March 27, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 6

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

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

I wish to recognize the achievements of a constituent of St. John's South,

Harold Druken, who was scouted at the age of thirteen and given a scholarship to

attend a private school in Boston to play hockey. He was picked up by the AHL

where he consistently had been a high performer. On the Vancouver farm team he

was considered to be a valued player and, in fact, was the top goal scorer in

the league. He was advanced to the NHL and is now playing for the Vancouver

Canucks, and at present has the highest plus-minus score on the team. He has

always shown his pride as growing up in Shea Heights and attending St. John

Bosco School, and he has made the residents of the area, and indeed of the

Province, proud of him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am extremely pleased to inform Members of the House of Assembly that on

March 24 Justice Keith Mercer ruled that the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation did not exercise any bias in the award of the Straits ferry

contract to Labrador Marine Incorporated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: The judge has recognized that it is in the interest of the

public to have the M/V Apollo ready for the Strait of Belle Isle service

on the originally scheduled start date, which is May 1, 2000. Because of the

judge's decision, government can now meet its commitment to the people of the

Labrador Straits area who have asked for an improved and expanded service.

Mr. Speaker, Justice Mercer recognized the tenders submitted by the plaintiff

was rejected on more than one ground. He ruled that government acted in good

faith in considering requests from bidders to issue addenda to the tender

invitation. He stated that all bidders were given a fair opportunity to bid on

the tender as revised and he therefore rejected the argument that there was a

breach of duty of fairness in this regard on the part of the department.

Justice Mercer concluded that "the requests for changes to the

specifications were considered by government for its stated reason of ensuring

receipt of tenders and that government's decision to issue the addenda was

taken with regard only to relevant factors respecting the provision of an

enhanced ferry service for the forthcoming season."

The plaintiff in the recent proceedings alleged that the department acted

unfairly in not granting them an extension to the tender deadline. Justice

Mercer determined that "Government was motivated to deny the request for an

extension by its concern to meet the stated objective of having a new service

operational by May 1, 2000."

The judgement stated: "...I conclude that all potential bidders had a

fair opportunity to bid on the Invitation to Tender, as revised by the addenda

issued on December 10, 1999." The judge also said: "Accordingly I

reject the contention of Puddister Shipping that the duty of procedural fairness

was breached by either issuance of the addenda or denial of the request for an

extension to the closing date."

At the time of the tender closing, the department believed, from the

documents provided by Labrador Marine Inc. and from the expertise of

professionals in my department, that the M/V Apollo would be able to dock

safely at the Blanc Sablon wharf. We subsequently issued a letter of conditional

acceptance to the Labrador Marine Inc. While the judge indicated that the

decision to issue the letter of acceptance was unreasonable given the vessel

length specification and the facts before the department at that time - January

20, 2000 - I would like to stress that this was a letter of conditional

acceptance. The department did not sign a contract with Labrador Marine Inc.,

but instead issued this letter of acceptance based on eight conditions. These

conditions must be met before the final contract is awarded. It is to be noted

that the vessel does indeed meet the length specifications. Mr. Justice Mercer

stated: "...there may now be a reasonable basis for concluding that it [the

M/V Apollo ] is capable of meeting the specification."

A couple of weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition stood in the House of

Assembly and made accusations that the M/V Apollo had serious problems,

such as asbestos. The owners of the M/V Apollo had to publicly refute the

member's comments, but not before the damage had already been done. Not only

is it wrong for others to make accusations without having done their homework,

it is completely irresponsible.

The Opposition, in its desire to have my department's decision quashed, has

offended many individuals and groups in the Straits area and their actions prove

they have a blatant disregard for the needs of people and businesses in this

area.

As I have mentioned in the House before, officials from my department and I

spent a significant amount of time scrutinizing these tender documents and

followed due diligence as required. We know we made the right decision, the

judge knows we made the right decision, and the people of the Straits who need

this service know we made the right decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let me say, first and foremost, that the questions raised in Question Period

last week by myself on behalf of the Opposition were an attempt not to squash a

decision, I say to the minister, but an attempt to get at the truth. When it

comes to the public tendering process in this Province in the last six or seven

years, members and ministers on that side of the House have nothing to brag

about or lecture us on this side of the House, let me tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say to the minister as well, you have signed enough

cheques in excess of $50 million to prove what I am saying is right.

Let me say to the minister this: With respect to the decision that came down

on Friday, it is also very clear - let me quote for him from the decision as

well, because the door is open. The judge said: Council for government referred

to the invitation for tender for its definition of letter of acceptance and for

Section 42, contract. I conclude that though verification of compliance with the

specifications was not required prior to the formal contract, there nevertheless

existed an obligation toward the letter of acceptance only to a bid which

appeared, on reasonable grounds, to meet the specifications. The evidence

including that relating to due diligence - it talks about. He says: I find,

therefore, that the department failed to apply relevant facts, namely the

compensatory methods proposed by Labrador Marine Inc. to the precise term of the

specification. It was accordingly unreasonable to decide that the M/V Apollo

was capable of meeting the specification. The letter of acceptance was issued

"to a non-compliant bidder".

The judgement also, I say to the minister - and I am sure that the department

of Justice will have briefed him or will continue to brief him, but the decision

itself leaves the door open for further civil action.

The other thing that is interesting about this decision is that the plaintiff

did not have to bear any of the courts costs. So the story on this particular

contract is far from over.

I will say also, Mr. Speaker, that the attempt and continued attempt by

government any time the Opposition - myself or any member of the Opposition -

stands up and asks difficult questions on difficult subject matter to this

government, the first thing that comes back is fearmongering. Irresponsible, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will say this: In terms of the issues raised

in this House last week -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: No leave?

MR. TULK: Unless you tell us about (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the questions asked in the

House last week, primarily they centered on the review for the public tender

award. There were other questions asked to the minister, namely, dealing with

the electrical component of the M/V Apollo , and that borne out to be

true, namely, dealing with asbestos; because we had it on reliable information -

and I say this very clearly, very honestly -.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second now. Would you like me to finish?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, very much.

With respect to -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like me to finish, Premier, or would you like to

phone me on Open Line again and we can go at it right there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: With respect to the other issues surrounding the M/V

Apollo , there were questions made by myself with respect to electrical which

borne out to be true. There were questions based upon information provided to

the Opposition, which we felt legitimate, which were borne out not to be true,

and I say that in all honesty.

In terms of issues in this House -

PREMIER TOBIN: Which were not true.

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on a second; that is what I said.

Issues in this House - that, when we raise issues from time to time, each and

every day, we do it based upon the best available information we have. Where it

is seen or where it is borne out or proven to be not true, then fair enough. I

just said it was not - obviously from the Woodward Group of Companies it was

said that asbestos was not a problem. Obviously it was not true, but I will say

this -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible) apologize?

MR. E. BYRNE: Absolutely.

The next morning on CBC Open Line - CBC Radio did an interview based upon the

questions the day before, and made it very clear that the service provided to

the people in the Straits and on the Labrador is in the best interest. That is

what our interest is, in providing a fair, legitimate service. We made that very

clear to everybody in the Province, but I will say this: When it comes to

decisions affecting public tender, this Party, and as the Opposition, will not

stray from our responsibility to ask the tough questions to government when they

need to be asked. Obviously on this issue, based upon what the judge said, not

based upon what I said, this particular issue surrounding the application or

awarding of this contract is far from over.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, just a short point of order and that is

simply to say: Methinks thou doth protest too much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me start off by saying there is no question that the people of the

Straits definitely need a new ferry and a new ferry service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: There is no question about that, and it is something they

deserve. It is their mode of transportation that they depend on for many things,

but I don't think it is fair for the minister to respond today by way of a

Ministerial Statement, as if they have been completely exonerated by the courts.

It is clear in the judge's verdict that this government may still be on the

hook, to be taken to court by Puddister's. It may be another example of where

this Province will be paying again twice for the same service. I think that is

important, and I think the minister is quite aware of that.

Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, the provincial and territorial ministers of

health met in Montreal to assess their state of readiness for a meeting the end

of this coming week with the federal Health Minister, the hon. Allan Rock.

The federal government has been speaking publicly about some new initiatives

as it relates to the future of health care. Over the last several years the

federal government has highlighted pharmacare and home care as two of these

examples of new initiatives.

While these two areas may be new in the minds of the federal government and

the federal health minister and his counterparts, these are areas which we in

Newfoundland and Labrador have been supporting for many years from provincial

source revenues. Next fiscal year we will spend almost $70 million on pharmacare

or drug subsidization for some 100,000 individuals in our Province. This is an

increase of 25 per cent in funding since 1994-1995. On the home care front,

health and community services boards will spend nearly $40 million on seniors

and persons with disabilities. Since 1994-1995, our spending in this area has

increased by almost 50 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the federal health minister understand the

commitment that this Province has made to health care and to areas which the

federal government may become involved in the future. In the past five years

alone, we have increased our health and community services budget by 25 per

cent. In this year's budget alone, an extra $136 million is budgeted in new

spending for health care initiatives; however, we cannot continue to add

millions to our system every year. It is very difficult to maintain the publicly

funded system we have come to respect so well.

When we meet as ministers with the federal government later this week, I will

be impressing on Minister Rock our concern over the sustainability of the

current health system, and I will welcome any areas where the federal government

may want to work in partnership to provide a share of the cost of delivering

services - such as pharmacare and home care.

We are interested in effective and efficient use of our public health care

dollars, and we will prove to the federal government that there are limited

opportunities for efficiencies remaining in our system. That is why we have

carried out reviews of our health boards in the past, and that is why we have

set up a special review team to again work with the boards to identify core

services, priorities, new directions and remaining efficiencies.

We view the work of the review teams and the boards as essential in

identifying ways to optimize our health system, and begin to define the system

of the future.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is willing to work closely with

the federal government if the goal is the long-term sustainability of the

system. We may need to continue to adapt our current system to meet the needs we

are currently faced with, and will be challenged with in the future, such as

increased home care. If our publicly funded health care system is to continue to

serve us well as it has in the past, it will need sustainable funding from the

Mr. Speaker, I will keep hon. members abreast of what occurs at this upcoming

meeting with the federal government, and any other developments as it relates to

the future of health care in the Province and in the country.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought when this government did a study to review the efficiency of health

care boards in this Province - they restructured health care and formed eight

institutional boards and four community health care boards - they were looking

at efficiencies in delivering health care.

I say this to the minister. How is a review now going to monitor the

efficiency of decisions like giving - take Trans City Holdings, for example. I

will get a few more current examples. There it has cost over $30 million in the

long term. How one of those that was built under Trans City Holdings in St.

Lawrence, for example, has one-quarter of its beds never opened to this day. We

have been paying interest on that debt since the early 1990s. There are areas in

the Burgeo hospital from Trans City Holdings that are not even open and we are

paying interest on debt. How is he going to address a review when you never went

to public tender like dozens of cases with the health care corporations around

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: How is he going to address the savings by giving it to

higher bidders? One bid alone, $417,000, did not go to a lower bidder. How is he

going to address the capitalization?

I will use an example in Gander. There was $20 million spent with another $20

million over the next two years. We will have $40 million spent and not one

service is obtained by the people in Central Newfoundland. It is bricks and

mortar, a steel structure. Why are you capitalizing over twelve and fifteen

years in a structure? Anybody in business today would be gone bankrupt if you

capitalized an expansion over ten or fifteen years.

They are the efficiencies that your review will never look on, I say to the

minister. They will never get to assess these because they are departmental

inefficiencies and not (inaudible) inefficiencies in many of these examples.

There is no accountability in health care. You refuse to bring in

accountability legislation. Other provinces are miles ahead of us in

accountability legislation. We are three years trying to get a financial report

from the Western Health Care Corporation. You said, the previous minister said,

and they all said: We are going to have an Atkinson report and release it

publicly. The Cabinet has stopped the release of that report and passed it back

to the Western Health Care Corporation because they don't want the

inefficiencies to be made public. That is what is happening in health care.

You have to get you act together, minister. You have to start realizing it is

the provincial government that has responsibility for delivery of health care in

this Province. There are only two Liberal health ministers left now, Minister

Rock and the current minister. Or Pops' or Pop,' he is being called.

So we have Pop' and we have Rock,' I say now. It is not the right

music to our ears in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have to get our act together now, I would say, and the

minister must do something to get the proper delivery of health care in our

Province.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Home care is probably going to be one of the fastest rising concerns in this

Province as we go in to the years to come with an aging population. I think it

is only appropriate that we concentrate and come up with a plan that will

certainly meet the needs of people of the Province.

I would like to point out to the minister, though, that without going to

Ottawa there is one area of concern for home care workers that he can address

right here, and that is affording workers' compensation protection to workers

who provide home care that they have promised to do for years now and have

failed to act. I think that is a good start for this Province to take.

The other thing is the drug patent. The fastest rising cost in the health

care system today is the cost of prescription drugs. I think our minister should

remind the federal minister that it was a promise of their government that they

were going to review that when they ran the 1993 election campaign. They have

failed to revisit that, they have failed to address the problem that the drug

patent act is causing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - to the cost of medicare. I think the minister here would

be well served to remind the federal minister of that promise that was made back

then.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I stand today in the House to congratulate Landscape

Newfoundland and Labrador on a very successful trade show over the weekend. In

addition, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Horticulture Council, an organization that represents sectors of this industry.

It is the dedication of the business community and marketing such as trade

shows and conferences that helps keep us in touch with new horticulture

initiatives and issues that are important to the industry.

The rapid expansion in consumer acceptance and consumption of medicinal and

nutraceutical products has created significant opportunities in the production

and processing of many of these medicinal herbs. There was recently a

Nutraceutical Conference held in St. John's with over 160 registered

participants that was extremely well attended. It is an extremely exciting

opportunity for the future.

In support of the medicinal and nutraceutical sectors, the department has

established a number of trials and on-farm demonstration plots across the

Province in an effort to evaluate the potential of a selection of medicinal

herbs for commercial production. The Department of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods believes that the Province is well positioned to benefit economically

from this growth industry and create new employment.

The traditional horticulture sector has a long history in the Province.

Newfoundland and Labrador farmers grow a high quality product. There were over

1,900 acres of crop planted in 1998. With the increase in landscape, gardening

and nutraceuticals the horticulture industry has tremendous growth potential.

We have heard from the major retail chains that they want local product. This

industry is expanding to meet that demand. I was pleased to have the opportunity

on Friday to open the Landscape 2000 show and very impressed with the quality of

the exhibitions and the high level of attendance over the weekend. This sector

is expanding and we look forward to a productive season for the industry, and

for future creation of new jobs in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I can say to this is that a big congratulations has to go out to the

farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador. Under the conditions that they have to do

their business in this Province today, with the rising costs of fuels and things

in their business, it is important that we do everything we can to help our

farmers and enhance the industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, all I can say to

the earlier part of the minster's statement is ditto to what he said.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also had the pleasure of attending Landscape 2000 over the weekend, and it

was a very good show, showing that there is a lot of interest in this particular

sector, and a lot of people in this Province who are very active in promoting

their own products and services in this area. I look forward to aggressive

programs by the minister - not just encouragement, but aggressive programs by

the minister - to get into some of this import substitution in horticultural

products in the large chain stores and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - see what programs the minister has to encourage those

particular activities.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, if I could, please.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister on a point of privilege.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise again an issue I

raised at one point last year. Having full admiration and respect for the rules

of the House, I understand that one of our one fundamental principles in this

Legislature is that we are to accept statements made by members in the

Legislature as being factual. We are not allowed to suggest anyone is lying or

misleading the House, and that is a rule I have always lived by.

I would like to give an example as to how I believe my privileges, and all of

us as members in the Legislature, have been abused, based on a comment from

Wednesday, March 23, less than a week ago, in a CBC Newfoundland and Labrador

report where the Opposition House Leader and health critic indicated: I have

never said there were $100 million worth of inefficiencies in the system, says

the Opposition House Leader and health critic, the Member for Ferryland.

I would just like to point out from Hansard comments actually made in this

Legislature by the hon. member, starting on March 18, 1999. If I might just take

a minute, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is critically important.

To continue, "I say to the minister, and to the Premier too, we have had

people from all over this Province today, the health care system - the problem

is not necessarily a shortage of dollars. The system, the way it is is operated

and administered today, I can tell you, in a grossly inefficient system."

It is a grossly inefficient system, Mr. Speaker. Inefficiently operating health

care boards are here in this Province. They are grossly inefficient, Mr.

Speaker. If you were doing - he was saying this to the government - what is

needed, and using the dollars where they are supposed to be spent -

"Because I can tell you that $100 million will not fix health care in this

Province..." the way this government is wasting money in the system.

That is on March 18. On March 24, again from Hansard, the record of this

House, in a debate, the Opposition health critic said: "There are millions

of dollars wasted in our system today; scarce resources, I might add, very

scarce resources, that should be used to improve the health of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians." Not $100 million but millions of dollars.

On March 25 the Hansard reports he said: "[the system] is gobbling up

dollars inefficiently."

These are his words, Mr. Speaker, in Hansard: "The Auditor General

refers to it. Maclean's Magazine tells us that 40 per cent of the

dollars spent" in the system are inefficient. Further, he says: "That

is $30 billion dollars in the country. It is hundreds of millions in this

Province, and there is nothing done to fix the problem..." That is a direct

quote in Hansard in this legislature from the critic opposite.

Then I would like to know how are we supposed to sit here and suggest that we

take that as being the truth when we hear from the media: I've never said

there were $100 million worth of inefficiencies in the system, says Opposition

House Leader and health critic, the Member for Ferryland.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to know, if my privileges are not being

breached, how it is I am supposed to sit in the Legislature and not suggest that

there is either a misrepresentation or a lie being told in the House if what is

being said outside the House is the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out for the Government

House Leader, but in particular for the Minister of Health, that I know his

feelings have been seriously damaged by the Opposition House Leader, but I am

sure he will get over it. In getting over it, I would suggest that the only

member who has seriously attempted to breach privileges here is the Minister of

Health, because he has put on a show this afternoon for the media to try to

create something that does not exist.

I want to refer him to Beauchesne 31(1) where it says: "A dispute

arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the

conditions of parliamentary privilege." Also, 31(3) - and this is what is

really conclusive, Mr. Speaker, but not to predetermine what you may rule -

says: "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the

basis for a question of privilege." The minister knows this. The reason he

stood today is someone shuffled a paper over to him about five minutes before he

got up and said: Can you do this to try to create a story that does not exist?

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you will deliberate on the question of privilege. It

is not the first time that the Minister of Health or the Member for Exploits has

tried this tactic and I am sure it won't be the last.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the question raised by the minister

under advisement.

Oral Questions

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

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

My questions are for the Premier. About eleven months ago in the House I

asked the former Minister of Energy, dealing with a transmission line from the

in-feed, and a negotiation with the in-feed, between the Province and the

federal government. I asked at that time, and the record of Hansard clearly

shows, that my information indicated that the federal government had not at any

point in time bought into the notion of assisting the Province with financing

such an in-feed.

This is what the former minister said at the time: The transmission line

issue, the in-feed to the Island, is a matter solely to be done by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with some assistance from the Government

of Canada, if it can be arranged. We are still in those discussions.

I would like to ask the Premier this. In light of your recent statements that

now there is no transmission line, and that you are moving towards what you

figure to be a natural gas line so there is now no need for a transmission line,

can you update the House - and through the House the people of the Province -

on: Has the federal government said no, outright, to you and to the government

and thus to the people of the Province on helping or assisting in providing a

transmission line to the Province that would provide a continuous, uninterrupted

supply of cheap electrical power forever and a day?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is not

addressing the real question. The real question is - that I would have thought

the question he would have put is - this: If a transmission line makes sense and

if a transmission line is efficient, will the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador support it? Or does the government have a position like that adopted by

the Conservative Party at its convention - in which, by the way, interestingly

enough, the Leader of the Opposition has chosen not to talk about - which is

whether it makes sense or not, whether it is cost-efficient or not, we are going

to build it even it means we spend every cent of profit out of a future

hydroelectric project?

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition, that although that may be the

position adopted by the Conservative Party after a visit by Brian Peckford who

came down from British Columbia, dropped it on the table of the convention, left

a little leadership behind, scurried back to British Columbia and left the

Leader of the Opposition to explain it, that is not the position of this

government. We will only proceed with a project if it makes sense for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: What a change in position since March 8, 1998. The Premier's

chief negotiator for the Province publicly stated that the transmission line was

one of the fundamentals of achieving a Lower Churchill agreement, one of the

fundamentals that needed to take place. The Premier himself acknowledged it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier also knows the feasibility study, and former

ministers, have said that the transmission line is economically feasible over a

twenty to twenty-five year period.

I would like to ask the Premier this question. In view of the fact that you

will not answer why it was so important two years ago and it is not now - it

seems that you have given up on the transmission mission in favour of a natural

gas pipeline from White Rose development - is that to say that the position of

you and your government then is that you are in favour of a gravity-based

structure for the development of White Rose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition still has not

addressed the fundamental question. Government said that a transmission line to

the Island is important enough that it needs to be studied and that is what

officials, both federal and provincial, have been doing and are doing and will

reach a conclusion very shortly on. Because we do not believe, unlike the party

opposite, that you blunder into something on the basis of: We are going to do it

whether or not it makes any sense. Exactly the same criteria would apply with

respect to the mode of development for White Rose.

In case the Leader of the Opposition does not realize it, there are going to

be public hearings. We are getting close to April, but it is late March. In

September the C-NOPB will hold public hearings on the mode of production for

White Rose. We will have a proposition, one would assume based on what Husky has

said, on an FPSO and we will have a proposal on the table, I suspect, based on

what Mr. Tom Tatham and his group are saying, on a GBS.. There will be a set of

public hearings six months from now.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking the government to pronounce itself

on a mode of development prior to hearing the case being made by either party,

we will not do that. We are going to respect the process.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the Premier's

response because he has pronounced himself on an in-feed when he has just

admitted publicly that the negotiations between this government and the federal

government have not concluded. You have just said, that negotiations on the

in-feed between the federal and provincial government have not concluded. Yet

you have been out saying we do not need a transmission line because it is not

economically feasible.

I will ask you this question. Using your own words, Premier, of course, if

negotiations between the Province and the federal government have not yet

concluded, then how have you arrived at an analysis that a transmission line is

not economically feasible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I have said. What I have

said is not that negotiations - and the Leader of the Opposition should pause,

stay calm, listen, reflect before he speaks. I said there is a study ongoing

between both levels of government to determine whether or not such a line is

ultimately feasible.

What I have said many times is that we are not prepared to blindly subscribe

to a transmission line unless, at the end of the day, that transmission line

makes sense to Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, if that is truly the

cheapest and most secure form of long-term power for the Province then that is

something we would promote and support; but if it is not something that, in the

long run, gives us the cheapest form of power for our Province we would have no

interest in it. Likewise, when it comes to a question like offshore development

and mode of production, you do not prejudge a process in March that does not

even go to public hearings until September.

The Leader of the Opposition the other day in the House said to me: Why doesn't

the Premier just rule out any other option right now and name one option as

being a bottom line position of the Province? Mr. Speaker, he said that fully

six months before there is even a public hearing on the question! The Leader of

the Opposition should lead by first of all listening and considering all of the

options before coming to hard and fast conclusions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, sound public policy dictates that we do things

in the public interest. What this Premier and this government fail to understand

or operate under is that not one of us, not one single one of us in this House

or anywhere, is as important as all of us, I say to the Premier.

I want to ask you this question, in view of the fact that you have made a

statement that the transmission line, in your view, is not economically feasible

- you have said that publicly - in view of the fact that natural gas pipeline is

what you are anchoring for and betting on, I would like to ask you this

question, in terms of statements made this morning by Husky Oil that in order

for a natural gas pipeline to proceed, that their analysis would require 6

trillion cubic feet of natural gas - they have contended that there is only 1

trillion cubic feet within that find - has the Department of Mines and Energy,

or anybody in Executive Council, done any preparatory work in terms of preparing

government for what may come out of it in terms of the decision that you will

have to make on behalf of all of us? Has any preparatory work been done related

to that statement by Husky Oil?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I heard the comments that were

ascribed to Husky and they refer to the viability of having natural gas as an

export product into the New England market. For purposes of having sufficient

natural gas to export into the New England market, the amount of natural gas

that will be required for that is a far larger number than what would be

required to build a pipeline to the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador to use

natural gas here, to strip off liquids and to support other industry and, for

that matter, to displace current sources of power; for example, Holyrood. So the

Leader of the Opposition has to distinguished between the amount of natural gas

required to go to the Northeast New England market - that is probably 5 trillion

or 6 trillion cubic feet - and the amount of natural gas that may be required,

which would be substantially less, to justify a pipeline or a connection to the

Island of Newfoundland and Labrador itself, and in the first instance to use gas

here on the Island.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has now asked the right question:

Is the government -

MR. J. BYRNE: Which is it? Who do you support, (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry, the Member for Cape St. Francis is saying

what?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Cape St.

Francis wants to ask a question. I would be glad to incorporate it into my

answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Do you want to have the member put the question, Mr.

Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting the fifth place

party headed up by Joe Clark. I will be supporting the Liberal candidate in St.

John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I could support the third place party led by the NDP, or

we could support the second place Opposition Party led by the CRAPP - I mean,

the Alliance - or the Official Opposition led by the Bloc, but we are going to

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier did not answer the

question. He was looking for a diversion and some of my members, in an impromptu

way, provided him that; but I will ask him this question. The provincial

Atlantic Accord with respect to development. If development proceeds on White

Rose where all of the field is not developed in terms of the significant

reservoir of natural gas and oil, and it is only developed to take oil, it can

be compared to high-grading, similar to that which Inco initially wanted to do

with the ovoid and not explore it; that is my understanding.

I would like to ask the Premier this: In view of the preparatory work that

you were about to tell me you had done, does the Department of Mines and Energy

or Executive Council - has it recommended a position to government to take

ultimately that would see all of that field developed the way it should be

developed, which would be in accordance to the benefits of the people of this

Province? In other words, has the Department of Mines and Energy and Executive

Council -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - recommended to you, as Premier, and your Mines and Energy

Minister, that a GBS type of development would be in the best, long-term

interests of the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was about to tell the Leader of the

Opposition, before I was so rudely interrupted by the Member for Cape St.

Francis, that in fact there are -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, does the Member for Cape St. Francis have a

question he wants to put?

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say before I was so rudely

interrupted again, the government, in conjunction with the Newfoundland Ocean

Industries Association,

otherwise known as NOIA, is conducting studies, jointly sponsored,

independently provided by outside experts, into the best way to proceed with

respect to the development of natural gas, offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

Is our want - we are taking the trouble to seek not only the advice of the

Department of Mines and Energy, which the Leader of the Opposition referred to,

but to seek outside expert advice, to give us the advice as a Province as to how

we should proceed with respect to the development of natural gas. We are doing

that in partnership not just between several departments of government but with

the Newfoundland industry itself, which is involved in the support and supply of

services for offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

It appears to us that is the most reasonable way to go and we are doing that,

knowing that there is going to be a public hearing process in September. We are

now in March; six months from now we will be in public hearings. When the time

comes, we will be prepared to take our full and proper role and we will do so on

the basis of sound information, not opinion and not dialogue which is flung out

across the floor without any proper research.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to take the time to reflect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - properly upon these issues without flinging out their

opinions which (inaudible) based on substance.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is either to the Premier or the acting energy minister. The

government has a decision report from the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum

Board relating to an application from the Hibernia Management and Development

Corporation to increase annual production from the Hibernia field from 49.5

million barrels to 66 million barrels. This constitutes a 33 per cent increase

in the depletion rate of the Hibernia field and would reduce the production life

of the Hibernia field by one-third. My question to the acting Minister of Mines

and Energy, or the Premier, is: What, in fact, did the C-NOPB decide or

recommend?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the C-NOPB has given permission

to the HMDC group to go to daily increase in production but not annual increase

in production. That matter is now with the Minister of Mines and Energy, with

the government. It is a question that is now being analyzed. In fact, it is one

that I expect we will be dealing with and looking at later this week.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, in fact, it may it may be too late if it is later on

this week. We have a statement released by the C-NOPB dated February 17, 2000,

and it states that under the acts - because both ministers were advised, federal

and provincial - the ministers have thirty days from receipt of the C-NOPB

decision report to approve or reject the board's decisions.

Mr. Premier, aren't you and isn't your government too late? Therefore

resulting in, whatever the decision or recommendation of C-NOPB in fact will be,

what the decision of this government will be.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I checked on this matter just a few days ago

and we are still operating within the prescribed time frame, and still taking

the time necessary to do a proper analysis before we come to a conclusion.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Minister, in

light of the fears of a decision coming from the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans that a reduction in the snow crab quota this year might be as high as 20

per cent to 50 per cent, the minister knows full well the devastation that this

will cause to fishers, plant workers, rural Newfoundland, and in fact the whole

economy of this Province. I ask the minister if his department has made a

recommendation to the federal department; and, if so, how is he suggesting that

reduction in quota be levied among the different fleet sectors?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't made a recommendation on the cuts or

the proposed cuts that are expected to come from science, nor would I intend to.

I would hope that we will all listen to the science from the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans. Consultation has actually started today in Grand Falls

with industry. They will continue tomorrow here in St. John's, and in Labrador

on Wednesday. At the conclusion of those consultations, a recommendation from

the industry will go off to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada.

Our position, as a government, the industry's position, is that we have to

be aware of what happened in the past and we have to take every consideration to

what science will put to the minister and industry.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, as you know, the snow crab quota has already been suggested for

this year. Fishermen have invested millions of dollars to buy new boats, repair

boats, and purchase fishing equipment. Here we are, one week before the fishery

is to begin, and we still don't know what quota of snow crab fishermen will be

allowed to catch.

I ask the minister, number one, if this fishery will commence on April 1?

Will the under thirty-five foot sector, the fishermen who maintain our rural

communities, have a crab quota in order to maintain the viability of their

enterprises?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot predict what is going to come out of

the discussions this week. I hope it is not as bad as was first perceived, but

as far as the crab season starting April 1, the minister has said that as soon

as industry concludes the discussions with DFO this week and the recommendations

go forth to Ottawa, he will not delay his decision by no more than the week of

April 3-6. So it will get an early start, getting that information up to Ottawa.

I understand that everybody, not only the small boat fishermen but everybody,

has made a significant investment for the year 2000, getting ready for the crab

season; but the one thing that none of us can do is ignore the advice of

science, regardless of how much money is invested. We don't want to go the way

of Alaska and have no crab fishery at all. We want to base it on the long-term

interest of everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we don't want to be alarmists over here.

We have just as much belief in the conservation as the members opposite, but the

problem is the lack of science, the lack of money that has been put forward so

we can know what this fishery can stand and what it can't.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, DFO scientists have raised the possibility that

crab stocks may be exhausted in three years' time. Has the minister approached

his federal colleague to have a contingency plan brought forward to help fishers

and plant workers in the event that there is a catastrophic collapse in this

particular fishery?

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

MR. EFFORD: I can't believe question coming from the Opposition critic

for fisheries today, to say: Do we have a contingency plan?

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been minister since 1996 and the one

thing, in representing this government, that we have put forth to every

fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador: diversify, diversify, diversify. Look at

underutilized species. Take advantage of every opportunity in that ocean. Manage

the fishery on a conservation measure, under principle of conservation. Do not

put all of your eggs in one basket. If the crab stocks are starting to go down,

at least we have the good commonsense to catch it before it goes into a total

collapse. Listen to science. Let's not go fearmongering that it is all over.

It is not all over!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: It is not all over. You are fearmongering. You are going to

drive the people out there now into saying: It is all over boys, like it was in

1992, and I am not going to be a part of a public discussion like that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Premier and it relates to the White Rose development.

The C-NOPB has an appalling record of protecting jobs and benefits for

Newfoundlanders and the issue of the engineers in Leatherhead, England is a

perfect example.

What confidence does this Premier have in the ability of the C-NOPB to

conduct proper hearings and actually consider these issues of jobs and benefits

for Newfoundland? Is it government's intention to let them make the decisions

on behalf of this government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am really a bit surprised that the Leader

of the NDP would stand up and, first of all, put a position the other day

prejudging the issue and then, having put the position which prejudges the issue

- which, by the way, will not be heard for six months - is now up today saying

that there is no independent regulator; that a proponent, be it an offshore oil

and gas company, be it a union, be it somebody wanting to build a natural gas

pipeline or a GBS or any other proponent can go to.

If I hear the Leader of the NDP correctly, he is saying that any

quasi-judicial panel to which competing and conflicting interests can go to be

heard, in his judgement, in this Province, is completely incompetent, should

therefore be ruled out of order, should be struck down; and I guess he is saying

that the total development of the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador should be in the hands of a single ministry within the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Is that what the Leader of the NDP is suggesting?

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record itself is clear as to what steps the C-NOPB has done in this

regard. What I want to know is: What steps is government prepared to take to

ensure that the issue of jobs and benefits is properly decided by the C-NOPB,

and what role is this government prepared to play? Are they prepared to take a

position on this issue and make representation to the C-NOPB? Are they prepared

to put conditions in place without which they would use their veto to ensure

that we have maximum return on our oil resources off our Province? What steps

are they prepared to take to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is now acknowledging

that the government does have a role, and government does have an ability to

have a very substantial say at the end of the day, but I want to go back to the

earlier comment because I think it is very, quite frankly, dangerous and

counterproductive to get up and to say of the thirty, thirty-five or forty

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who work at the C-NOPB, that they have been

incompetent, that they have not done their jobs, that their record is so

shameful that the C-NOPB should be wiped out.

I want to say to the Leader of the NDP, and I want him to reflect upon what I

am saying, when those kind of prejudicial comments are made against that

collection of men and women from Newfoundland and Labrador who have a regulatory

function to perform on behalf of two levels of government, their ability to

function is diminished when an officer of this House, a Leader of a party in

this House, more or less suggests they ought to be put out of business.

I want, for the record, to know from the Leader of the NDP if that is the

position of his party. If it is, we will deal with it; but I would like a clear

statement of the position of the NDP in the Legislature of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. The

federal government's commitment to health care has decreased from around 50

per cent down to about 15 per cent, basically, of our budget today, where health

care comes from the federal government. It is now based on a per capita amount,

and we know that our share under per capita has been decreased because now we

are only about 1.8 per cent of the Canadian population and we can expect it to

go down further on a per capital basis in the future because of growing

provinces - Ontario, Alberta, and other provinces across the country.

Now, the minister knows full well the federal government is not interested in

paying for the operation of hospitals here in our Province. It is more

interested in funding programs like home care and pharmacare, more into health

education or health promotion. I hope the minister realizes that, and he made

some reference today in his statement to that.

I ask the minister, what plan does he have if this trend continues and the

federal government does not put more money in? Or is the federal government your

only plan, Minister, for health care in our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, at least I think the people of the Province are

coming to understand that we do have a plan and we been taking some action,

because if they were listening to the Opposition they wouldn't know if we

should put more in or take some out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - because, depending on the time of day, the day of the week,

which month it is, which year it is, whether we are inside the Legislature or

outside the Legislature, we don't know which story we are going to get or what

the answer would be.

Mr. Speaker, the record is completely clear. This government is doing

everything it can, along with the rest of the provincial and territorial

governments in the country, some of which happen to be Progressive Conservative

and some of which agree with the approaches that this government is taking in

Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, at the meeting on the weekend,

we got high praise from the health minister from Ontario, a Progressive

Conservative government. We got high praise from the minister from New

Brunswick, a Progressive Conservative government. We go high praise from the

minister from Nova Scotia, for the very fact that despite all of our collective

meaningful fashion for funding right across the country, that they recognize -

they must not have heard your representations or your leader's representations

in this Legislature in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - they recognize, because they look at it dispassionately and

in a non-political way because they are not running against us as a political

government, that we have backfilled -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his anser.

from this system and then more in the last five years, Mr. Speaker. They

recognize that we did put our money where our mouth is and they only hope that

they can do it when some of them bring down their budgets in the not-too-distant

future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He was puzzled the last time. I am puzzled, too, because I don't know what

the minister's plan is. These estimates here showed $31.7 million new dollars

in the health care compared to last year, not $130-some million. I ask the

minister, how is he going to live up to the expectations of nurses and other

health care professionals to improve their salary and benefit levels that will

keep them in the Province this year?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it again that the Opposition health critic, if he did take me up on

the offer to come over here and become the Minister of Health and Community

Services, would have tried to convince the Minister of Finance to put in the

Budget, in a salary line, the exact amount of increase that is going to occur

for nurses, for all of the people who are in the allied health professions, for

the social workers, so that we would predetermine several months before the

process again even concludes - this seems to be a theme of theirs today: Never

mind the process, don't let anything happen, just make a judgement today -

that we should have put a line in the Budget to determine exactly what the

increase might be for nurses, for licenced practical nurses, for audiologists,

for speech pathologists, for pharmacists, for social workers, so that a budget

line would actually show that it is going to increase by either five cents or

$5.

Mr. Speaker, we have agreed that there is going to be - and it is needed in

the Province for us to be competitive - a general reclassification on a quick

basis for these much needed professions in the health care system. We have also

agreed on a larger initiative that there will be an overall brand new

classification system for the entire government to be concluded in two or three

years. Maybe he would suggest we should have put some number in the Budget for

that as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to quickly conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: We will in the budgetary framework pay for the increases that

come out as a result of a process that all the representatives duly respect,

even if the Opposition doesn't respect the process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Today I have a question for the Minister of Education. Over two years ago, I

say to the Minister of Education, the former Minister of Education approved

funding to the sum of $5 million for a new school to serve the Pouch Cove, Flat

Rock and Bauline area. In the past two years I have been negotiating back and

forth with the Department of Education, the school board and whatever to try and

get this project off the ground. They were supposed to be in the school in

September 1999, then September, 2000, and now they are talking about -

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Gander hospital.

MR. J. BYRNE: Like the Gander hospital, or whatever. Now they are talking

about September 2001. Would the minister stand today and confirm that the money

is there and that the children will be in that school by September 2001?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that I now have three critics for

education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS FOOTE: Yes, the money is there to build the new school, and as with

any new facility there is some negotiation that takes place. There is always a

wish list, Mr. Speaker. There are things that everyone would like to see that we

cannot afford to put into a school, but I can tell you that the schools that

have been built throughout this Province are state-of-the-art facilities with

the latest in technology, and they are built in such a manner that all of our

children can learn in a clean and safe environment. The same will happen down in

Pouch Cove.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

The Chair would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today, Mr. George

Fizzard, Mayor of Grand Le Pierre in the District of Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice of a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the provincial government entered into a deal enabling Friede Goldman

to take over the Marystown Shipyard operation on the condition that it meets

certain specified employment targets; and

WHEREAS Friede Goldman has failed to meet the employment target specified in

its agreement with the Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House urge the government to enforce

the penalty provisions of its agreement with Friede Goldman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for the

granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today to say a few more words on Interim Supply. I guess what

motivated me to get up and speak today is an

article that was in The Express .

It was in response to an interview that was done by Brian Jones with the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Just last week the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs came back from Ottawa and talked about the wonderful

meeting he had with the federal minister of HRD, the hon. Jane Stewart. He

talked about this very productive meeting where he and a group of Members of the

House of Assembly on the government's side met with the minister. The minister

was very concerned about the problem we are having here in Newfoundland with EI.

The minister went on to say - in an interview with The Telegram - that

the minister was going to look very seriously at the intensity rule, which is a

rule that is put in place that penalizes people who are on employment insurance

for any more than one consecutive year. It goes from fifty-five to fifty.

He had a brilliant solution here, and our minister appears to be agreeing

with her. I can't understand it, especially I say to my friend to my far right

there, with that minister's humble beginnings. I can't see how he could now

come back and gloat over this great meeting he had.

I would like to refer members to a piece I cut out of The Express for

March 22-28. On page 11, under the headline "EI woes could be solved by

increasing wages, says federal minister," the first paragraph reads:

"The problem of inadequate incomes for seasonal workers in Newfoundland who

can't qualify for Employment Insurance (EI) has a straightforward solution -

employers should pay them more." Nobody is going to disagree with that.

Nobody is going to disagree with employers giving employees a wage hike.

Just let me continue. Paragraph three says: "Workers in seasonal

industries - such as the fishery, logging, agriculture, construction and tourism

- suffer under the current EI systems intensity rule,' which reduces a

person's benefits by one per cent each time he or she goes on EI." It is

all straightforward. What the minister went on to say is: "The industry

has to look at what it can do to help out in this situation,' says Noel. If

they're doing very well, then they should look at how they may be able to help

increase the benefits for workers.'"

Here is the solution of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who

represents this government, this House of Assembly, when he goes off to Ottawa

to make representation to the Prime Minister and to the federal ministers. He

says: "The ideal solution would be that the people who work in seasonal

industries would be able to earn enough during the period that they're working

to provide an adequate income for the whole year. In many cases in these

industries, that would require an increase in wages.'"

What the minister is saying - and he goes on to talk about seasonal workers

and how fish plants are doing very well and a lot of the tourism industries are

very lucrative industries. Fishery Products International is an employer that I

would consider to be a good employer here in this Province. They pay their

employees and production workers - I think, with the latest contract -

approximately $12 an hour. That is not counting benefits. What the minister is

suggesting - most of them only work fourteen or fifteen weeks a year, so I guess

they would have to increase their wages... Vic Young should go on alert that the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is suggesting that the fishery workers'

wages be increased to $35 or $40 an hour, because that is what they would have

to make in order to take up the slack to provide them with an adequate income

while they are unemployed.

You can go down to Bonavista or out to Clarenville and talk to the restaurant

owners there and tell them to be on alert. The Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs is suggesting that the restaurant owners who get busy during the summer

months are going to have to pay their waitresses $35 an hour. He is going to do

away with EI because the employers should pay them more money. The employers

should pay them enough money within the twelve or fourteen weeks that they are

fortunate enough to be employed, to look after them for the other thirty-five or

thirty-six weeks.

This is what our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister who

waited so long to be in Cabinet to represent the people of this Province, the

minister who had so much to offer - and I really believed he did - this is what

he came back with from Ottawa as a solution to the EI problem.

Minister, I can assure you that you are dreaming in technicolor. While we

have lots of problems, I think the solutions to those problems need a little bit

more thought than going out and telling the restaurant owner or the craft shop

owner out in Port de Grave or down in Ship Cove somewhere, that if you are going

to hire somebody then you had better be prepared to pay them about $40 an hour

because they are going to have to save enough money to take them through the

other thirty-five weeks of the year.

You know what the price of fuel is, you know what the price of oil is, you

know what a mortgage is, you know what people are going to have to make in order

to be able to tuck away enough money in order to look after themselves for the

other thirty-six weeks a year. It is disgraceful, I say to members opposite.

For somebody on the government side to come back from a meeting in Ottawa

with a federal minister and say this is a solution, it is disgraceful. I am very

disappointed in the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who had gone to

Ottawa - I had been encouraging the minister to go to Ottawa. I said: Take me

with you, Minister, because I feel that I have a contribution to make. Take me

with you. Take a committee of this House up and meet with the federal minister

so there will be no doubt that what we are suggesting - the Member for

Twillingate& Fogo knows full well and the Member for Bellevue knows full

well what their constituents are going through. Go down to Twillingate and tell

the fellow down there who has the craft shop set up that he should pay his

employees $40 an hour. This is what your minister is saying. This is what the

minister brought back from Ottawa.

I have gone to the minister and said: Minister, what we should do is, we

should get a committee of the House so that it would be a non-partisan and leave

no doubt in the minister's mind, when you go and meet with her, that this is

not something that is going to be picked apart in the House of Assembly. This is

not something that she is going to suffer from, a decision that she might make

because she has been good to the people who are less fortunate. Take a committee

of the whole House up so you can say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can include me.

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. You are a member with a district that I say

would be laughed at. If you went and took that

article down to your district,

down to Nain, Davis Inlet, Makkovik Postville, Rigolet, they would drive you out

of the place because they know how unrealistic it is.

I said to the minister: Form a non-partisan committee to represent the whole

House - somebody form the Liberal side, somebody from the New Democratic Party,

somebody from the Progressive Conservative Party - and let's go up and make a

plea together. Whether we want o believe it or whether we want to accept it or

not, people who work at seasonal jobs in this Province, unemployment insurance -

or the new word, employment insurance - is always going to be part of their

livelihood because the opportunity is not there for them to work year round. The

opportunity is not there. While they provide a very valuable service,

well-trained people, the opportunity is not there for them to work year round.

I said to the minister: Minister, let's leave no doubt because this is

hurting a lot of people. Let's leave no doubt in anybody's mind, especially

in the minster's mind, in light of what happened to some of the decisions that

she has made in dishing out funding through rural areas, let's leave no doubt

in her mind that she will not get a black eye over this one because it is

something that we all agree with.

Let's go to Ottawa together or invite the minister down. We don't have to

go to Ottawa; invite the minister down to meet with a non-partisan committee, to

meet with a committee of the whole House, so she will know which hymn book we

are coming from and she will know that we are singing the same tune. Let's lay

our concerns together and say: Minister, something has to be done with, number

one, the intensity rule. Something has to be done with training. The $26 billion

there should be spent, if we are going to look at some ways of spending it and

spending it in a meaningful way, then we should include training in that

particular proposal, because I am a firm believer -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am a firm believer that if we provide training -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Member for Bonavista South that the argument

for this Province was well made in Ottawa last week by the delegation that we

sent up there: the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the Member for

Topsail, and the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

You haven't said anything in this House, you haven't made any argument in

this Province, that we haven't made on behalf of our Province and our people

who are being harmed by this EI program. To have brought you to Ottawa last week

would have been to take excess baggage that we don't need to take to Ottawa to

give us advice on the argument that needs to be made for our Province.

If the kind of representation you would give in Ottawa is the kind that you

have exhibited here today, then I think we did well by leaving you home. How

could anybody read through the statements that have been made, the articles that

have been printed, and come to the misleading kind of conclusions that we have

heard from you here today? Nobody is talking about having people, the owners of

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I prefaced what I was saying by referring

to an

article that was printed by - and I even gave the writer's name - Mr.

Brian Jones of the Express. E verything I have said here today is in

relationship and repeating what was printed in the Express . Is the

minister standing here today and saying these are lies that this journalist has

printed in the paper? If it is, then I suggest that he talk to Brian Jones and

not come back at the messenger.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. minister to take his seat. Please wait until the Chair

has made a ruling. There has been a point of order. The Chair has not ruled on

the point of order, and I would ask the minister to remember to be recognized

before he continues debate.

There is no point of order.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: It is not so much that I am not used to being up; it is that I

am so anxious to correct the falsehoods that have been just stated by the Member

for Bonavista South.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis to try and restrain himself,

and I would ask all hon. members. It is very difficult - I can understand the

hon. minister not being able to hear the Chair because it is very difficult at

times to hear anyone in this House.

Again, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs.

MR. NOEL: You are absolutely right -

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the minister just stood up and said that he

stood to correct the falsehoods that were put forward by the Member for

Bonavista. I do believe falsehoods is an unparliamentary word that should not be

used in this House.

CHAIR: The Chair is unable to rule on that because again the Chair did

not hear the hon. minister say that. As I stated earlier, it is almost

impossible to hear anything that is happening in the House, so the Chair is

unable to rule on that but we will take a...

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, if I attributed assertions to the hon. member

that he did not make, I apologize; but he did say that what I was saying was

that people who operate craft stores, people who operate tourist businesses and

things like that in this Province, should pay their workers $35 or $40 an hour.

Did you not say that?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I did.

MR. NOEL: That is nowhere in that article. You made that up.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I didn't.

MR. NOEL: I never said anything like that. Nobody has said anything like

that.

We went to Ottawa last weekend and we made tremendous progress. For five

years now, we have been trying to get changes in the EI system that we need for

people who are having difficulties in our Province. One of the pieces of

progress we made was to help persuade the Prime Minister to make a commitment to

reform the EI program, to try to deal with some of these problems. Another piece

of progress we made was to persuade the party of the government of this country,

the Liberal Party, to pass a resolution calling for the immediate elimination of

the intensity provisions from the Employment Insurance Act.

Another thing we accomplished was to have a successful meeting with the

minister of the Department of Human Resources and Development, and to explain to

her our point of view and discuss with her the problems and potential solutions,

and get her commitment to come down to this Province. This is after five years

of trying to do something about this EI program. We have finally gotten the

minister responsible to commit to come down to this Province and to talk with

industry representatives, communion representatives, labour representatives,

governments and anybody else who is interested and appropriate, to talk about

potential solutions to the problem.

This is a complicated problem, and it will not be solved by having people

like the Member for Bonavista South get up and mislead people about what people

are saying.

If you want to have a solution, if you are serious about a solution, then get

into the debate and let us hear your solutions. The fact of the matter is that

we have a very difficult question to deal with here.

AN HON. MEMBER: They cut money (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: They cut money and that is a problem for the people who are

being hurt as a result, but we have deal with the reality that across this

country there are a lot of people who wanted the EI system changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, we do not seem to make much progress in getting

order in the House.

If we are going to get the kind of changes we want, then we have to be united

in what we are looking for and we have to be prepared with the interest in other

parts of the country in order to get a solution that we can have a consensus

around and one that will be implemented.

Now, the only thing that we said about the possibility of employers making a

further contribution -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, would the Member for Baie Verte like to have the

floor?

MR. SHELLEY: I am going to, as soon as you sit down.

MR. NOEL: Well, why don't you be quiet and I will finish more quickly

and you will get the floor more quickly.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Mr. Chairman, in order to get a solution to this problem, we

have to deal with the views of people who do not agree with the kind of solution

that we want. Now, we have the commitment of the federal government and the

federal minister to do something, and we have to be prepared to talk to her

about it. One of the things we have to do is to try to persuade employers - and

this is what I said in the

article and in interviews, the minister said - who

are in a position, those who are doing very well these days, to try to find ways

to extend the period of employment for people who are not able to work enough to

make a decent living.

Perhaps we can do this through some training programs, as somebody on the

other side suggested a little while ago. Perhaps we can do it through changing

the way these industries operate, as the Minister of Fisheries in our government

have been trying to encourage people to diversify our fishery, to harvest

different products, to harvest more products, to do more manufacturing in our

Province so that we create more jobs in our Province. The Minister of Forestry

and Agriculture has been doing the same thing. The Minister of Tourism has been

doing the same thing, to try to extend the seasons of our tourism industry so

that we can enable people hopefully to get year-round work and, if we can't do

that, to get enough work so that they can qualify for good employment benefits

when they are unable to work.

The minister and the federal government has indicated that they are not

simply prepared to make the simplistic changes that the hon. member is calling

for, to just say: Okay, we will give everybody more money. What they are saying

is that they want to talk to the various interests to see if we can work out a

system to focus on the areas of the country and the regions in the provinces

that are having the most difficulty. This is the case in our Province, in the

other Atlantic provinces, in rural parts of Quebec, and all the other provinces

across the country. They realize they have a problem and they are prepared to

deal with it, but they want to talk to the other interests in the country about

how we can work together to deal with it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. NOEL: That is what the minister is coming down here to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the minister that those are not my words. This is from an article.

In fact, I said right from the very beginning that I was -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) $40 an hour were your words.

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. Let's look back. You talked about -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) the article. You won't find those words in there.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't interrupt the minister. If you want to stand

on a point or order, you can.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister, the $35 or $40 an hour is not hard to

figure out.

I refer to FPI, Fishery Products International, who pay most of their

laborers, most of their production workers, $12 an hour. They are working about

fourteen weeks of the year, I say to the minister. Under your suggestion, under

the suggestion you are putting forward here, figure it out for yourself. You are

not suggesting that they pay $30 or $40 an hour; it would probably be closer to

$50 or $55 an hour, I say to the minister. Figure it out yourself.

MR. NOEL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Fourteen weeks of the year, I say to the minister. Use a

little bit of math.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: I don't know where the member did his math studies but it

wasn't the same place as I did mine.

I would like to make the point that he may have been somewhat misled by that

article because of the use of the word wages. The conversation I had with the

reporter, it was an extended conversation and a complicated kind of

conversation. What I was really talking about was income, the annual income, the

period of work that people were able to get, not an increase in wage rates but

an increase of yearly wages. If they can have an increase in wage rates, that

will be fine too, but what you should understand is that what I was really

talking about there was an increase in yearly income, an increase in working

periods, and not an increase in wage rates necessarily.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, now the minister is taking back water; he

is back paddling now. I will read from the

article again. It says, "In many

cases in these industries, that would require an increase in wages." Those

are not my words. Those are words that you put in the article.

MR. NOEL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Actually, I said that if people are to have better incomes that

would require an increase in wages. How else are you going to have a better

income if your wages don't increase? I never said an increase in wage rates.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, he said he didn't say an increase in wage

rates. He talked about an increase in the length of time that people worked. It

is clearly stated here. The minister should know that those seasonal workers don't

decide themselves that: I have my fourteen weeks and I am going home. It doesn't

work that way, Minister. People are laid off in the fishery because there is no

fish to process. They are laid off with J-1 Contracting and Penny Paving because

there are no roads to build or the time of the year has gone where they can

build roads. They are laid off from their craft shop because nobody comes to buy

their crafts. It is not a situation that the minister or the people decide how

long they are going to work because it might be a benefit to the EI program.

I say to the minister, he is out of touch. He could have stated right from

the beginning that this was an incorrect statement. I would accept that. In

fact, I wish he had stated that because it would have made me have a much better

feeling about the minister and his capabilities of representing people when he

goes to Ottawa to represent them on situations where we need changes to the EI

program.

Those people who are drawing EI insurance in this Province today are doing

jobs that are very important. My fear is that because they are not getting

enough wages in order to look after their children or support their families

that they may pack up and leave, and we will see some of those industries

without qualified and experienced workers in order to go and access those jobs

that are there.

I say to the minister - and I know he is a new minister and I know he is

trying - for God's sake, minister, if you don't know the program, or if you

don't know how it works, ask somebody and make sure you put forward some

solutions that will help solve the problem.

We have $26 billion dollars in an EI account up in Ottawa. Your cousins in

Ottawa have taken $26 billion, stolen it from the taxpayers of this country. It

hurts when you get a call from somebody who says they would like to go and do a

particular training program they feel will offer them some opportunity to stay

in this Province, or stay in the community where they decide to live. Because

labour market information shows that there were a few people who took such a

training program prior to now, then they are denied access of going and taking

this particular training program. For many people who don't mind leaving their

town or community, they may find a job where they can go and contribute

something to society. We should judge people by what they have to offer

themselves, and not bring in blanket policies to cover everybody.

I say to the minister that he should pick up the telephone and call Brian

Jones. I'm sure he must have read it himself and agreed that he had said it,

or the minister would have put out a statement saying: This is not what I said.

I can tell you that I wouldn't have somebody printing something in a newspaper

that is widely distributed if it was something that didn't say. I will tell

you that I wouldn't have somebody saying that a particular interview, if it

was incorrect - that I would sit back and allow people to read it and think they

were my words if they weren't. I don't know what effort the minister put

into it, but I can tell you that it shocked me when I read this particular

article.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the paper you know (inaudible) per cent

(inaudible) correct. You know that.

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister had time to stand. He spent ten minutes and

not once did he say it was an incorrect article. All he did was defend what he

said to the minister and said what I was portraying here was wrong, I was

stretching the truth, I was telling falsehoods. None of that is true. All I am

doing is reading an

article that was printed in The Express by a Mr.

Brian Jones, and I would assume that they were the minister's words. He talked

about a meeting that he had with the minister.

Minister, I'm telling you that is not the solution to the EI problem. We

have some great problems here, and there are some problems with the EI program.

I don't think for one minute that we should just hand out cheques and not have

the onus on people to go looking for work. If we are going to make changes we

should make meaningful changes. One of the ways we can do it is get rid of some

of the silly rules and regulations they have that govern EI. Where else in this

globe would you be unemployed and the rules state that in order for you to

collect unemployment insurance you must be by the phone in order to be there for

when the phone rings. You are not allowed to look somewhere else for a job

without letting EI know. If you are out of the Province looking for employment

then you will have your wages deducted. You will loss your income because you

are not in the Province for that particular week, or whatever.

Where else would you be penalized because you are unfortunate enough to have

drawn EI in two consecutive years in a row and lose 1 per cent, which would take

you from 55 per cent to 50 per cent? Even if you didn't work fourteen weeks,

if you did not work the minimum number, you would have the amount of money that

you earned divided by a divisor of fourteen in order to derive the amount of

income you are to receive.

Unemployment insurance is not something that we all cherish being able to go

and access. For the most part we do it reluctantly. We do it because we know

that it's something that will tide us over until we get another job, and that

was the intent of the EI system. I talked on Wednesday about the need for people

to get out and look for a job, how embarrassing it is sometimes when people are

on EI, even those who are on it through no fault of their own, how they feel

they belittle themselves because they are unable to find a job. We should not go

and bring forward a suggestion that the employers should go and pay those

people. For the most part, a lot of those seasonal workers, especially the

people who work in some of the service sectors, are getting minimum wage. I say

to the minister that with the amount of money they are getting they find it

difficult to even serve their two week waiting period, let alone the other

thirty-five weeks of the year to spend the money that has been paid to them and

carry themselves and their family through the fifty-two weeks. It is not

reasonable.

I know many people on this side of the -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

CHAIR: No leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too had an opportunity to read this

article in The Express and I was

equally appalled with the apparent lack of understanding of the federal Minister

of Human Resources and Employment, responsible for EI, the incredible lack of

understanding that she had about how the EI system works and how it affects

people in this Province. The employees would love to have bigger wages. They

would be happy to have bigger wages. They would be delighted to have higher

wages. That is obviously why they are organizing unions to get them and try and

get them as much as they can but they can't solve that problem.

I wonder what the federal Minister of Human Resources and Employment is going

to do to help them solve that problem. It is all very well for her to say, and

she is quoted here - I don't know who is misquoted now; whether the hon.

member is misquoted or he is misquoting the minister, but the quotes around this

article says: "...Noel says.

"She feels they are doing well enough that they could pay better

salaries,' he says. She feels they have more of an obligation to their

employees to help provide them with better incomes.'"

Now I don't know whether the hon. minister is being misquoted or he is

misquoting the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MR. NOEL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. FITZGERALD: Would the minister like a copy?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I already have a copy, thank you.

The problem with this

article is that it contains quotes, and it attributes

comments and things said to the federal minister that the reporter said I said

about what she had to say, and things like that. The particular quote that you

are talking about is: "She feels they are doing well enough that they

could pay better salaries.'" What we are talking about there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. NOEL: I am trying to clarify what you said. She is not saying that

all employers can pay better salaries. She is saying that a few companies in

some industries may be doing so well that they can be doing more to provide

extra training programs, extra job opportunities, extra ways of stretching out

the employment period, so that these particular people can contribute a little

more to helping provide benefits for these seasonal workers who are so essential

to our system.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) debate identify which employers the minister has

done studies on which she feels can pay workers better. I am sure we would all

like to know. I am sure the employees would like to know the results of the

federal minister's study of the viability of particular industries and

particular companies so that their employees would have a good idea, when they

go to the bargaining table if they are unionized, or get unionized if they are

not, that she knows that they can pay better wages, so they can go out and get

them. So, I hope that the minister is going to bring that to the debate when he

gets up to speak up in response.

I really don't understand - I guess we are starting to understanding, if

this is all true - why the federal minister is in such trouble in the federal

House with this particular EI system. Twenty-eight billion dollars is sitting up

there is Ottawa. The member said $26 billion, but I think it is now up to $28

billion. The last press release that I have out of Ottawa, which is only the

other day, says $28 billion, so it is growing by leaps and bounds. There is $28

billion sitting there, and this has been taken out of unemployed workers.

The statistics are absolutely appalling. I have some here that come from a

CLC study, which is confirmed by a Statistics Canada study released the other

day, that shows that less than 30 per cent of unemployed women, for example, now

qualify for EI. Ten years ago, it was 70 per cent. It used to be that 70 per

cent of unemployed women qualified for UI, and now 70 per cent of them do not

qualify. I don't hear the Minister of Human Resources and Employment here, who

is also the Minister for the Status of Women, or I don't hear the Minister for

Intergovernmental Affairs talk about that as a shocking statistic.

Mr. Chairman, what about young people? Today, 10 per cent of unemployed women

under twenty-five qualify for UI. Ten years ago it was 50 per cent, unemployed

women under twenty-five who qualified for EI. Now it is 10 per cent. Ninety per

cent of young women who are unemployed do not qualify for UI any more. That is

appalling. It is a shocking discrimination against women.

Men don't fare much better. Now, 19 per cent of young men under twenty-five

qualify for EI. It used to be 58 per cent. It has gone from 58 per cent down to

19 per cent. Less than one-third of young people qualify for EI.

Now there are taken to the cleaners for higher education. The cost of higher

education in this Province and in this country has skyrocketed. They have

incredible debts, and when they cannot get jobs - we have an appallingly high

unemployment rate in this Province amongst young people under twenty-five; yet,

only 10 per cent of the women qualify for EI and 19 per cent of the men.

This has all happened as a result of changes in government legislation. All

the minister has to say about that is: Well, you know, there are people around

this country who wanted to see some changes in the UI system.

That may well be, but it is the responsibility of government to resist those

changes when they are bringing about the kind of havoc and hardship they are

doing in this Province.

Hundreds of millions of dollars... One estimate a couple of years ago - a

year ago, actually - said that there was $500 million taken out of this economy

in a matter of a couple of years from UI payments. When we talk about the

ability of people to spend money and pay taxes, whether it be GST or HST or

taxes in general, on their incomes, one of the ways that has been cut back in by

decreases in the EI system.

These rules: the intensity rule, the deviser rule, the increase in the number

of hours required in order to qualify for UI; the changeover, in fact, from

number of weeks to number of hours has itself discriminated against women, many

of whom have part-time jobs.

All of these issues are ones that need to be brought up by the Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs, not just the one that seems to be grossly

misunderstood by the federal minister. If that is the best they can do in

that is the best response that the Minister of Human Resources and Employment

can say, is that they should be paid more, well, is she prepared to come down

here and help the workers get better money? Is she prepared to give the union

some money to organize? Is she prepared to tell us which industry she knows can

pay them more?

She either has information that the workers do not have or information that

the government should be making available to the public so that we know and we

can identify which industries have money available to pay their workers better

so they could have a better living.

Nobody wants to make their annual income from UI. Nobody wants to do that. I

will take that back. There may be some people who want to do that, Mr. Chairman.

There are probably also people who cheat on their income tax. There are probably

people who rob and steal as well, but we are not talking about that. We are

talking here about people who want to work. They want to make a living. They

want to support their families. They want to pay taxes. They would love to pay

taxes. They would be very happy to pay taxes as long as they had an income to

pay the taxes with.

This kind of response from the federal minister, you wonder who was in the

room. Was it just the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to have an

article

like this come out discussing what went on? I would like to know what other

people have to say about what the minister said in this meeting. What kind of

understanding does she have? What kind of understanding was conveyed to her, if

this is the kind of response that the federal minister has made to them? What

kind of education did she get from the delegation or the minister himself, or

other members of this House? Was the Minister Responsible for the Status of

Women there, to talk about the fact that women are discriminated against by the

changes in the EI to the point that only 10 per cent of young women under

twenty-five are able to collect EI - unemployed women, that is?

Mr. Chairman, there is something very wrong in this Province when we have

ministers of the provincial Crown not taking their responsibility seriously, not

ensuring that the federal government is fully aware of the kind of changes that

need to be made to straighten it out.

Now, I understand, and I am just noting a press release here from one of the

federal members of the NDP who said that the minister promised, if there were

trends identified in a study, that she would take remedial measures. This is the

quote here: The Human Resources and Development Minister said that she would

take remedial measures if trends could be clearly identified.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the trends have been identified. They have been

identified by a monitoring, an assessment report -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Leave has been denied.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was hoping that the Member for Bonavista South would be in, but I guess he

will be back in a minute or two. I am a bit concerned with what happened in

Question Period today. I don't know if it was his intention to put some fear

into minds of people out there, or he didn't realize what he was saying, but

to give an impression that the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador

today is in a near collapse, and should I go to Ottawa and look for a

compensation package or put a contingency plan in place? That is not what we

want to be out there saying in the general public today.

I think we are very fortunate, in one sense, that science caught this before

it got to the position as it is in Alaska, because the crab industry in Alaska

is now to a total collapse. Where a year ago they fished 235 million pounds,

this year they may have a quota of 25 million pounds, which is a 210 million

pound decrease, and in the year 2001 there will be no crab fishery at all. That

is a serious situation.

What science is telling us now is that if we do not deal with this problem

then that could happen two or three years down the road; but if we have to take

a cut this year - and let's assume it will be a 20 per cent cut in the quotas

- with the increase in the market price of crab this year, the actual monies

that fishermen earned last year and this year will not be a whole lot different;

because the market price is much better because of the collapse in the Alaskan

crab fishery and the way in which we have improved in our quality here in our

crab over the last three or four years. We are getting a better price in the

marketplace.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, I am expecting around $2-plus a pound, but we now also

have to be concerned that if we drive the price too high and consumers stop

buying crab, then the price goes downward. So we have to be very conscious -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) price.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that is right, and we cannot keep pushing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: ((Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, 1995 was a clear example when fishermen were paid $2.50

a pound and the next year the price went down to 85 cents a pound. That was a

combination of consumers not buying and our quality of product we put into the

marketplace.

The other thing we have to look at is what we did not do last year. We left

42,000 tonnes of quota of different species of fish in the water last year

because the fishermen were happy with the monies they earned, mostly from crab.

We left 16 million pounds of shrimp, we left thousands of tonnes of turbot, we

left scallops in the water, we left tuna in the water, we left redfish in the

water, and other species, but 42,000 tonnes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We have to address that. We cannot leave that amount of fish

in the water and over catch or put too much pressure on another species of fish

like we are doing with crab. Thirty-five hundred boats out of the 4,300 total

licensed boats in the Province are fishing crab. Thirty-five hundred boat out of

4,300. When the crab fishery started back in the 1960s there were thirty-nine

boats fishing crab. We have now gone up to 3,500. Sixty-seven thousand tonnes.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not core, all they, all of them? (Inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: No, most of them would be core.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not core, not fishing crab.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes, the ones not fishing crab. We have 2,500 permit

holders, small boat permit holders who said they wanted to be licensed. I said

in the House of Assembly last fall that whether it is a license or a permit,

they are fishing in their own zone, they have a twenty-five mile zone where they

manage all the crab in there. The only difficulty they were having was going to

a bank, trying to get money to improve their boats or buying new engines. Banks

weren't willing to talk about those things because they had a permit and not a

license. That is an issue they dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what is going to happen now (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: No, I wouldn't think so. Everything is zoned, now. The

small boat fishermen are inside the twenty-five miles. Then you go twenty-five

miles to fifty miles. There are four different sectors.

Let me explain. This is not a resource problem, a biomass problem, in one

particular zone. It is a recruitment problem. The female crab is not coming

behind. That is happening inside, that is happening in the middle distance, and

that is happening outside. If you just put all the quota caught in one area,

that is not helping the crab outside because the crab do not crawl that

distance, 200 or 300 miles. It is a problem right across the whole biomass, the

whole area, 2J+3KL. The worst area in the Province is up in the District of Baie

Verte, up in 3K. They have identified that the last two or three years. I think

that is substantially worse then 2J and 3L. How bad it is I don't know.

Some people say a 25 per cent cut and some people say a 50 per cent cut. I

think what they are talking about is that in one area there may be a 25 per cent

cut and in another area the cut may be a little more. It could be up in 3K, but

we won't know that until the discussions are finalized this week.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is going to happen when, for example - there are

almost twice as many plants as there used to be. (Inaudible) what do you do

(inaudible)? (Inaudible) increased their capacity and now we have a smaller

(inaudible). (Inaudible) ten weeks of work now instead of (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: That is good point. Here is what we have to do. First of all,

there were a number of plants last year which did not process any crab last

year. Twillingate, for example, Little Bay Islands, Codroy, (inaudible). What I

am considering doing now, and I am going to make a decision over the next day or

two, I don't see the point of licensing those plants this year. There is no

point. There would be no gains to anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last year (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. Now we have to be concerned about how we can -

MR. SULLIVAN: So how many are there? (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Twenty-nine.

The other thing we have to look at is this. When I was down to the Boston

Seafood Show - and I've been finding this out for the last couple of years and

I have been talking to a number of plants. In fact, there is one up in your

district which will be doing it this year, in St. Mary's. We are actually

sending crab down to the United States in the bulk form, let's say 20 kilo

boxes. They are using some of that 20 kilo boxes in the service sector like the

restaurants, and that is fine. There is another portion of that crab, whether it

be one container or ten containers, where they have taken it and re-packed it

into retail packs. What I have been saying, and the marketplace agrees, the

companies down in the States agree with me, is that we should be doing that

here. We have three companies - one is in the hon. member's district - which

now will be doing that here in the year 2000. Why can't every packer do that

here in Newfoundland?

If we can get that to work and it will work in two or three plants, then that

will add to the weeks of work here. So we have to be a little innovative in what

we do with all of our products to get more value, more work out of it, for the

people here in Newfoundland. If we catch that 42,000 tonne of product that we

left in the water last year, that will be weeks of work for those people. What

we are talking about here now is exactly what I have been saying over the last

three or four years. I have said this a thousand times in speeches I have given

and comments I have made: What happens if we put all of our reliance on crab and

the crab resource fails?

Look, this is a wake up call. We should have been diversifying more. We

should not have been putting all the emphasis and all of the efforts on one

species. We should have been looking at others. We are doing it to some extent,

but when you get a reasonable income as the hon. Opposition House Leader just

said, they don't want to go at it because they have enough money made, there

are taxes, and everything is taken into consideration. We have to look at the

fishery in the future, and we have to look probably at separation of different

harvesters in what they harvest. Because how can you justify leaving all that

product in the water, and then next year expect to keep the marketplaces going

and taking all of that shellfish, in the case of crab, out of the water?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) hard on gear and boats, (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: If we do with the crab what we have done with the cod, and

the crab stocks go, then they will wish they caught other species.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Exactly. I mean it is putting a plan in place with industry,

working together. Why are there 3,500 boats fishing crab when we are leaving

4,000 or 5,000 tonne of turbot in the water? Turbot is a very valuable product

today. The marketplace is crying out for it. Why did we leave 16 million pounds

of shrimp in the water?

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) in our nets?

MR. EFFORD: You can catch turbot with hook and line.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know you can. (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, they are. I have a real problem with what they bring in.

We have turned down a lot of turbot and dumped it because of the quality which

has come in.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not allowed to process it now if it is caught in a

net. (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: If the quality is not of a superior quality, you cannot

process it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: What is the policy now (inaudible), or is it based on the

quality?

MR. EFFORD: Let me explain. Because I have no control over the

harvesting, I only have control over the processing, so I am trying to do

through the back door what should have been done through the front door from a

federal position. I have said, and I have meetings starting tomorrow on this,

right now my first position is: Unless you can bring in a top quality product

out of the nets it will not be processed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Wait now, let me finish. I am also meeting with my lawyer.

Tomorrow morning my lawyer from Justice is coming in and I want to know how I

can change the fish inspection act to prevent fish coming out of gill nets from

being landed at all in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fifty-seven per cent of all

cod that was landed last year went into cod block. The lowest price of any fish

that you could put into the marketplace was cod block. They paid a good price to

fishermen and companies like National Sea Products Ltd. lost as much as $1 a

pound.

First of all, it is one thing to loss money, but it is a disgrace in the year

2000 to be bringing in - in the case of 3PS - 60 million pounds of cod, and 60

per cent of that being third quality, Grade C cod. We should be ashamed of

ourselves. I shouldn't be telling fishermen to do that. I shouldn't be

telling processors to do that. They should be doing it themselves. How can you

stay in the marketplace, how can you make money this day and age, doing

something like that?

Mr. Chairman, this is not about one person trying to tell the other person

what to do. This is about making the maximum amount of money we can from the

fishing industry, and the only way to do that is you have to be professional

about how you harvest fish, about how you handle fish, about how you truck fish

and how you process fish. It is not just one group of people's responsibility;

it is everybody's responsibility. I think it is time for me to stop talking

about it and it's time for people out there in the industry to do what the

market wants, and that is to put a quality product into the marketplace that

they can get the maximum price for.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am sure the Member for Bonavista South will make some comments to the

minister's comments when he comes back in, but I want to go back to an issue

that was talked about previously before the minister got up. I didn't plan on

speaking on this today but I am going to make a few comments on it anyway,

because it is one issue that I know very well because I deal with it almost on a

daily basis, especially in rural parts of Newfoundland. The minister made some

comments here today about how complicated it was, and it is. It can be a

complicated issue, but the truth is that there are also some simple, simple

examples which describe what is happening in this Province. We should be all

disgusted.

As far as going to Ottawa to make representation on this EI issue, we could

all do it and I still don't think we would get through to them up there on

this particular issue. Yes, it is complicated but there are some simple facts to

it. The simple fact is that since the changes came into EI in this Province, the

changes have cost this Province annually somewhere about half-a-billion dollars.

That is the truth. Since the changes came into EI in this Province a few years

ago, it makes it harder now to access it, number one; it makes it harder for

people in this Province to access the EI insurance. They get on it for a shorter

period of time, and they get a less amount when they get on it. Those are the

three facts. Those are the only three facts you really need to know, and that's

the bottom line.

At the end of the day there is some half-a-billion dollars less floating into

this Province that affects everything that we talk about in this Province;

half-a-billion dollars less in the economy of this Province because of the

changes to EI. Now can we walk around in this Province thinking that it does not

affect us, affect the changes to the health care system, affect our roads,

affect the entire economy? It does. On top of that, to add insult to injury, we

could look up to Ottawa and find that they have a $25 billion surplus, and we

have Newfoundlanders and Labradorians scrounging.

I don't have to go back through fifty examples. I was at an appeal last

Monday where I had to wait four months to get to an appeal for a gentleman,

finally got to one and found out this board that had been waiting to hear this

man had him turned down on a clerical error. This man had gone to social

services for the first time in his life. We corrected a clerical error and got

him back on the EI system. Meanwhile, we had to wait four months to be heard.

We are scrounging around, beating people over the head with such things as

this in Newfoundland and Labrador and we find out that the crowd in Ottawa have

a $25 billion surplus? It is pathetic to say the least, Mr. Chairman.

Then the minister stands up today and talks about how he is representing us

and he doesn't need all of us to go up and browbeat what is in Ottawa. Well,

we do. We should take - the whole lot of us - a charter flight and go up and

stay there until they make the changes. They changed the EI system so it is

harder for Newfoundlanders to access it. They get on it for a shorter period of

tome, and they have less amount of money. We don't need to know any more

statistics or facts. That is all it is, and it is $500 million less into the

economy of this Province every single year. Imagine the devastation.

The truth is, we say too little about it. We are not saying enough about it.

Now, all of a sudden, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs - which is the

first time I heard him stand and talk on something - is going to champion the

cause. All I will say to him is that I hope he gets some results, because to

this date nobody has gotten any results and it has gotten worse and worse in

this Province.

You talk about a timing for changes to EI, a time in this Province when it is

needed more than ever. I will go further and say at a time in this Province when

we need it the most because of the moratorium. A time when we needed this system

the most is when they decide to better it, or so they thought. The time that

this Province is dependent upon the social safety net of this country, the EI

system, the time when Newfoundland and Labrador needed it most, the government

in Ottawa decided they were going to fine tune it; they were going to correct

it. Well, they didn't correct it. What they did was shove their heads under

water when it comes to the EI system in this Province.

When you look at the thousands of people who try to access this system,

through good will, and all of a sudden - I know the Member for Bonavista South

has the same appeals - we find ourselves waiting, first of all, four to six

months to get to an appeal. In the first place we say to these people who are

coming to appeals: You are guilty until proven innocent. It is not the other way

around. We wait for six months because they are backed up here with not enough

staff to hear the appeals through the appeals boards - the board of referees and

so on - backed for four and five and six months, finally get to it, finally get

through the appeal process, to find out there was a technicality or clerical

error. Those are the kinds of things happening in this Province.

The minister doesn't need to get up tell us that he has it all under

control and that he is representing us well. People in this Province, when they

needed their social safety net the most, were let down and pushed down further.

I know, because I do those appeals on a weekly or monthly basis. It makes me

sick to walk into an appeal board and find out that because somebody was arm's

length - that is what I found out at a most recent one, a first cousin of his

employer, or that is what he was accused of being. We found out, when we get