him about any of the concerns outlined in this Cabinet paper or

not? Was he aware of any of that?

When he got through all the mumbo-jumbo, the real answer was

in that last paragraph when he said: "I have no recollection specifically of

anything that is in that."

He either told the truth yesterday, or he isn't telling the

truth today; which is it? Can he tell us, which is the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me read it again, just so hon. members

know what the member is trying to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Here is the answer that was given

yesterday, and it was the answer the day before, and it is the answer again

today. It simply says this to his specific question: "Now, whether or not any

individual statement that is in it was brought to the attention of Cabinet at

the time, I do not specifically recall, but I am quite prepared to take a look

at the document and see. All I know is that Cabinet dealt with the issues as

they were brought to Cabinet and Cabinet made its decision."

Now, that is exactly what the minister said, and the member

can try to make something totally different of it if he wishes, but I am sorry

that he can't succeed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is a master at verbal

trickery. I know that; we all know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask him this. In view of his answer

that he just repeated there a second ago, that he read from Hansard - he read it

himself: I am quite prepared to take a look at the document and see if I can

recall if the Minister of Finance made me aware of all of these points.

Let me ask him, now that he has had a chance to see the

document: Is he and was he aware of all of these points? Can he answer the

question today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn't have the

document?

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: The question is: Did he look at it and see if,

in fact, he was made aware of these concerns? Can he answer the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the whole

thing was discussed in this general context and, as the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board has said, the matters generally were brought to the attention of

Cabinet. I can't look at any one individual item and say: Yes, I specifically

recall that; no, I don't specifically recall something else. I have no quarrel

with the answer that the Minister of Finance just gave, I think it is accurate.

Whatever he says was discussed with Cabinet at the time, I can't quarrel with

it, but I don't remember each one item specifically.

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

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, was the Premier aware that

there was a good possibility of legal action by unsuccessful bidders as a result

of the lack of information given in the tender process? Was he aware of that

before Cabinet made the decision to approve the contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose disgruntled or

dissatisfied bidders can always try to find some basis for making a claim, and

that is a possibility, but I don't specifically recall it in relation to this

contract. It may have been there or it may not but I don't at this moment

remember specifically that, no.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, was the Premier aware that it

would be quite clear, if we award to Trans City Holdings we would not be acting

within the spirit of the Public Tender Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, was he aware, that our decision

will be difficult to defend in the House of Assembly and the Public Accounts

Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we were aware that proceeding

the way we were was in the best interest of the people of this Province and we

are quite proud of having done it. We are not defending it! We would do it again

tomorrow because it is the right thing to do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a

proposition, I will put in place an inquiry of competent people to judge this

whole thing and determine whether or not we served the public interest, and if

they determine we did not, he will have my resignation the next day. If they

determine we did, we will have his the next day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is what I asked him to do

yesterday and he would not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me answer the Premier this way: I accept

your challenge, Sir, I accept it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And I look forward to the Premier tabling the

terms of reference in this House as quickly as possible for the public inquiry

related to the political interference and political involvement of his

government in the awarding of these contracts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what I said was - I will

repeat it: I will put in place an inquiry of two, three, four or five competent

people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like the same courtesy extended on both sides of the

House so I can hear questions and answers, thank you.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I said was - and I will repeat it: I will put in place

an inquiry of two, three, four or five, whatever is the appropriate number, of

competent people -

MS. VERGE: We are not going to trust you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will put in place an inquiry of

competent people to determine - and we will look at my original words in Hansard

- whether or not the public interest of this Province was best served by our

following this process, and if it was not, the Province will have my resignation

the next day, but if it was, I will ask for the Leader of the Opposition's the

next day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I say to the Premier is, if he will put in place a full

public independent inquiry with the terms of reference and the commissioners to

be approved by both he and I, and that this inquiry will look into the

interference and involvement of the government in the awarding of this contract

to reward its Liberal friends, then I will resign if I am proven wrong!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that carries

with it the inference that there was political interference when there was none.

It was done in the public interest of the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: When I have order I will recognize the hon.

Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier too.

Why hasn't the Premier dropped the Member for Naskaupi from

his Cabinet?

Doesn't the Premier realize the citizens of the Province

perceive the member's substantial personal, financial involvement in

Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, as being in gross conflict with his having a

seat at the Cabinet table? Why has not the Premier done what any other First

Minister in Canada would have done long ago and dismiss the member from his

Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the

hon. member does not know the difference.

Now, as nearly as I know, I am not prejudging, but as nearly

as I know and as nearly as I can determine, the minister had nothing whatsoever

to do with this matter personally, absolutely nothing. Now I am not prepared to

presume that he did. Nobody has complained about any performance of his duties

as minister or as Attorney General. None has complained about the performance of

his duties as minister or Attorney General.

Some character in Ontario, was carrying on some activity that

the police were investigating. It happened to involve some interaction with a

company that the minister owns but in respect of which he has no direct

involvement in direction, that the minister has an ownership interest along with

others.

Now, Mr. Speaker, technically, technically, I did not have to

ask the minister for his resignation anyway because there was no personal

involvement on his part, but he said to me: it is not appropriate that I should

be directing the police forces of this Province and acting as Attorney General

if there is a prospect that a company, in respect of which I have some

ownership, even though I have no knowledge of anything, I have not done

anything, I have not failed to do anything, it may be the subject of a police

investigation. He and I readily agreed, I shared his opinion totally and I

accepted, not his resignation, I agreed that he would stand aside as Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, I would discharge the responsibilities in the

meantime.

Now for members Opposite to carry on this kind of personal,

vitriolic witch-hunt is inexcusable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

More questions for the Premier.

Isn't it inexcusable that he has had in his Cabinet, a member

who has a very large, personal, financial stake in Pharmaceutical Supplies

Limited and related companies; a financial interest that is shown in public

documents in the Registry of Companies, isn't it inexcusable that that company,

while the member has been sitting in the Premier's Cabinet room, has been

selling millions of dollars of goods every year to government hospitals and

nursing homes? Isn't that an unacceptable conflict of interest, and to top it

all off, isn't it now inexcusable that the Premier keeps in his Cabinet this

same member who is now suspected of having profited from a national drug scam

involving an Ontario drug dealer, who is the subject of a police investigation?

If those aren't grounds for dismissal from Cabinet, whatever would be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have a conflict of

interest statute that provides for full and complete disclosure by members and

their spouses of all of their business interests, to ensure that all would be

made aware. It is completely consistent with the national, it is completely

consistent with other conflicts of interest; it requires members and their

spouses to fully disclose. That member and his spouse have fully disclosed. They

have performed properly; none of them can be said to have acted improperly in

any way or to have failed to disclose. Other members in this House have not so

performed, and for that member opposite to stand and make those allegations -

well - I'll sit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Humber East, distinctly said that I am

suspected of some criminal activity. I say:

a) that it is an infringement of my

privileges;

b) I deny it categorically, absolutely and tell her it is a

despicable suggestion and

c) I ask Your Honour to order her to withdraw it or

substantiate it.

MR. SPEAKER: I will rule on the matter later.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to give a quick contribution

to the point of privilege.

It is clearly not a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A prima

facie case has not been established and all the rest of the references in

Beauchesne, but I think Your Honour will want to read Hansard before he jumps to

any quick conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: I will read Hansard and take it from there

on the hon. member's submission.

The hon. the Member for Humber East on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly stand by what I

said. I have some more questions for the Premier though. The Premier who is now

Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province has been asked twice

to cause a police investigation into the activities of the Member for Naskaupi.

I made a request last Friday morning and the Member for St. John's East made a

request yesterday afternoon. Has the Premier referred these requests to the

Director of Public Prosecutions, or to the police, and if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I invite the member to refer anything she

wants to the police. Go to the police now. I will call and make an appointment

for you to see the Director of Public Prosecutions. Please go and see them now.

Report anything you want. Ask them to investigate anything you want, but for

heaven sake, have some personal respect for your fellow members in this House,

have some sense of decency rather than to castigate people for your own

political motives. That is a disgusting and despicable performance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister

federal minister said she would ensure that the work being tendered for from

Marystown would be put on public tender. This morning's news report states that

a decision as to what will happen to the work will be made by the Hibernia

partners and not necessarily by the management team.

I would like to ask the Premier, in light of these

revelations by the federal minister to ensure that it would go to public tender,

has he written to the partners who were going to make the decision rather than

the management board as has been stated, has he written to the partners and if

not will he write them and ask that the work be left in Marystown? Mr. Speaker,

let me also ask the Premier if he will immediately, because of what has taken

place, cause some sort of stop order for loading that barge to be put in place

until such time as the decisions are all clued up between the federal

government, the provinces, and HMDC?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge the companies

will be providing their answer either later today or tomorrow. I expect to hear

from them later today or tomorrow, as to what their position is on the matter,

and I expect they will make it public within that time. I have not written the

individual owner companies nor do I intend to write the individual member

companies.

The position that government has taken has been made clear

for the last two or three weeks during Question Period in this House and in

other places, and there has been nothing happened to change that. The only thing

that has happened is that MIL Davie has expressed dis-satisfaction that it did

not have a chance to bid and as a result of that it complained to the C-NOPB -

and I do not immediately share their view on this - felt that there should have

been an opportunity given to MIL Davie to bid. I disagree. If there should have

been an opportunity given to MIL Davie to bid there was no reason to take it out

of Marystown in the first place.

MR. TOBIN: What did the Prime Minister say?

PREMIER WELLS: I know what the Prime Minister said. I am

very much aware of what the Prime Minister said and he is not happy that it

happened that way. I can understand his unhappiness, can understand his comment

that MIL Davie and Marystown were the only two bidders, but they went instead to

St. John. HMDC went to Saint John because they felt that was the place where

they could have the work done in time, and it felt it could not be done at

Marystown or MIL Davie or anywhere else.

Now, I do not quarrel with the right to make that decision. I

believe it could have been done in Marystown and I have told the hon. members

opposite before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table six copies

of some pre-commitments totalling about $62 million.

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1994, for the Farm Development Loan Board of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to table the annual reports

of the Fisheries Loan Boards, fiscal years 1992-'93 and 1993-'94. In tabling

these reports I should offer to this hon. Chamber the following comments:

Section 17 of the Fisheries Loan Act requires the board to submit its annual

report, including audited financial statements, to the minister no later than

August 31 of each year, and also requires that the report be tabled in the House

of Assembly within fifteen days after it is submitted to the minister if the

House is in session. If the House is not in session then it is to be tabled

within fifteen days after commencement of the next ensuing session.

Now the problem with the 1992-'93 reports not being tabled

before stems from the fact that the Auditor General did not provide the board

with audited financial statements until February 25, 1994.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I believe it was during Question Period, I

indicated to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I would obtain copies of

a legal opinion and table it, and I would like to do so now.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and present a petition on behalf of 100

constituents of mine from the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. The prayer of

the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept

the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to

generate desperately needed employment in our communities, as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to

present this petition on behalf of the constituents, because over the past month

or so I received several calls from people who are in desperate need of some

type of help from this government, and they are looking for anything that this

government can do.

I am very pleased that the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is in Halifax again today, doing his duty as minister to find

employment for the people of this Province, and I hope that he comes back with

more fruitful answers from this meeting than he did from his previous meeting in

Ottawa last week.

When I look at the way that government spends money, I

question why they cannot come up with some desperately needed funds for job

creation. Mr. Speaker, when I look back over the last year-and-a-half, and $7

million having been spent on trying to privatize Newfoundland Hydro, it begs a

question of where the priorities of this government are.

When I look back, and look at over $1 million being spent on

trying to put together the ISP program, as most Newfoundlanders call it, the

incredibly stupid program. Over $1 million was spent on that program, trying to

put it together, all it did was give the federal government ways to do what they

like with the social programs in this Province.

When I look and see that dollars are spent, and I answer my

phones every day over the past number of weeks and people are calling, looking

for work, I beg the question of where the priorities are of this government.

Mr. Speaker, people in this Province now, a fair number of

the people in this Province, have been fortunate enough to be part of this NCARP

or TAGS program, and even as I speak of that people are getting letters in the

mail every day telling them that they are going to be cut off that the last of

December. The word was first that it was going to be 3,000. I believe, from the

calls I am getting in my office, that could reach 5,000 to 6,000 people who will

lose their TAGS.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are calling me are people who

have not been part of TAGS or NCARP. The people who are calling me are people

who have been left out in the cold, who enjoyed indirect jobs in our rural

communities due to the fishery, such as people who worked in the stores and

worked in other spin-off industries from the fishery. These are the people who

are calling me. People who have not enjoyed a decent day's work or who have

brought home a decent week's wage in the past couple of years. These people now

for the first time in their lives have had to resort to social assistance. These

people are the people who are signing these petitions and are looking for some

help from this government. Indeed I hope that something will be forthcoming.

Today marks December 1. Only a few more weeks and we will be

into the Christmas season. These people, along with many more I'm sure, in every

district in this Province, and I'm sure there are members opposite who are

getting petitions - maybe not getting petitions, but they are certainly getting

calls concerning some type of emergency employment.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation - because there are several times when I go out

throughout my district people ask me: Where is John Efford these days? We never

hear tell of him. He is gone. He used to be the man who used to stand up, the

champion of the little guy. Where is he now? I say, he was bought out too, Mr.

Speaker. They say: He is not the minister, he is the monster of Works, Services

and Transportation. I'm sure there are people in Port de Grave District who are

looking for an emergency employment generation program. The minister can tell me

otherwise but I am sure there are. We have received calls from Port de Grave

District about people looking for emergency response work. They know that it is

no good calling the hon. member opposite.

I say that from what I can gather the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations has brought to Cabinet a request for funding for an

emergency employment generation program and he cannot get his Cabinet buddies to

go along with his request. This is the problem that the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations is having. I say the next time that he lays a Cabinet

document on the table looking for money to provide emergency employment for the

people of this Province I hope that his Cabinet colleagues show a bit of

compassion and a bit of concern for the people who are out in this Province,

left out in the cold, I say, indirectly because of the shutdown of the fishery

in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.

In my closing remarks I would just like to say that I hope that this government

comes up with some money so that these people will enjoy Christmas a little bit

better than they have enjoyed the past couple of months. Because these people,

their backs are to the wall, and it is time that this government woke up and

smelled the roses. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past two

weeks in this House I have asked questions of the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations dealing specifically with the employment emergency program. The

question that comes to mind the most was why has government this year refused

thus far to deal with the impending crisis and an immediate crisis that many

people and families are facing, when over the past three to four years

government has come to the aid of many Newfoundlanders.

For example, the former minister, who obviously had some

clout, more clout than the present minister, I believe, announced: I am pleased

to announce government's employment initiative based on the major premise that

our people are our most valued resource. Today I'm announcing a two-fold

strategy. The second component is designed to provide immediate labour-intensive

job creation programs to maximize the weeks of work for unemployment insurance

qualifications for the coming year. Thirteen point five million dollar program

announced in 1991 when the unemployment rate in this Province was 18.2 per cent.

What do we see today? For the past six months the

unemployment rate has consistently risen where it is almost 21 per cent, which

does not include those people who are on TAGS program. If it were the

unemployment rate would be close to 30 per cent. However, the unemployment rate

- and many Newfoundlanders for the first time in their lives will end up on

social services. Yet government in 1991 could produce a $13.5 million program

when the need was not as great, but today they cannot produce it.

What about the minister who has gone to Halifax to meet with

the federal Minister of Human Resources? I hope that he comes back successful, I

hope that he gets some federal funding. But he and this government must

understand that it is a provincial responsibility. They have said that they will

not proceed on a stand-alone basis but they must proceed. Whatever basis they

wish to proceed on, it must be done, and it must be done now.

When we talk about if a program will be announced next week

or the week after, many people have already fallen through the cracks because of

government's lack and inability to deal immediately with this crisis. The

minister has stood up on many occasions and said that he, too, understands, that

he, too, has received many calls, that he has gotten more calls than all of us,

because he is the minister. Then the question must be asked of everyone who sits

in the Cabinet, why did they not support this minister when he presented Cabinet

papers dealing with the emergency employment program?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the former Minister of Justice, I

am not full of nonsense, and he knows full well that what I am saying is dead on

and correct.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this, that I urge

government - I have many, many constituents who phone me. I have a list of 195

people who are in desperate need today, who need two, three and four weeks work

and I urge the government to act, and act now. Thank you.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of comments with respect to this petition which has

been repeated now for several days at least. One of the difficulties, Mr.

Speaker, that the government has in listening to and then attempting to respond

to the members opposite is the fact that even though we really believe they are

sincere about the issue they bring forward on behalf of people who would prefer

to be working rather than not working - the difficulty is, Mr. Speaker, that

time after time they can't resist getting up and doing as they usually do, even

in a serious matter such as this, trying to make some political points rather

than to just deal with the merits of the issue. We find it very difficult to

deal with it on the merits of the case and the basis -

The minister is trying very hard, as members opposite know,

but then when he does make a trip to Ottawa or Halifax to try to get some better

solutions than we have had in the past - because we have done some stop gap

things that everybody recognizes is not the solution - then they get up and say,

`Well, he shouldn't be running off to Ottawa. He shouldn't be going to Halifax,

and so on, he should be doing something about it.' If he didn't go, Mr. Speaker,

the very same people would be up saying, `Why isn't the minister in Ottawa

trying to get some help with this? Why isn't he over in Halifax meeting with the

federal minister?' We have seen too much of it in the past, Mr. Speaker. The

other point, even today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay has - I didn't

hear him the first time but I have heard him several times, accusing the hon.

minister of lying. He must withdraw. Does the hon. member withdraw? Does the

hon. member withdraw? The language is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. SHELLEY: Can I comment on that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. ROBERTS: You certainly cannot.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the member has to withdraw.

MR. SHELLEY: I did not ask you, I asked the Speaker. Am I

allowed to comment on that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No, the member has to either withdraw or not withdraw the

remark. You are not allowed to say that another member is lying.

MR. SHELLEY: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated today, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) definitely heard the hon.

gentleman, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay just say, `He's lying,'

referring, obviously, to the minister. Mr. Speaker, I draw it to Your Honour's

attention and ask you to take whatever action you think is appropriate. We are

not going to have this kind of conduct from even the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear what the hon. member said but

I have already given a direction to hon. members on many other occasions that it

is unparliamentary, clearly, to accuse any other member of lying, and any member

who uses the expression must withdraw it or face whatever remedy the House

thinks appropriate.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By way of example again, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes today in presenting the petition did not - I understand he also took

the point again rather than just deal with the merits of the case, Mr. Speaker.

He had to deal with the references of expenditures of other monies by the

government, that whether they were spent on the items that he mentioned or not

would never be spent on this program. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that they are

more interested in trying to get political brownie points in some instances than

dealing with the issues. It is clear that these particular members - maybe they

should have consulted with some of the members in the front benches who were in

a Cabinet before, because they obviously have never run a government and would

know that regardless of the monies that were spent out of those other Budget

Heads, whether they were spent in the amounts that were there or not, they never

would have been available for an Emergency Response Program or a Job Creation

Program. And they do know the difference, Mr. Speaker - or, if they don't, they

should know the difference, and it is the points that they make.

The last point, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the petition -

the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes again today, did his usual thing.

He ridiculed and pooh-poohed the government's efforts of a year or so ago which

are continuing, to bring in an Income Supplementation Program, and I leave with

just this comment: that if we had an Income Supplementation Program in place,

these petitions and this debate would not be necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call the first Order,

I wonder if we might attend to one matter of business that has been discussed

behind the Chair.

Next Wednesday afternoon, which is December 7, if memory

serves me correctly, the Prime Minister will be here in St. John's, and I

understand that at 2:30 that afternoon he is to take

part in a ceremony of some

nature, which I believe is to be held at Hotel Newfoundland, in fact, to deal

with the -

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear my friend, the

Member for Placentia; I always anxious -

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: He doesn't make any sense, and that is usual

- but I don't hear him, and that is unusual.

Anyway, Your Honour, what I am saying is, the Prime Minister

will be here and there will be a ceremony to which I understand, all members of

the House of Assembly will be invited, and I raised the matter with my friend,

the Member for Ferryland, who is the Acting House Leader on the other side, and

suggested that perhaps the House might wish to sit late that afternoon, not meet

until say, four o'clock, so as to give members a chance to attend this ceremony.

His suggestion, which we are prepared to accept, is that the

House not sit next Wednesday, that we adjourn on Tuesday until Thursday, and I

just raise that now,

a) so that we can get consent, if there is consent to be

had and,

b) so that members can arrange their own schedules accordingly. If that

is agreeable, Your Honour, from our side, we shall proceed on that basis, but I

will leave it to my friend, the Member for Ferryland to speak for his side; he

is nodding acquiescence but I don't know if he wants to say anything or not.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just trying to follow the rules of Parliamentary

procedure and not stand to speak when the Government House Leader was speaking.

Yes, I did make a suggestion on behalf of this side of the

House, the members in our caucus, that we would not sit on Wednesday, because,

at this time of the year and with many commitments, and members having

commitments into the evening next Wednesday and we didn't anticipate that, to

come back at 4:00 p.m. would be impractical for us, so I suggested that we not

sit on Wednesday and resume normal business then on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, that is in agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I would like to put it in the form of a

motion so we have something clear on the record if -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) good enough to take it as

motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. It has been moved and seconded that the

House not meet on next Wednesday, December 7, 1994.

All in favour of the motion, `aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay'?

Did somebody say, `nay'?

I just asked because I am not sure; it may be that it has to

be unanimous but - I take it, it is unanimous, if no one is dissenting?

Motion, unanimously carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask in a moment

that we call Order 22, which is the adjourned, second reading debate on Bill 41.

We will then give my friend, the Member for St. George's, who

is not in the Chamber - but somebody I hope will go to find him because we will

not be very long on Bill 41 - we will give him a chance to shine by addressing,

if we may, Your Honour, Orders 14 and then 17, both of which stand in the name

of my friend, the Member for St. George's, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

I assume he will be in the House; if not, he may find one of

his colleagues addressing the bill in his place. We will then, depending on how

we get on, Your Honour - because the debate ends at 4:30 p.m. today, this is the

Late Show day -

I welcome my friend, the Member for St. George's back to his

seat in the House, it is always pleasant to have him here.

I am open to suggestion, we will either deal then, Your

Honour, with Order 16 or with Order 20 as members may be inclined at that time,

but let's get on with Order 22 and then we will go on with Orders 14 and 17 and

we will see by then where we are. My friend, the Member for Ferryland and I will

have spoken behind Your Honour's Chair to deal with that.

One other thing, may I advise members that on Tuesday, we

shall be calling for debate, the EDGE corporation bill, that is Bill 51, which

is now in the hands of members. We will be calling that for second reading

debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Are you talking to me, about me, or at me?

Your Honour, what I am advising the House is that on Tuesday

next we will be calling, as the first order of government business, the EDGE

corporation bill, and members can prepare themselves to deal with that.

With that said, Sir, if you would be good enough to call

Order 22, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Government House Leader be

presenting the bill on second reading?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I was concluding the debate, Sir. The

debate has been held and I believe the record will show, I adjourned debate to

conclude second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 22.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will not be

terribly long. In fact, if there isn't a little less hubbub, I will just have to

go on. I can shout but it doesn't help anybody, including me.

Your Honour, I want to thank members for the support. There

was support, I believe, on all sides of the House, the one on this side, the one

on the other side, and the Opposition on the other side. There were two or three

points that members raised which I would like to address, to answer them. A

number of members made a point about the effect of the committee's call. The

Social Policy Committee, the committee chaired by my friend, the Member for

Trinity North, has placed an advertisement in newspapers in the Province asking

if anybody wishes to come and be heard on this Advance Health Care bill.

The notice calls for responses to be in by December 16. I

have had a word with the Chair who subsequently was able to instruct the Clerk

to change the deadline for notice to December 14, which is ample time for people

to send in word if they want to come and be heard. We will not call the bill at

Committee stage before the 14th has come, to see if anybody wants to be heard.

If nobody wants to be heard, that is one situation, we will address it, and if

people do want to be heard, then we will address that situation, too. But we

will not call the bill at Committee stage until we have been able to hear

whether or not people want to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is closing the

bill and I don't want to delay it, but I have been thinking about this since we

had our discussion here on Tuesday. As the minister obviously could tell from my

comments, I feel very seriously for this bill. One question arose in my mind -

maybe the minister can give me a little legal advice and can answer the question

for me.

In a situation where a family is trying to decide whether or

not to remove life support systems: Let's assume there were three or four

brothers or sisters who were trying to make that decision. The act, as I recall,

says the majority shall govern in that case. Let's assume that three of the four

agreed that the life support system should be withdrawn. In the hypothetical

case where that fourth person was aware of some sort of plot by the other three,

is there any remedy to that person to appeal to a court for an injunction on

grounds, other than the medical thing, but on grounds that this person is aware

- maybe the three stepsisters wanted to get all the gentleman's money or

something ridiculous like that. Is there any remedy in that most unusual case?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question, as

he said, is perhaps an extreme example, but it is a fair one, and I would be

happy to try to address it.

Section 11 of the bill is the one to which he

adverted. It says there is to be a majority. It is ll (1) in fact. We go by

categories, and the categories are set out in

Section 10, specifically 10 (1),

so we then go to 11, `Where more than one person in a category is qualified to

act, the decision of the majority prevails,' and we carry on from there.

Now, should the kind of problem arise that my hon. friend has

suggested, then there would be a remedy, in my opinion. I am not here to give

legal advice to the House, but in my opinion as a lawyer, as a member of Bar,

there would be a remedy in this sense, that one could always go to the court and

ask the court to take the appropriate remedy to enforce the laws of the

Province. The inherent jurisdiction of the court allows them to do that.

Let me give an example, or refer to an example I used in a

different context earlier in this debate. The Strong case in Grand Bank was an

example of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. In other words, you don't

have to point to a specific statute. You don't have to go in and say: I pray the

court to make an order enforcing 1234 of whatever act. One can go into court and

say: I ask the court to make an order that the law be followed. That is not the

way the application would read, but the answer would be - in my opinion there

would be a very quick and efficacious remedy by means of an application to the

nearest judge of the Supreme Court Trial Division.

AN HON. MEMBER: That presumes there is a law not being

followed.

MR. ROBERTS: One would go in, I suspect, and say: These

people are not acting in good faith. The court would make enquiry, there would

be an affidavit. One would get into an interlocutory injunction, I suspect,

inter partes. That would be returnable the following day. Perhaps an analogy

might be - this is a bad analogy in the sense of comparing life to a labour

dispute - but we often see interlocutory injunctions being issued ex parte, only

one side being heard, in a labour situation. Then two or three days later the

parties come before the court and the judge hears them and decides whether the

injunction is permanent or not. I can see that kind of situation here.

There is a very basic maxim of law that where there is a

wrong, there is a right; where there is a wrong there is a remedy.

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman has more confidence in

the courts than I do.

MR. ROBERTS: I have a great deal of confidence in the

courts, Mr. Speaker. I've won and I've lost as counsel before the courts. I've

never been before the courts, well, I've been before the Unified Family Court as

a party but I've never been before the court in any other way - a witness once

or twice, maybe.

But I have every faith in the courts. I'm not saying the

courts don't make mistakes, of course, they do. Donny Marshall spent ten or

eleven years in jail in a situation that, after a brilliant book by Michael

Harris, was acknowledged to be a mistake. The man out in Manitoba whose name I -

Mr. David Milgard? I think eventually it was concluded that he, in fact, had

been sentenced unjustly to jail. There is at least one case in the United

Kingdom where a man named Timothy Evans was hanged for murder, protesting his

innocence as they took him to the gallows. And years later, a man named Christy

was, in fact, discovered to be the person who committed the murders for which

Mr. Evans had been tried, convicted, sentenced and executed.

I'm not going to say we never make mistakes, but much like

Churchill's description of democracy - Churchill once said that democracy is an

imperfect system of government. It is simply better than any other system

anybody has ever been able to devise. I would say our court system would fall in

with that.

Your Honour, let me deal with just one or two other points,

if I may, so as not to prolong it. My friend, the Member for Ferryland spoke of

some practical difficulties that he could see and that might arise in the

administration of the scheme set out in this act. I would refer him to two

specific sections which address the concerns that he raised. Perhaps the Clerk

could - if it could wait, I will speak to my friend, the Member for Ferryland,

because he did raise the points.

I would refer him to

section 19 which protects people who act

in good faith. He was concerned, as I heard him to say, about a situation where

a medical care giver, a health care giver, a health care professional in the

wording of this act, would have taken a course of treatment or not followed a

course of treatment as may be the case, and it turned out later, there was a

decision out there or a decision maker out there who hadn't been consulted or

followed, as may be the case. I think that was the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, my concern wasn't necessarily

(inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I will deal with that in a minute. I would

point that

section 19 protects three people. First of all 19 (1) says: "No

action lies against a substitute decision maker by reason only of having acted

in good faith, in accordance with the Act." The "in good faith" words would

address the problem raised by my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, in a little

different context.

Section 19(2): "Where a health care professional makes a

reasonable attempt to find the substitute decision maker, the health care

professional is not liable for failing to find the correct substitute decision

maker." You don't have to go back and check the birth and death records to see

whether there are three siblings alive of the old gentleman one is treating or

whether there are only two. There has to be a reasonable limit. "Reasonable" is

a word beloved of lawyers that means - it has a great meaning, but it is awfully

hard to define it.

Section 19(3) says: "No action lies against a health care

professional who administers or refrains from administering health care to

another person by reason only that the health care professional has acted in

good faith in accordance with a health care decision made by a substitute

decision maker." So if the substitute decision maker makes a decision, and the

health care professional acts in accordance with it, the health care

professional's indemnity is protected.

These clauses were drafted with a great deal of care, and I

hope we got it right, because doctors and nurses find this to be an ethical and

a practical nightmare now, these problems.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, but I think I have addressed the hon.

gentleman's concern, or hope I have. If not, I will -

Now, Mr. Speaker,

section 20 also addresses a good faith

argument. It addresses the problem that arises under a will - when I see people

come in and make a will, and the witness to the will is a beneficiary under the

will. The law says that a witness cannot be a beneficiary, and a beneficiary

cannot be a witness. Number 20 deals with a little different situation, and we

have suggested a different solution in the health care directive field.

Finally, I would point out

section 18, which puts a burden on

the maker of the advance health care directive to communicate its contents to a

health care professional, so the burden is on he or she who makes to communiqu,

which I think is a reasonable in place.

Mr. Speaker, the only other point, I think, which was made,

according to my view and what I noted, and I tried to note them all, was whether

we should have an information program. There will be, I understand, quite an

extensive program being planned by the people who deal in these things, the

hospital authorities and the medical association and the nursing association and

these groups. The idea has been around in the public forum for some time. I

think it is becoming well-known, and we hope that people will take advantage of

it.

Let me conclude by quoting an extract from some words written

by one the great liberals, with a small l and a large L, of all time, John

struck me as a good one: `Each of us is the proper guardian of his' - or her, in

this modern world - `own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual.

Mankind' - or person kind in colloquially correct language today - `are greater

gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by

compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.'

That is a statement of a classic Liberal belief, but most

people would subscribe to it, whatever their political persuasion may be in this

day and age. That is the principle, Sir, which, in my judgement, this bill seeks

to carry into effect. We have the right to determine our own fate - not to break

the law, this bill will not allow that; but within the law we have the right to

determine our own fate.

With that said, Sir, I thank hon. members for their support

and commend the bill, and move it be now read a second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Advance Health Care

Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision Makers," read

a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 41)

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, my friend, the Member for St.

George's has been faithful in his seat. Would you be kind enough please, Sir, to

call Order. 14, which is Bill 15, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Aquaculture Act". (Bill No. 15)

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Aquaculture Act was enacted in August, 1987. Since that

time, a number of deficiencies have been identified and are corrected through

the proposed amendments to this act. The current changes do not change the

intent or the purpose of the act, but reflect improvements in its administration

and enforcement.

The act, itself, contained in the draft bill, focuses on the

following areas: number one, improved definition of aquaculture gear, which did

not exist in the old act at all. A more realistic time frame for aquaculture is

to provide proof of licenses at remote sites; improved efficiency to allow a

minister to designate signing authority such as, for example, aquaculture

licenses, transfer of license or other issues requiring timely action due to

biological time constraints of the industry. Also in the suggested amendments;

improved enforcement capabilities will be addressed; judiciary power to

implement seizure or detention in the case of repeated offenses or where further

activity could be a danger to public health safety or to the environment itself.

The proposed act would also provide power of seizure in instances where

abandoned or unmarked aquaculture gear is considered to be a danger to

navigation and public safety.

The proposed act will also improve the ability to allow

changes in regulation to provide compliance with other line agencies where their

legislation is paramount. An example of that, Mr. Speaker, is for example, to

allow compliance with changes as necessary to Transport Canada, The Canadian

Coast Guard requirements to sites in respect of changing navigational

requirements. Also the new proposed act would - various wording and grammar

changes will be inserted to remove ambiguity, improve gender reference and

establishment of a legal age requirement.

Following the enactment of the aquaculture act the

Canada-Newfoundland Memorandum of Understanding on Aquaculture Development was

signed in February, 1988. The Memorandum of Understanding established a regime

governing the promotion, development and regulation of the aquaculture industry

in Newfoundland without prejudice to the constitutional powers of either one of

the two parties.

Areas of responsibility assigned each level of government are

indicated as the following; provincial responsibility, Newfoundland has

responsibility in the areas of enacting regulatory requirements in accordance

with responsibilities outlined in the agreement. Our Province also has

responsibility for compliance, location and sighting of aquaculture facilities.

We also have responsibility for fostering and encouraging education and training

in aquaculture; for creating a central registry of aquacultural activities;

repository of related information and also in the delivery of fish health

services to the aquacultural industry.

The federal responsibilities in our joint agreement are such

that Canada has responsibility for the provision of regulatory measures in

respect of the conservation and protection of the wild stocks, fisheries,

habitant protection, fish health protection and stock registry. Under the

Memorandum of Understanding parties have joint responsibilities for the

development of an overall aquaculture plan, applied research and development,

and a collection of aquaculture statistics.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to just very briefly go through some

of the proposed changes to the old act and tell this hon. House why these

changes are suggested. Number one, the first thing we have to deal with is a

definition for aquaculture gear. Now such a definition was not included in the

old act. In the new act the aquaculture gear will mean or means equipment used

in the conduct of aquaculture to contain or provide a means of attachment for

aquaculture species and it includes rope, sucking material, collection material,

nets, cages, sea pens, tanks and so on.

The reason for this change, Mr. Speaker, was to define the

term aquaculture gear for the purposes of enforcement provisions proposed in

this amendment. The old act also neglected to contain or did not contain a

definition of aquaculture inspector, what was an inspector in the field of

aquaculture. In the new act it will be spelt out in

section 1 that an

"`aquaculture inspector' means an aquaculture inspector appointed under

section

6" of the act. The reason for this change was to define such an individual,

aquaculture inspector, for the purposes, again, of enforcement provisions

proposed in the amendment.

The original act states under

section 4(7) that: the minister

may vary or amend an aquaculture licence upon application by the licensee. The

proposed change is that

section 4(7) of the act will be amended by striking out

the words "upon application by a licensee". The reason for this amendment is to

amend this particular subsection of the act by deleting the requirements for a

licensee to apply to vary a licence and thus allow the minister to make that

decision himself or herself.

The original act also under

section 4(8) states that: the

minister shall issue a licence to a person who acquires from a licensee an

aquaculture facility and who meets the requirements for a licencing established

by this act and the regulations. The proposed change to

section 4(8) will state

that the act is amended by striking out the word "shall" and substituting the

word "may". To amend

section 4(8) then of the act is to allow the minister

rather than the owner to determine if the licensee is to be granted to a

subsequent purchaser of an aquaculture facility.

Under

section 4(12) of the old act it states that: a copy of

an aquaculture licence shall be kept in the aquaculture facility to which it

pertains. The proposed change to

section 4(12) of the act is repealed and the

following is substituted as such: "An aquaculture licence or a certified copy of

that licence shall be presented to an aquaculture inspector upon request or

where this is not possible, a licensee or another person responsible for the

aquaculture facility for which the request was made shall present the requested

licence or certified copy to the aquaculture inspector not later than 24 hours

following the time when the request was made." In order to allow the person

operating the facility sufficient time to acquire the licence to present to the

inspector should it not be on the premises the day the inspection was made.

Section 4(13) of the act as it now stands states that there

is no age requirement for entering into the field of aquaculture in this

Province. The proposed change for 4(13) states that: the minister shall not

issue an aquaculture licence to a person who is less than nineteen years of age.

The only reason for making that change was to establish a legal age requirement

for aquaculture in this Province.

The original act also under

section 6(1) states that: the

minister may designate employees of the department to be aquaculture inspectors.

The proposed change to

section 6(1) then of the act is amended by striking out

the words "employees of the department" and substituting the word "persons". The

reason for that change, Mr. Speaker, is to amend 6 (1) of the act to allow the

minister to designate inspectors from both within and outside the department.

Departmental employees only may be designated as inspectors under the existing

subsection 6 (1).

In the original act as it now stands,

section 6 (5) states

that upon the advice of the aquaculture inspector, the minister may direct a

licensee to take measures. The proposed change to this particular

section 6 (5)

of the act is amended by striking out the words `Upon the advice of an

aquaculture inspector, the minister may direct a licensee to take measures' and

substituting the words `Where he or she considers it necessary, an aquaculture

inspector may direct a licensee, or other person responsible for an aquaculture

facility to take measures'.

Now, the reason for making that change, Mr. Speaker, is to

allow an inspector, where necessary, to direct a person to take action

respecting disease - and this is very, very important in the aquaculture field,

respecting disease, escape, public safety, or other operations affecting an

aquaculture facility. The act now requires the minister, on the advice of the

inspector, to take the direction. Changes would allow immediate response to

issues of critical concern, and I am sure everyone in this hon. Chamber would

agree with the need for that change.

Under

section 6 of the act as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, the

minister may suspend the license of a person responsible for an aquaculture

facility who fails to comply with subsections 4 and 5 that we have just recently

talked about. The proposed change is that

section 6 (6) of the act is repealed

and the following substituted: `The minister may suspend an aquaculture facility

license where the licensee or other person responsible for that aquaculture

facility does not comply with subsections 4 or 5.'

The reason for making that change, Mr. Speaker, is to amend

the subsection of the act to allow the minister to suspend the license for

non-compliance with regard to subsections 6, 4, and 5, regardless of who caused

that non-compliance.

The original act as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, in

section 6

(9) states that `where an aquaculture inspector determines that a person is

engaged in aquaculture without having obtained the appropriate license, and so

informs the minister, the minister may direct that person to take a measure

referred to in paragraphs of the act to stop his or her activities, or for them

to immediately apply for a license.'

The proposed change to the act, under

section 6 (9), is

amended by striking out the words and comma, `and so informs the minister,' and

substituting a comma and the words `he or she'. This change is required so that

in order to amend subsection 6 (9) of the act to allow an inspector to order the

corrective measures under subsection 6 (5) and that they are carried out,

presently the minister would make that order and not the inspector. So again, in

order to speed up the process and make it more flowing, we would suggest in the

new regulations that that be the duty of the inspector.

Under

section 8 (1) it states that a person shall not

introduce, transfer, or transport live aquatic plants or animals from one body

of water or aquaculture facility in the Province to a second body of water or

aquaculture facility in the Province, or from outside the Province to a body of

water or aquaculture facility in the Province, without the prior written

approval of the minister.

The proposed change in

section 8(1) of the act is then

amended by adding, immediately after the word `minister', the words `or a person

whom the minister may by order designate'. Again, you can see that would make

much easier this process, and cause it to flow much more simply and be speeded

up.

One of the reasons for the change amending this particular

section of the act is, it would allow the minister to designate a person to

approve the transfer or introduction of aquatic species into the Province. This

change will allow for more immediate action in this particular area.

The original act as it now stands, under

section 11, pertains

to making regulations concerning the act.

Section 11(

j) prescribes the marking

of boundaries of a site. The proposed change to the act, paragraph 11(

j) of the

act, is amended by adding, immediately after the word `of', the words

`aquaculture gear and of the site'.

The reason for making this change in 11(

j) and (

q) of the act

is to more clearly outline the regulations which may be made respecting

delineation of a notice respecting aquaculture sites. The change would improve

the ability to change regulations, to provide compliance with other line

agencies where their legislation is paramount. For example, it allows immediate

response to changes dictated by Transport Canada, the Canadian Coastguard and so

on, in respect of changing navigational requirements and public safety.

Section 11 also pertains to making regulations concerning the

act, and 11(

q) respecting the marking of aquaculture facilities so as to provide

notice to mariners. The change in 11(

q) proposed is to amend the area by

striking out the word `mariners' and substituting the words `all persons', not

just those who are designated as mariners.

Section 11 also pertains to making regulations concerning the

act, and under 11(b.

b) defines a word or expression used in the act and not

defined in this act, and 11 (c.

c) prescribing procedures by which the

neighbouring land owners, municipalities, other affected or interested persons

and the general public may participate in helping the minister in his or her

decision whether to grant an aquaculture licence and, if so, under what terms

and conditions, including the manner in which the applicant, the minister or

designate or others are to meet with, provide information to, and record

opinions concerned and questions of those participating.

Also, in

section 13, it is an offence to knowingly give false

information to the minister and aquaculture inspector and employee of the public

service in respect of the matters under this act, or the regulations.

The proposed changes - this section, then, is amended by

striking out the word `and', and paragraph (b.

b) by striking out the period in

paragraph (c.c), and substituting a semi-colon and the word `and', and by adding

immediately after paragraph (c.

c) the following: `prescribing the manner of

identifying and disposing of aquatic plants or animals, or aquatic gear, under

this particular subsection. And the reason for making this change is to amend

the act to allow for the intentions to clarify some of the seizure procedures

that are necessary from time to time, in the aquacultural industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you elaborate more on that?

DR. HULAN: What would you like elaborated on?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: That particular change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: As plants come in from one area of the

Province to another area - are you listening hon. member?

As plants are transported and removed from one area of the

Province to another area or, especially as they are transported and removed from

one jurisdiction of the country, or North America for that matter, to

Newfoundland, it is very important that the provision be provided for a simple

and clear seizure, if necessary, of the removal of such aquatic plants or

animals. So that should make you even more confused.

The proposed changes to the act in

section 13, are also to

make changes where, an aquaculture inspector believes, on reasonable ground,

that a person has contravened this act or regulations, the aquaculture inspector

may, with a warrant issued under subsection (2) of the act, seize all aquatic

plants or animals and aquaculture gear in relation to which he or she has

responsibility, and believes the offense was committed, and that is, as again, I

will say, very important because in the transfer of plants and animals in

aquaculture, one has to be extremely careful because of the transfer of

transmissible diseases in the receiving environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: I am about ready to sit down.

The other reason for the change to this particular

section is

that, an aquaculture inspector acting under a warrant issued under subsection 2

of the act, (1), be able to take into custody or release from seized aquaculture

gear live aquatic animals or plants; also, to order a person whom he or she

reasonably believes to have committed the offence, to remove and relinquish to

the custody of the aquaculture inspector, aquaculture gear and, where

applicable, aquaculture plants or animals, provided that the provincial court

judge or a justice of the peace who has issued the warrant under subsection

(2) has ordered those actions as conditions of the warrant.

The change also provides that aquaculture gear seized or

removed under subsection (1) paragraph (3) may be detained for a period of two

months following the day of seizure or removed, unless during that period,

proceedings under the act, in respect of that aquaculture gear are undertaken,

in which, in this case, the aquaculture gear may be further detained until the

proceedings are finally concluded.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to pass some comments on the Act To Amend The

Aquaculture Act. Now, of course, as the minister stated, it is an updating

generally speaking, although there are some points that I wish to ask questions

of the minister on and maybe in his response or in his final speaking on the

bill, when he closes second reading, he might address some of these points as I

get to them. Well overall, I guess, in the new

section aquaculture gear was not

defined as he stated and an aquaculture inspector was not defined in the old

aquaculture act. So it is only normal to put in such a definition. We did have

aquaculture facility and so on defined but we have not specifically defined what

aquaculture gear is. So that was open to an

interpretation in terms of whether

there is going to be a charge levied for using a certain facility that had not

been defined by

an act. So I guess that occurs in defining it, especially if you

are going to have any prosecution of offenses you have to be able to define a

specific thing that you are going to prosecute.

Now there is a concern in clause 2 - well actually subsection

4(7) of the act - it makes reference to striking out, "upon application by a

licensee." Now the minister may vary or amend an aquaculture license upon

application by a licensee, is currently the reading in the aquaculture act.

Right now, even though a person receives a specific license with a specific

request, the minister is now going to be in power to technically give a license

to an individual without having to make an application for that license because

the old act states that the minister can amend upon application by a licensee.

So the minister is now given the power to give a license for aquaculture without

the person having to apply for the license, I say to the minister. That is the

interpretation I draw from that and I think it is fairly straightforwardly

stated here in the act. That is the change, a significant change now when

somebody can be given a license without applying and writing for such a license.

That is an area of concern.

We also have in clause 2, subsection 2, it says, strike out

the word "shall" and substituting the word "may". It says here in the act

itself, `the minister shall issue a license to a person who acquires an

aquaculture facility and meets the requirements.' Now if I wish to purchase an

aquaculture facility from an existing operator in this Province and purchase

that facility according to the new change in the act now, the minister does not

have to give me the license. I could buy an aquaculture facility in St. George's

but the minister had to, before, allow me to operate that facility. Now the

minister will be given the powers to take away the right to operate that

facility at the ministers discretion. So that is a limitation upon the rights

and infringement on the private enterprise for someone to continue to operate a

facility generation after generation or to sell. If somebody gets older and

decides their family no longer wishes to become involved in that aquaculture

facility, they may be hindered from selling that facility that they may have

invested hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in because the

minister may decide not to grant that license

whereas before it said the

minister shall grant that license. I think it is a very legitimate point that

the minister should take under consideration.

Of course, when we get to clause 2, subsection 3, and the

change there is where it says the license must be held in the facility. I do not

have too much problem with that because sometimes the facility might be out in

the water, I mean do you attach the license to the corks or the floats on the

only facility you have, it is not very practical there. So it is not practical

to have that there and as long as they show it, within a reasonable period of

time, and the minister is setting down twenty-four hours to be reasonable to

show that license and that is a fair clause there.

Here is another of one big concern - I think this one may

have implications, I am not sure of the rationale behind it and maybe the

minister could address this when he closes reading on the bill - is that the

minister now, according to the current act, as it sits, the current act states

that the minister may designate employees of the department to be aquaculture

inspectors. That is in

Section 6.5, I think in the act. What it is doing now,

this bill is changing that so that the minister can now appoint somebody who is

not an employee of the department to be an inspector. It could be an employee of

Works, Services and Transportation, of the federal government, of a contracting

company. It can contract out the inspection work to be done on such a facility.

That is giving a broader - and the minister didn't give the rationale for that

change. If he did I missed it. I was listening, I think I missed it, the

rationale for that. Maybe there is a rationale for those especially three key

points I've made so far. If there is a rationale I would certainly be interested

in hearing from the minister later to explain why that is the case.

Why would you want someone who is not from your department or

have anything to do with your department to have powers of inspections under the

act? Unless it is going to be some other government agency, or the federal

government, or other provincial inspection services going to be centralized or

contracted out, et cetera. There are some of the points I'm sure the minister

would address when he closes reading on the bill.

Also I guess in clause 3(2) here, under the act now I guess

the minister has to direct a licensee or other persons responsible to take

measures and so on. Of course, that is not real practical as it currently sits.

I have to agree to an extent there that it is not practical. A minister could be

out of the Province. Technically the minister has to be able to designate

somebody else to carry out this, and that is I think a matter of improving the

wording in the aquaculture act as it now sits. I don't have a problem with that.

If we move on to clause 3(4) it says: "...amended by striking

out the words and comma `and so informs the minister, the minister' and

substituting a comma and the words `he or she'." An inspector now has the

authority to enforce the act. Normally the minister had to have that authority.

Maybe where aquaculture was at a very embryonic stage and there weren't as many

licences out there and facilities. Now it is getting more cumbersome and it has

to be designated or delegated out to departments. That is not a highly

contentious issue there I don't think in that regard.

Also, to transport from one facility to another. Of course,

having a designate to do that, that is I think reasonable there. We can't have

the minister controlling - pinpoint fingers on every decision, on every direct

little facility around, or directions. There has to be a line of authority put

in place here in the act and that is doing that, to an extent, and that is

positive.

As he mentioned, there are other points here. Establishing

markings and boundaries. I think that is very positive too. Because we can't

just confine it to mariners. If we are going to say mariners we have to define a

mariner in the act. We are going to make it to I guess all people. The words I

think he used are all persons here, instead of that, which would make it very

broad and it would set (inaudible) to anybody who traverses or travels the seas

or whatever in proximity to facilities that are usually of course going to be

located in waters, as the name implies, an aquaculture facility.

Adding in (dd)

section there. Of course that is a new one

completely there that is going in in addition to others there, the manner of

identifying and disposing and so on, I think that needs to be addressed there

and something needs to be added. That is just improving really upon the existing

act. Of course, the rest of that section, clause 6 - actually, all the rest of

that clause 6 technically is all new. Because there was only one sentence in

section 13 before. Putting in an enforcement and a detention procedure, the

detaining and so on in place, to be able to take action and so on if it is not

complied with. Very similar to other facilities and so on, and fish facilities,

or aquaculture facilities in the Province. Putting a framework in to deal with

that the same as any other offence.

I guess one thing I didn't hear the minister mention, but I

think it is worthy of mentioning. In clause 7, one thing worthy of mentioning

now, there is a change in the fine structure here also. The old act states in

section 14(1) that for a first offence really a fine not exceeding $5,000. It

states for a second offence a fine not exceeding $10,000. If someone is guilty

the judge may decide to fine them $100, $1,000, for the first offence, or maybe

$2,000 for the second offence. This change here is adding in and is stating that

the fine for a second offence now cannot be less than $5,000. It takes away some

of the discretionary powers of the court and adds in a fine that is going to be

set at a minimal level. In other words, there is more direction or less

flexibility for the judge now and there is more structuring there as to the

severity of the penalty for violating that specific

section of the act there.

Basically I'm not sure if the rationale - they see that there

has been a history of fines not being tough enough. If that is the history of it

it would be a good rationale to change it; if it is a means to grab another

$5,000 in revenue it is not a good rationale. That should be in another item of

our budget under taxation, not under fines. I would assume there has been a

history of non-compliance. If not I don't see the means to be able to change the

penalties that are levied here under this act. Probably when the minister closes

debate on that a little later he can comment on some of these things.

There are, I say to the minister, some areas of concern

there, some very I think important things that need to be addressed. I will just

touch again, very briefly, on a few key things to summarize again to make sure

the minister has an opportunity to address them in due course. Now the minister

may grant a licence to operate an aquaculture facility without a person applying

for such a licence. He now may appoint people outside his department to be an

inspector. From any other department, any walk of life, anybody I would assume

who is going to have the necessary training to be an inspector, and inspector is

defined, covered in another clause of the act. He would be able to appoint

anybody outside, a person. Only defined it as - persons now can be inspectors

under the aquaculture act.

Another very important point I think which needs to be

answered is that under this new legislation now the minister potentially takes

away the right of a person to buy an aquaculture facility in this Province and

operate it. Because the old act stated the minister "shall." If I bought a

facility owned by the minister I would automatically be given a licence to

operate that aquaculture facility. Right now under this new proposal I won't

have that right unless the minister decides that I can have that right. It is a

"may." They changed it from "shall" to "may." It is a very significant thing.

What it is spelling out - I guess the down side of this is we need to develop an

aquaculture industry in this Province at as accelerated a rate as we possibly

can.

New Brunswick grew from a few million dollars in farm salmon

to in excess of a $100 million operation that is very significant and

establishing a whole new economic opportunity for people in that Province. If

people are wiling to buy facilities and move in they could create employment.

But if I decided to buy one - if it is the intention of this bill when someone

no longer wishes to operate their facility and get out of the business, that

facility is pulled from the system. I can't see that being a reason but that is

a possible result of the legislation. It is not conducive to increased

investment in aquaculture industries in the Province and it is not going to have

positive repercussions on somebody who desires to build up and expand an

aquaculture business in the Province. Because that person is moving forward very

cautiously. Because down the road that person might be willing to put in

substantial dollars into developing an industry, and now may be impeded

somewhat, or have second thoughts, because that person would know that the

facility that they may wish to obtain might not get a licence for this person

even though it is currently existing.

I would hope the minister will address the rationale behind

these things when he has the opportunity in closing second reading, or if not we

will certainly - in Committee stage of the bill there are things I would like to

have an answer on. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments on the

second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: The `say nothing' member.

MR. MANNING: The `say nothing' minister. `Do nothing'

minister, I should say. The monster of a minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to have the

opportunity to stand and say a few words on Bill No. 15,

An Act To Amend The

Aquaculture Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The only place the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation is brave is within the walls of this House. I would

like to see him give me the lip out on the street.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that some regulations are coming

forth in bringing in this new industry because basically it is a new industry to

the Province and it has been more or less growing over the past couple of years

since the downturn in our fishery. People are looking for other ways to make a

living and many people who were involved in the fishing industry are looking

towards aquaculture as an opportunity to survive, especially in many parts of

rural Newfoundland. I am glad to see that there are amendments coming to the

aquaculture act that are more in line with the times and I am pleased to see

that the amendments are coming forth at a time when we have to bring in some

type of regulation to the industry so that the aquaculture industry does not

turn out like so many other industries in the Province that were unregulated

until it was too late. I am glad to see that the new minister has the fortitude

to bring forward this regulation at the time so at least we can bring forward

and do something proper, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that

the cucumbers will be only a pickle when we are finished with Trans City.

Mr. Speaker,

section 3, subsection 6(1) talks about,

`striking out the words "employees of the department" and substituting the word

"persons".' I would just like to ask the minister when he gets up, the change

there, what persons? Could we end up with people from the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation doing inspections on aquaculture projects? I sure

hope that we do not end up with the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation doing inspections, Mr. Speaker. If he was inspecting the roads in

this Province he would have job enough, Mr. Speaker.

I am a bit concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, in relation to

who exactly is covered under the "persons" in the act. I am sure the minister

may touch on that when he stands to close debate on the amendments. Mr. Speaker,

I have learned over the years that in a lot of cases people who really do not

understand the industry or are not the people who really make the rules, do the

inspections or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

while I inform the House of the items for debate on the Late Show.

Number one, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the

hon. Premier, re: my question, Hibernia work, the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of

Health re: my question, long-term care facilities, the hon. Member for

Ferryland.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation re: my question on dismissal of Mr. Sam

Alexander and that is from the hon. Member for Placentia.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could get back to the few comments I was making in

relation to the persons. I believe it is very important, under

section 3, in

relation to the persons because, Mr. Speaker, as many Newfoundlanders will agree

and I am sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would agree,

that one of the major problems with our fishing industry in this Province today

is the fact that the people who were making the rules and enforcing the rules

did not listen to the fishermen and plant workers of this Province and that is

why we have a major problem in our fishing industry today. Basically, I am a wee

bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, about `persons.' I would like to know, are those

people going to be people who are trained in aquaculture and people who will

indeed know the industry before they go out and start telling the people who are

in the industry how to do the job, Mr. Speaker? I think it is a concern. The

minister shakes his head but I am sure he better not shake it too much, Mr.

Speaker. That is one of the concerns I have, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MANNING: It is a concern to people in my district I

say to the minister, therefore I have the opportunity to stand up and speak, and

I will do that.

Another

part I would like to speak on, Mr. Speaker, is

Section 5. "Paragraph 11 of the Act is amended by striking out the word

"mariners" and substituting the words "all persons". I believe this is positive

in the light that it gives an opportunity for anybody to partake in the industry

if they so desire and that it is not strictly under the connotation of the word

mariners because there are people who were involved in the fishing industry in

the Province, indirectly, I should say, not exactly fishermen, plant workers,

but indirectly involved, that through no fault of their own have been put out of

business, or whatever the case may be, because of the shutdown of the fishing

industry. Those people, as far as I am concerned, or anybody for that matter,

should have the chance to partake in some type of private enterprise and with

aquaculture, I think, striking the word, mariners, and substituting the word,

all persons, will give anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to

partake in this new industry.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is a positive step. Also,

Section 6, Paragraph (5) discusses where aquatic plants or animals are seized or

removed. Under this

section the aquaculture inspector or other persons having

the custody of aquatic plants or animals may sell them and shall pay the

proceeds of the sale into a Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I would like to know if the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture would enlighten us on the Consolidated Revenue Fund because from

information we are receiving over here there are a lot of funds on that side of

the House that we would like to know about, especially those brown paper bag

funds. I would like for the minister, if he gets the chance, to enlighten us on

the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and is it a fund that is set up -

MR. EFFORD: Never ask a question unless you know the

answer.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the

Consolidated Revenue Fund and I would just like to have the minister elaborate

more on it, and I am sure he will do so when he stands up to close debate. For

all we, on this side of the House know, Mr. Speaker, the Consolidated Revenue

Fund could be basically any fund, so I would like the minister, when he gets the

opportunity, to explain it.

Mr. Speaker, the proceeds of the sale into the Consolidated

Revenue Fund, I mean, it could be known as the Hickman Fund for all we know, so

I ask that we make sure that the minister elaborates on that to some extent.

Section 7, Paragraph 14 (1)(

b) of the act is amended by

adding immediately after the word `fine', where it first occurs, the words `of

not less than $5000'. Again, I feel, this is a positive step, and it is

important that at least we now have a set amount that the courts can impose on

people who break the law. At least it gives a penalty, it keeps an amount there

that people can be penalized for. Instead of the judge having to play around

with figures he has a set amount and I think that is a positive step, I say to

the minister, in relation to not less than $5,000 being put in, instead of just

fines, Mr. Speaker. I believe that to be a positive move.

I would like to ask the minister, without him getting up: Did

you mention age limit on when a person can apply? Did I hear right when you said

nineteen?

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What

section is that, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I'm speaking to the Minister of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture, I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. The minister is seeking something for me now.

DR. HULAN:

Section 4, (inaudible).

MR. MANNING:

Section 4, paragraph 13. Let me have a look

here now. I'm having a job finding that here now. Can you find

section 4,

paragraph 13?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I'm asking the minister a question, if you

don't mind.

Section 4 -

DR. HULAN: Thirteen.

MR. MANNING:

Section 13? There is no

section 13 in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not there.

MR. MANNING: Yes, boy, he read it out. The man was up and

he -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is in the statute,

section 13 is in

the statute.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible) understanding that you have to

be nineteen and older to apply for a licence to operate (inaudible) - yes. I

don't agree with that now, I say to the minister. You only have to be seventeen

to get a licence to drive and if -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) change it!

MR. MANNING: I wouldn't doubt but the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation will change that. I wouldn't doubt that, Mr.

Speaker. I wouldn't doubt that the minister would come in with a law where you

have to have a $50,000 car like himself to drive around in before you can get a

licence. Who knows?

It is my understanding that you would have to be nineteen in

order to apply for an aquaculture licence. I believe in all sincerity that we

give people the licence to drive a car, like I say, at the age of seventeen

because we believe they are responsible. We believe they have a right to be on

the road and they more or less are people who we have trust in. I say there are

many people who have started out in their small businesses before they turned

nineteen and have turned out to be very successful in their field.

I'm going to come back to this later on, but I believe that

it should be something that we should reconsider, maybe there is a reason why, I

say to the minister, and maybe he could elaborate on that reason when he gets up

to close debate. Maybe you could elaborate on the reason they have put in that a

person has to be nineteen in order to receive a licence, because I believe to me

at the outset it sounds a bit... off, we will call it. Maybe the minister has a

good reason, but I hope that he can follow through on something. Because I

believe that we should give the opportunity to our young people now, especially

many young people in our rural parts of this Province who have been devastated

by the closing of the fishery. This may be a way out for them and they may be

looking at some type of training now.

I know some people who are doing some training in aquaculture

at the age of seventeen who would be finished next year, and it leaves them a

year before they can start. Maybe in that case they will go to work for somebody

else. I believe the opportunity should be there for them if they wanted to start

their own small business.

Mr. Speaker, I think those are about all the comments I have.

Like I said, I think the bill overall is a positive note. I think it is a good

bill. I believe we need some amendments to the aquaculture act because the

industry is starting to evolve into something that may be a major player in our

Province in the next few years and I hope the minister takes the few comments I

made and will answer some of the questions I asked, and I thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words; I

don't intend to prolong this debate or anything like that but I -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I did not go and beat around

the Province like the member did, when he became Chairman of the Fisherpersons

Association, he became a great hero for a couple of weeks and when he was put

back in Cabinet forgot about the fisherpersons. He hasn't got a clue, Mr.

Speaker, he never opened his mouth since, has not spoken a word, has not uttered

a word, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt if he signed the petition. I am not sure he is

one of the people who signed the petition to retain the Department of Fisheries,

but we will find out in due course, Mr. Speaker, whether or not he -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: When was the last time I had blood on my

hands?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I was going to say, I don't have the same kind

of blood on my hands that he has when it means going after his leader because

the blood will be (inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: You are no match for him.

MR. TOBIN: His blood to the elbows, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister gets up and yacks about you don't know what

a fish is. I can tell the hon. gentleman that we do not all forget as fast as he

does. I mean, a few months ago he was bringing over cod from Iceland, he was

going to clean out the Grand Bank, clean up outside the 200-mile zone, he was

having this big scissors made up and the Premier said: Johnny come back into

Cabinet and keep your mouth shut, and he said: okay sir. We have not heard from

the minister since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He was vaccinated.

MR. TOBIN: He was vaccinated, yes, that is the word, he

was vaccinated against continuing to help the fishermen.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no compensation package in the

Province.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, when he says only for this

man here there would be no compensation package in the Province. Now he has that

half right, he has the first name right, John.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever seen his resignation to the

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I have never seen -

Mr. Speaker, June 27, 1992; Liberal MHA John Efford has

charged the federal government plans to implement a resettlement program under

the guise of a bare-bones compensation package for Newfoundland fishermen. Do

you know what he said about the compensation package, Mr. Speaker? It is the

worst thing that can possibly happen to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what

he said about the compensation package back in June and now he wants to take

credit for it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You just said there wouldn't be a package

except for you. Mr. Speaker, that is what he has done.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) increased to $225 (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, got it increased, how are you? We will

see after Christmas, what is going to be increased and how many people are going

to come off, Mr. Speaker. There is one thing this man has done, if anything, and

that is wrecked the fishery in Newfoundland and the second thing he is going to

do, Mr. Speaker, is wreck the highways in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not carried. So the hon. member

wants to talk about fisheries. He has a yacht and does not know one thing about

the fishery and knows less about aquaculture as far as that goes. The only thing

he knows about that is what he hears Charlie Power talking about on television

from time to time. The only education he has in that, Mr. Speaker, is what he

has had from Charlie Power.

The bottom line is, there is only one thing that I can't wait

for, and I have been waiting for awhile now, and that is to see when the

minister is bringing over those big scissors from Iceland to cut all the nets.

We are still waiting for the chairperson of the fisheries committee. The only

thing he has ever done for the fishery in this Province was take on and blame

everything on the deep-sea fishery. He never supported a deep-sea fishery in

this Province.

MR. EFFORD: And I never will.

MR. TOBIN: He has never supported the fishermen who

worked twelve months a year. He has never supported the fishermen who beat ice

in January and February and March, trying to get in from the Grand Banks. He has

never supported a full-time fisherman, and now he says he never will.

MR. EFFORD: Vic Young (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Vic Young was only around the last few years.

Vic Young is President of FPI, I say to the minister. The people who work for

FPI is what makes FPI, and they are just as important as the people who work for

any other fish company in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What about the gill-netters? What is the

member going to say about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: For what fishing he did, setting a few gill

nets, he has never seen a cod end coming back over the stern of a trawler yet.

He has never seen one. He has never seen the cod end come back yet. He has never

seen one untied, and he doesn't know how to tie one. He wouldn't know the belly

of a trawl from the cod end, if the truth were known about this gentleman, and I

would like to see him trying to make up a trawl.

MR. EFFORD: Anytime, `Glenn', anytime.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is true.

MR. TOBIN: I know it's true, I say to the Member for

Eagle River. I know it is true. We all know it's true. He knows absolutely

nothing about the fisheries, absolutely nothing. He was so turned off by the

Premier of this Province when he gave him the boot from Cabinet, he tried to get

back at him by being a hero for the fisherpersons. He was willing to sell his

soul when he was invited back to Cabinet, and to heck with the fisherpersons in

this Province. That's what the hon. minister did.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) where were you?

MR. TOBIN: And where was he, I wonder?

MR. EFFORD: Where were you?

MR. TOBIN: I ask the hon. minister: Where were you when I

was on the Grand Banks? Where were you then, I ask the hon. minister? You were

never out there. You know nothing about it. Where were you when I was on the

Grand Banks, landing in places like -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: As a matter of fact, I say to the hon.

minister, his friend, the Member for Twillingate -

MR. EFFORD: Whose friend?

MR. TOBIN: Your friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - and your friend, the Member for Fogo know

full well the involvement of my family in the fishery in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: What does that have to do with you?

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you right now that the hon. member

was never on Tobin's Point, I say to the minister. He has never been on Tobin's

Point. He wouldn't know how to get to Tobin's Point.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's named after you, isn't it, `Glenn'?

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's named after the member.

MR. TOBIN: I don't hear of any Efford's Point on the

Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker. There might be some place called an Efford's Cove or

an Efford's Beach, but I don't know of any place on the Grand Banks called after

Mr. Efford.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there's an Efford's Wreck now.

MR. TOBIN: An Efford's Wreck, yes, but I can tell him

there's a place on the Grand Banks called Tobin's Point.

MR. EFFORD: I know all about it.

MR. TOBIN: You were never there, though.

MR. EFFORD: You were there.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I was, as a matter of fact, back many

years ago when the hon. member was selling stoves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I stood up to speak on this bill and the

minister interrupted me, I got carried away. But I want to say to the Minister

of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, that I don't think he knows a lot about the

fishery. I believe he is ready to learn, but I can tell you one thing, in my

opinion, he knows an awful lot more about it than the Member for Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Afraid you will put yours in there. I am

talking about ministers selling their souls. What are you saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, speaking of ministers selling their

souls. Steve Neary sized you up pretty bluntly one evening, but, Mr. Speaker, I

can tell you one member who I think would make a good Minister of Fisheries, and

that is the Member for Port au Port.

The Member for Port au Port, Mr. Speaker, I think, would make

a good Minister of Fisheries. He understands rural Newfoundland; he has spent

his lifetime in rural -

MR. SULLIVAN: Food and Agriculture.

MR. TOBIN: No, forget Food and Agriculture, it has no

business being part of the department, Mr. Speake