December

2, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 44

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

that the government has reached a settlement in the claim of one of the victims

of abuse at Mount Cashel Orphanage, whose matter is currently before the court.

Government has also made an offer to settle the claims of thirty-eight other

individuals whose cases have not yet gone forward.

Danny Williams, the lawyer representing these thirty-eight

other claimants, has informed me that he will advise his clients that the offer

is a fair and reasonable one, and I am pleased to announce today that Mr.

Williams will recommend his clients accept the offer.

Mr. Speaker, the concerted efforts of counsel for the

claimants and counsel for the government have yielded a settlement offer which I

believe is fair in light of the circumstances. It will provide reasonable

compensation to those who have suffered as a result of their mistreatment at

Mount Cashel.

In recognition of the length of time that these matters have

remained unresolved, the government wishes to finalize these claims

expeditiously so as to bring some closure for the victims. And, Mr. Speaker, the

government will seek reimbursement from the Christian Brothers and the Roman

Catholic Church.

The government has taken the extraordinary measure of

offering to settle these claims in full at this time, in order to end the

distress caused to the victims by the prolonged proceedings to date.

This measure is a departure from common legal practice, in

which it would have been normal for government to insist that the considerable

share of the liability of the other parties be settled as part of any settlement

with clients.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken this step because we do not wish

to see those who have suffered mistreatment at Mount Cashel, and who have had to

relive those memories in the course of the Hughes Commission's work, to once

again relive them before a court of law. So, Mr. Speaker, the government has

taken the unusual step of offering a full settlement of thirty-eight outstanding

claims. We will take it upon ourselves to seek reimbursement from the Christian

Brothers and the Roman Catholic Church for their fair share of these costs.

One of the government's urgent priorities for some time has

been to see these matters settled. Through diligence and hard work by all

parties involved over the past few weeks, I am pleased to say that we have been

able to reach a fair accommodation and for this, Mr. Speaker, I commend all

parties.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. the minister for providing me with a copy of

the statement.

I would like to congratulate the minister, and if he, in any

way, personally intervened in his capacity as Minister of Justice and Attorney

General on behalf of the victims, I both congratulate him and thank him for his

intervention.

I congratulate the counsel for the Provincial Government,

counsel for all parties and, in particular, counsel for the claimants who, I am

sure, together worked hard to see a resolution of this matter.

There is an air of compassion in my view, Mr. Speaker, on

page 3 of the Ministerial Statement, when we read that government has taken this

step because we do not wish to see those who have suffered mistreatment at Mount

Cashel, and who have had to relive those memories in the course of the Hughes

Commission's work, to once again relive them before a court of law. That is the

kind of compassion which government has to show from time to time, and again, I

congratulate the minister for this statement today.

Thank you.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the decision on Friday by

Voisey's Bay Nickel Company to locate their smelter-refinery complex in Argentia

came as a disappointment to many Labrador communities. As members of this House

are aware, this is a very sensitive issue to many of those people who live and

work in Labrador. They believe that communities nearest to the resource should

benefit the greatest from the development of that resource.

The government agrees. Labrador, in the past, has not shared

fully in the economic opportunities of this Province. Mr. Speaker, this will

change. While the smelter and refinery will be built on the Island, the

government is committed to ensuring that, to the greatest extent possible, the

economic benefits, the social benefits, and the infrastructure benefits of the

Voisey's Bay development will accrue to the people of Labrador.

The first step taken has been by Voisey's Bay Nickel Company

by announcing that their procurement office and the operational headquarters

will be located in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. We are pleased with this decision,

because it demonstrates a solid commitment to Labrador on the part of the

company.

Secondly, the government is committed to making sure that

people from Labrador have a real chance at capturing the jobs at the mine/mill

operation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the provincial college

will begin work immediately on the development of a comprehensive training

program in mining technology, including a pre-college program, to be

administered by the provincial college campuses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: The college intends to have this program in

place and ready for the 1997-98 academic year. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the

first graduates of this program will be ready for the start of operations of the

mine site in 1999. This program will be developed in conjunction with the

company and with Human Resources Development Canada, to ensure that the

curriculum meets the exact specifications the company will demand for

prospective employees. As a model, we will look to Cambrian College in Sudbury,

whose mining program was developed in close consultation with Inco and, as a

result, 100 per cent of their graduates were hired by the company.

The college, in conjunction with Voisey's Bay Nickel company

and other partners in Labrador, has been identifying training needs to ensure

maximum job opportunities for the Labrador people. The college will continue

their efforts and introduce the required training on an "as-needed" basis for

the Voisey's Bay development.

Mr. Speaker, when I ran for politics, I made a strong

commitment to the people of Lake Melville and the people of Labrador. When the

Premier asked me to be the Minister responsible for Labrador, I recognized the

weight of that responsibility. I accepted this position because I knew the

Premier and the government are fully committed to addressing the legitimate

concerns of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, we have an agenda for Labrador.

The time has come for Labradorians to share fully in the economic benefits of

the Province. I'd like to inform all members of this House that, along with my

colleagues, Perry Canning and Wally Anderson, I intend to work tirelessly for

the people of Labrador. We intend to deliver.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few

comments today to this Ministerial Statement. It is very hard to really respond

to because I really do not know what the statement is all about. Just a short

time ago the minister stood up and made commitments to Labrador, the visions of

the highway and so on. We are all pleased with that, Mr. Speaker. There is no

doubt about that. Like the Premier, by the way, I also lived in Labrador for six

years and I still have family who live there. I know the feelings of the people

of Labrador, and the minister and the members for Labrador here in this House

know that.

From the day the rock was tapped and we knew there was a mine

going in Labrador we would assume that training and so on for the mining aspect

was going to go there. That was a given, but what the people of Labrador feel

right now is betrayed. As far as the mining goes, is that what the statement was

all about? All I say to the minister is that words and commitments are not

enough, Mr. Speaker, I say to the people in this House. I say that rhetoric and

commitment in saying a full and fair share is just simply not enough. Mr.

Speaker, they feel betrayed today. They were disappointed and you can imagine

why they would feel that way. So really the statement is not a lot to comment

on, Mr. Speaker, just compare it to last week's statement where there was a lot

of rhetoric and hearsay and really not a lot to be said in the statement. There

is nothing to talk about.

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

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise the hon.

ministers that the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and the Cabot

500 Celebrations' team have launched a new and aggressive marketing initiative

in the promotion of our 1997 anniversary year.

This project represents the largest, singular marketing

effort put forward by the department in the promotion of our Cabot 500

Anniversary Celebrations. This project will involve the direct mail-out of more

than 400,000 Cabot information kits to the North American marketplace. Each of

the province's 200,000 households, 20,000 commercial enterprises, and almost 500

schools will receive a kit containing a keepsake poster which gives a real

flavour for this special and world-class event being staged next year in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, of that 400,000 kits, some 200,000 will be

distributed to households throughout North America. These addresses were

compiled using the "Be Our Guest" campaign database, inquiries to our tourism's

toll-free information service, and other key target markets.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I also wish to inform all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the 500th Anniversary Festival & Events

Calendar will be mailed early in the new year to all households within the

Province. I encourage all residents to make plans to vacation here in

Newfoundland and Labrador in 1997. As well, I ask all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to encourage friends and relatives to come to this Province and

take

part in our special anniversary celebrations.

Mr. Speaker, in less than four weeks, Newfoundland and

Labrador will officially launch the Cabot 500 Celebrations and the first of its

kind, a province-wide celebration of our people, our culture and our land.

Newfoundland and Labrador has a significant tourism product to offer visitors.

In 1997, we introduce a spectacular roster of new and enhanced events to

commemorate John Cabot's historic landfall. Next year we will showcase our

tourism product to the world and we will elevate this Province's tourism

industry to a new plateau. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

commend the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on her initiatives to

market the Cabot 500 celebrations. I myself am planning to spend my vacation

next summer in Newfoundland and Labrador to celebrate the 500th celebrations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: I would urge each and every member of the

House to spend their vacation time next summer in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The 400,000 mail-outs going to the people of our Province, and as

well to the people of North America, to various households in North America, I

hope will prove to be very productive and will attract visitors to our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health. Has the minister taken the time to review the

report on the Peninsulas Health Care Board, and if so, will he table a copy in

the House today?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I've taken the

time to review the report that was done by the committee that was commissioned

by the Peninsulas Health Care Board. I won't be releasing a copy of it in the

House. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the Board to make a

decision on any release coming from it. I can advise the hon. member - in fact,

I believe he is already aware of it - that the Peninsulas Health Care

Corporation has issued a press release today regarding its review of the report.

It has also released the full twelve recommendations that were contained in it,

and they have committed themselves to implement, in a very timely fashion, all

of the twelve recommendations that have come forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why is the public

being left in the dark with respect to failings in the health care system? Now,

I ask the minister why won't he tell this House and why won't he tell the health

care professionals, and more importantly, minister, why won't you tell the

public? How can you claim to guarantee a safe system when you aren't even

willing to let the truth come out?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is sort of a rambling, un-focused type of question. I

think the point of the question, if there was a point, is this: Why are we, or

why am I as minister, not prepared to reveal all that is appropriate with

respect to anything that we have to do in terms of review or investigation in

the health care system.

I know of no other matter that has probably been dealt with

so expeditiously as this particular issue on the Burin Peninsula, and we have

released today in the press release - or the Peninsula's board has, in the press

release -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) we have.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, they as being part of the

health care system. We have seen to it that the report has been dealt with, that

the recommendations have been released. I cannot, quite frankly, prejudge as to

whether or not at some point the corporation's board may, in fact, want to

release the whole report; but suffice it to say that all of the recommendations,

the whole twelve of them, have been released today. They are public. As a matter

of fact, I hand delivered a copy of it to the hon. the member on the way in.

MR. SULLIVAN: I phoned you.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, you did. You called me this morning,

and I appreciate your call. We had a good chat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I think that type of working together is of

some benefit to him.

I did not want to say that, but he admitted that he does call

me once in awhile and I treat him with great care and caution. He is delicate;

he is fragile; he has a difficult job; he is under a lot of pressure; he is at

40 per cent in the polls, all those sorts of things -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to take his seat.

Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty? Fourteen!

MR. MATTHEWS: Didn't I say fourteen?

AN HON. MEMBER: You said forty.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, forty. My apologies, I am out by 26 per

cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week you asked me to prove my concerns and suspicions,

and I did. Today I am asking you to prove not only that a report is written, but

that problems have been identified and corrected. Will the minister do that now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report has indeed been written. It has been dealt with

appropriately, in my judgement, by the board of the Peninsula's health care

corporation, and the action that is required to be taken to address the twelve

recommendations that have come forward has been committed to me by the board to

be in a fast-track mode whereby they will address all of the concerns in as

timely a fashion as is possible.

I can only commend the quick action and the due diligence of

the volunteer trustees of the Peninsula health care board who have literally

been working day and night, Saturday and Sunday, on a gratuitous basis, in the

best interest of the people of both peninsulas in the Clarenville area that they

serve. I believe it is high time that on both sides of the House we recognize

the contribution that volunteers make to our health care system, that volunteers

make to our society in general. These individuals give an enormous amount of

time to do the business of the Province and they do it in the interest of health

care and of the people that they serve.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I commend them for their actions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not the commitment of the members in the health care

professions I am questioning, I say to the minister. It is not their commitment.

Will the minister name the members who were on that review committee?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to name the

members of the committee, although I will have to do it from memory. The

committee was chaired by Dr. Ron Whelan as an independent chair, a reputable and

renowned physician in the Province, along with Dr. Albert Davis, an independent

physician from St. John's, who I believe is associated with the Janeway

Hospital. There was a Dr. Cremin representing the medical staff at the

Peninsulas who brought forward some of these concerns originally. In addition to

that, there was an appointment from my department, Mr. Roy Manuel, an Assistant

Deputy Minister, and one other individual. Yes, I believe it was Mr. George

Clements, vice-chair of the Peninsulas Health Care Corporation. These were the

five individuals who reviewed the matters and prepared the report.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Your own Assistant Deputy Minister is a member of that

committee, and he is involved in the writing of that report. Now, you are up to

your neck in this in a cover-up, I say to the minister. Will you come clean and

table this report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, you have been involved in this

all along, and I say you are involved in a cover-up. Before you lose your last

ounce of credibility, you are going to have to provide to me and to the public

more than recommendations. I ask the minister: Will you do the appropriate thing

and table that report?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The comments and the tone of the question

from the hon. member today, if nothing else ever does, validates the comments

that I made to the Telegram the other day when I said: From the

Opposition, we generally get a fair degree of innuendo and that sort of drivel

that has no foundation in fact and no reason for being made.

It is totally appropriate for the minister of the day to

appoint whom he feels can do the best job to do these investigative matters. I

make no apologies to the hon. member for having an Assistant Deputy Minister

from my department participate as one of five members of that commission, who

have done an admirable job in addressing the issues and have brought forth a

report that the board has accepted and is acting on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. Just

recently the minister replied to questions asked in the House about our Province

losing our autonomy with respect to the HST. As a matter of fact, the minister

responded by saying it was a matter of co-operation, not autonomy. Now, I will

give the minister this scenario.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Release the report! (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I will give the Minister of Finance this

scenario. He is projecting major economic growth in this Province to the point,

in fact, that we should be benefitting from mega-royalties in the next decade,

like Voisey's Bay and Hibernia and so on. We all hope that the minister is right

in those projections. So let us say that we want to lower the tax in this

Province in the coming years, two, three or four years from now - which we all

hope, and I guess any government would hope, to be able to do that. However, the

other two provinces might not be so fortunate as Newfoundland. Let us take that

scenario. How do we lower our tax when we need unanimous approval from the

provinces which may not afford the same as we do, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, we do not need unanimous

approval from the other provinces to lower any of our taxes. I think the hon.

member may be a little confused, or I may have misunderstood his question. If he

is referring to the harmonized tax at 15 per cent, no, we are locked into that

for the next four years. Part of the reason for that is that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I am sorry, I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the way the agreement reads is

that there has to be - for the next four years we are locked into a rate of 15

per cent, a joint rate: 7 per cent to the Federal Government, 8 per cent to the

Province, essentially. The reason we cannot increase the rate, to start with,

over the next four years is that we have been compensated for it. We have

received $348 million. The Federal Government would view that as being contrary

to the agreement.

There is a mechanism in place that we can decrease it at the

end of the four years, and I suppose we could look as to whether or not we wish

to decrease it sooner. But in answer to the substance of his question, I think

we have rationalized sales tax so it is consistent with every other jurisdiction

in the country and probably is cheaper, arguably, than some of the larger

provinces. It seems to me the next (inaudible) that should take place should be

on the personal income tax side moreso than any other.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the next

direct question of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

Will the minister confirm that the Federal Government has

retained its autonomy by allowing itself unilaterally the ability to increase

the HST? Is that true?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not the case.

What both parties have agreed to do -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, I will explain to the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition what the agreement is, if he cares to take the time.

The Federal Government cannot increase its rate to be more

than 1 per cent from where it is now. If either party wishes, if I may say, to

increase the tax rate, they must offer to the other party, the other

half-percentage point. So, for example, if the Federal Government wish to

increase its tax by 1 per cent, it would have to offer us the half of that 1 per

cent. We could choose whether or not to accept it.

They are also limited, and we are limited to maintaining a 1

per cent differential on the rate base; so, for instance, we can go up by 1 per

cent but we cannot go beyond that, nor can the Federal Government, so the

latitude there, what we tried to do, through agreement, is to hold each side to

some reasonable accommodation as to what the increase would be. What I can do if

the member is interested, I will give him a more detailed answer tomorrow, when

I will get the full information, refer to the agreement because there is a

mechanism in it to control rates.

What I am saying though, is that, we are bound into it for

four years. We have no plans to increase our rate for the next four years and if

the Federal Government wishes to do so, it probably cannot do so by more than

one percentage point.

PREMIER TOBIN: But `Loyola' wants to raise taxes, if he

ever (inaudible).

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

supplementary,

MR. SHELLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, we

would like to lower taxes, and that is another question to the minister.

Only recently, the minister was projecting major economic

growth increase in consumer confidence over the coming years and we all hope

that he is right, we all do in this House.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the social policy committee

was finishing a tour of the Province where the message was doom and gloom, as a

matter of fact, a weakened tax base. Now, Mr. Speaker, which is which?

I would ask the minister to confirm which projection he

thinks is accurate.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not share the hon.

member's observation that there is a lot of doom and gloom. It is quite the

opposite. I find that people believe the economy has stabilized.

Just last week we tabled figures that showed that the economy

this year, is stronger than projected for the reasons that we indicated, and

what we do project is the next few years there will be some difficult periods,

but by all accounts, including those investment analysts, the bank analysts and

every other group with some reasonable degree of financial acumen and

credibility in the country agree with us, that there will be a substantial

period of growth in Newfoundland and Labrador, about two years out, and I accept

that, and as far as my public observations are concerned, most people tend to

agree with that. They have some concerns over the next few years but certainly,

the prospects for growth are tremendous in this Province.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

I had delivered to the minister's office, thirty-four days

ago, a `Freedom of Information' request for details regarding the EDGE Program.

The minister, by law, must respond to a Freedom of

Information request within thirty days.

Will the minister tell us why he is in breach of the law?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am not in breach of the law.

I sent it to the hon. member last week.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: I stand to be corrected, but my

understanding of the Freedom Of Information Act states that I must receive it

within thirty days.

I asked the minister during the request for the total dollar

amount of administering the EDGE Program and the total dollar amount of the tax

concessions given to the EDGE companies.

I ask the minister, when can we expect to have this

information tabled?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, I

sent the information - I signed it last week and sent it to his office.

Let me say something else to him, Mr. Speaker. There is

really no need for histrionics and asking me under the Freedom of Information.

That information is readily available. If the hon. member had phoned me, I would

have given it to him over the phone right away.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Social Services.

After reflecting on your government's policies and practices

relative to home care workers: Will the minister admit that home care workers,

most of whom are female, deserve the same social and income benefits, the same

assurances of a safe working environment, the same assurances of income

protection, as those offered to other workers in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

As I mentioned in the previous Question Period, as a

Department of Social Services, we give an allocated amount of money to people to

hire the necessary services, and people to do those services in the community.

We continue to give that money based on what is in the regulations, and the

employer will then hire the people necessary to provide the work.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Minister, by your government's policies - be they sins

of omission or commission - your support of that policy has systematically and

effectively denied home care workers access to worker compensation and sick

leave benefits, and you have placed your government, unfortunately, in the same

category as those employers of a generation ago who denied societal benefits to

women and the working poor.

When, Madam Minister, can you assure the home care workers of

this Province that they can expect a fair, just, and full share of employee

benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J. M. AYLWARD: Again, as I said in the previous

Question Period when the same question was asked, these issues are being

addressed. We have talked about them in the past, and I will reiterate the same

comments and refer to Hansard of the previous day for the answer.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Madam Minister, this issue is not going to

go away. It can appear in Hansard as often as you say, but it is not going to go

away. In fact, it is going to blow up in your face and in the government's face.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. minister that each day home

care workers in this Province put themselves in jeopardy when they go to work.

In some cases their personal safety is at risk. I say to the minister: Why will

you not become more proactive? Why will you not become more caring, more

compassionate, in dealing with these home care workers, most of whom are female?

Do something about it. Get away from the rhetoric.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just to address the issue of

workers' compensation when it comes to home care workers, we have met with a

couple of groups representing home care workers already. We are looking at that

issue as we speak. In the past two or three weeks there have been some

representations made to the Workers' Compensation Commission to review that

issue. There are a number of workers in the Province who have been newly formed

in recent times, who are not covered under workers' compensation. That is under

review, and we expect to have a decision very shortly.

Thank you very much.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Mr. Minister, we learned from a government, Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing, study in 1995 that there are petroleum wastes underneath the

former Harnum U.S. Air Force Base at Stephenville. We will learn at the end of

1996, from the preliminary report of yet another government study, Newfoundland

and Labrador Housing, the kinds of waste and potentially hazardous conditions

involved. Then, presumably some time in 1997, we will get the final report of

this government study and learn exactly what kinds of wastes and hazards may be

there. Mr. Minister, when will the study conclude and the clean-up begin?

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

Labour.

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

question. It is a good question.

This government was very proactive in having an evaluation

done of the former base site. As a matter of fact there was an in-depth review

done last year, and there is a further tender just awarded to Agri-Earth

Environmental to now look at a further in-depth review of petroleum products on

the ground. There are at least three or four different types of fuels that have

been identified. We have met with the federal Minister of Environment, and we

have met the federal minister responsible within the Province, the hon. Fred

Mifflin. We have notified the federal government in writing that we consider it

their responsibility when it comes to liability, and we are doing a full and

thorough review of the total environmental problem in the area. We are also

working with Transport Canada and Transport Canada is also doing a review of the

airport property which joins the other property provincially, and we expect to

have a full report early in the new year.

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

a supplementary.

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

Mr. Minister we already know there is petroleum waste at the

site, and quite possibly hazardous conditions resulting from the military use

for the past fifty years, and we do not want those chemicals sitting around in

leaky containers and steaming there while governments take their sweet time

negotiating who is responsible for them. You mentioned that you have been

speaking to the federal minister responsible. Has the minister received a

commitment from them, regardless of the American position, that the site will be

cleaned up in short order with Ottawa paying upfront and sending the bill to

Americans, if that is what it takes? Has he received that assurance from his

federal counterpart, and if not would he pursue it further?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are working on a full

thorough assessment of the site with the federal government. We expect to have a

full report early in the new year, which will identify the cost of cleaning up,

and identify solutions for cleaning up the site. We are also working and

negotiating with the federal government as to potential costs for cleanup. We

consider it their liability. We have said that to the federal government and we

will be dealing with them over the next few months.

The Premier and the Minister of IGA will also be dealing with

them on this matter, in his role, and the government will thoroughly assess the

problem first before we go forward. We need to know what the problem is before

we go and start talking. We need some concrete results and some concrete answers

before we go forward thoroughly. It is a problem we have identified, and we are

going to deal with the problem right up front.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I wonder if the minister would inform the

House as to how many fish processing facilities his government owns in the

Province today?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Three, Sir.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister if the

government owned processing facility at St. Lawrence has been sold, and if so

for how much?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has been sold for

$250,000.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would like to ask the minister if he

would inform the House as to how much public money has gone into that particular

facility after it was passed on to new owners or new operators last June? Since

June of last year.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: None, that I am aware of, but I can check it

out. I can tell you the history of the former Tory government, they put multi,

multi-millions into fish plants in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Up to the last election they were prepared to

spend $75 million buying fish to open up every plant in the Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am not clear. Did the

minister say that he would inform the House as to how much public money has been

spent on that particular facility?

MR. TULK: Since June?

MR. FITZGERALD: Since June of last year.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware of we have

not spent any public money since June, but I will double check and if there was

any money spent I will report it to the House. I said that.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a member of this House for a constituency in the City of

St. John's I would like to ask the Minister of Social Services a question with

respect to the provincial government and its relationship with the city.

The government and the City of St. John's agreed in 1994 to

share equally in funding a transportation service for the disabled, but while

the total cost of the service has increased substantially since then the

government's share has remained frozen. I would like to ask the minister if she

would agree to stand by the government's commitment of two years ago, reaffirm

its commitment to the disabled people of this area, and once again provide a

share of the funding that is equal to the share provided by the City of St.

John's.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the relationship with the

disabled in the City of St. John's is that we give a set amount of money for the

administrative costs associated with the HUB. With respect to transportation

specifically, I refer to my colleague the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am unclear as to the

minister's response. Is the answer now being deferred to another minister?

My question, Mr. Speaker, is to a minister. My question was

directed to the Minister of Social Services, so obviously under the

circumstances I am forced to redirect. Will the minister agree to stand by the

government's commitment of two years ago, reaffirming its commitment to the

disabled people of this area and once again provide a share of the funding that

is equal to the share provided by the city of St. John's? Mr. Speaker, for the

benefit of this minister, this is with respect to the relationship between the

provincial government, the city of St. John's and how it affects disabled

persons in this city.

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the funding of the HUB - the

transit system for the disabled in the city of St. John's is of course a

municipal responsibility. In the past the provincial government has contributed

to the cost of that particular service. To my knowledge, the Province has not

made a long-term commitment to that funding but that it is an annual

contribution of funds that comes through my department to the HUB to help

contribute to the cost of operating that service. I believe that the city was

advised in 1996-97 that the provincial government had approved an operating

grant in the sum of $94,000 - $94,500 or something to that effect and that is

the Province's commitment this year to the funding of that particular system.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister is

partly correct when she uses the figure $94,000. However I would suggest that

she is incorrect when she said it is not long term. There is a commitment by the

Province, Mr. Speaker, to in fact match the expenditure with respect to

transportation for the disabled, for the City of St. John's. In 1997, the total

cost of providing this key service will be some $350,000. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the Province is no longer living up to its commitment to match the

St. John's share of the funding. I simply ask the minister, why is the

government continuing to renege on its commitment to the city and to the

disabled people who depend on this much needed service?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous

response, my understanding is that the commitment to the HUB transit system by

the provincial government is an annual one. I will have to take under advisement

and certainly check back to see the nature of the commitment to which you refer.

My understanding is that it is an annual commitment and that it was renewed in

this year's budget and would be considered again in next year's budget, as it

has in every budget year since the early 1970s.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Environment and Labour.

In 1991 the former administration passed through the Order in

Council a motion that had the effect of really extending the Hibernia Special

Project Agreement from the construction phase of the project to the development

phase of the offshore petroleum platform and associated sites. My question is

this: would the minister agree that this Order in Council effectively has taken

away all control of labour matters from his department and his officials and has

forced, essentially, into the sidelines the labour relations process in this

Province? Would he agree also that in doing so that it has put contractors or

let contractors into this Province that ultimately should have not been let

there and as a result Newfoundland jobs have been lost as the result of this

Order in Council?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would agree

with that. Mr. Speaker, there is a site agreement that was signed off in '91

which outlines how labour relations will be conducted at the site and for the

most

part it has worked fairly well. As a matter of fact it is the same with the

hiring practices, Mr. Speaker, for the most

part it has worked quite well, over

6,000 people working at the site, major industrial site. One of the major

industrial sites in North America, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. So

considering the magnitude of the construction site, there have been very few

problems. There have been some problems with the

interpretation of the labour

relations agreement at the site, no doubt, but considering the magnitude, Mr.

Speaker, not bad.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to ask

another question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: One question?

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, even

the minister's own recent forum on labour relations suggested and recommended

that this sort of scenario never happen again.

I will ask the minister, does he agree with that Order in

Council? What is the minister doing right now? The Premier, in an earlier answer

last week, indicated that there would be a consultant or a consulting group

hired to look at the petroleum or development phase of the Hibernia project. Can

the minister update us on that? Is government or is the minister in fact

reviewing the situation of the labour relations at the Hibernia site to ensure

that where there are jobs available for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and

where they are qualified, that they in fact get the first crack at those jobs?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let me say first off that

this government is extremely proud of the workers who contributed to the

development of Hibernia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We are very proud of them because they

have done an outstanding job, considering that this was a worldwide project

where there were a number of sites that had to have parts of the GBS

constructed. This site had no work stoppages, Mr. Speaker, over its lifetime, it

had over 6,000 people working on it at one time over a number of months, and we

saw a great many Newfoundland and Labrador people in our Province get trained up

and work very diligently at this work site, and performed and came in on budget.

Performed admirably. They are some of the best trained workforce on the planet.

We just recently sent sixty-two workers over to Norway who are trained up, and

they are wanted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: They are wanted, Mr. Speaker, in other

parts of the world because of the work experience that they have gained at the

Hibernia work site. We are getting ready to look at an offshore oil industry now

for the first time ever. This government is going to make that a reality. We

dreamed about it for ten or fifteen years. It is finally going to become a

reality under this government, and under the previous Wells Administration. We

are moving forward and I can tell you, the workers in this Province are going to

be protected as we develop a world-class labour relations regime for the

offshore.

A smelter just announced in the Province, over $1 billion

worth of expenditures -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - a transshipment terminal going to be

built. Mr. Speaker, I tell you, the Minister of Labour in this Province has a

big worry now. He has to worry about how he can make all of these wonderful work

sites be safe, and he is going to do it, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova on a

point of order.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order

related to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition when he suggested

- maybe it was stronger than that - that the Minister of Health was a part of,

or party to, a cover-up. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is out of order

or unparliamentary, or both.

I refer to Beauchesne with the requirements for Oral

Questions, 409.(7).

MR. TULK: What was that (inaudible)?

MR. LUSH: Beauchesne , 409.(7), for simple

reference pages 120 and 121, which says, "A question must adhere to the

proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting

aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it."

I suggest that to suggest somebody is part of a cover-up is

certainly not in accordance with that particular principle.

I also refer, with respect to parliamentary language, to

Erskine May , page 380. In talking about parliamentary language and

allegations against members, it says, "Good temper and moderation are the

characteristics of parliamentary language...". "Expressions which are

unparliamentary and call for prompt interference include:..." - and I am only

going to give two - "

(1) The imputation of false or unavowed motives...". That

is looked into immediately and several examples given.

The second example given by Erskine May , page 381, is,

"

(4) Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. The

Speaker has said in this connection that whether a word should be regarded as

unparliamentary depends on the context in which it is used. For example..." -

and this is very important - "...expressions which are unparliamentary when

applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole

party."

This particular expression was referred to the Minister of

Health, and I submit that it was out of order and/or unparliamentary.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

speaking to the point of order.

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

I refer the House to page 147 of Beauchesne , 490,

which reads, "Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following

expressions:..." When you read down the side, it says, "Cover-up, Debates ,

November 16, 1977, p. 941."

I rest my case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: To that point of order, the Member for Terra

Nova is absolutely right. The Member for Waterford Valley, the Opposition House

Leader, is absolutely wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is, as my colleague for

Terra Nova rightfully pointed out, an expression such as that, when used to

refer to parties, is perfectly in order.

I refer the hon. gentleman, if he would turn to the next

page, where the Chair has intervened on behalf of somebody who has used the word

`cover-up'. The Chair will intervene in such circumstances where you accuse a

member of the House of a cover-up. To say that a party is covering up, or

somebody outside of the House is covering up, is another matter. But to use such

language against a member of the House is very similar to what we saw last

spring in this Legislature.

I would say to the Opposition House Leader, what he should be

trying to do is get his leader under control, and to get him to use statements

and words about members in this House that are parliamentary, as opposed to

being unparliamentary.

I would also say to the Leader of the Opposition, I just

heard him say: Oh, I will say it outside.

Indeed you might, but you cannot use it in here, and there is

a difference. You can use what you like outside, but you cannot use it in here.

It is clearly unparliamentary, as my friend from Terra Nova said, and I would

ask the Chair to rule it as such, and ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Terra

Nova is indeed a very legitimate point. It is, no doubt, a legitimate point of

order. If members refer to Beauchesne,

Section 409, that the hon. member had

quoted, "A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of

inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House

or out of it." I will take the point under advisement, review Hansard to see

exactly what the question was that the hon. member did ask and will report back

to the House on the point raised by the member.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In accordance with

Section 35 of the Newfoundland Medical Care Insurance Act, I am pleased to table

the annual report of the Newfoundland Medical Care Commission for the year

ending March 31, 1996.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting A Provincial College."

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following Private Member's Resolution;

WHEREAS the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act states in

subsections 4.1(1) and (2) that: "4.1.

(1) A person may, in the current taxation

year, deduct from the amount payable under

section 4, the amount payable to the

province under the Income Tax Act in respect of mining income in the province

for that year. (2) Subsection (1) shall apply only for each year of the 1st 10

years after the achievement of commercial production in the mine from which the

mining income is derived.";

AND

WHEREAS there is nothing in the Mining and Mineral Rights

Tax Act or any other legislation to exempt Inco or its subsidiaries or

operations at Voisey's Bay from these provisions;

AND

WHEREAS Premier Tobin stated in this House on November

20, 1996 that "there will be no 10-year tax holiday for Inco";

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to act promptly to amend the Mining and

Mineral Rights Tax Act by adding in subsection 4.1(1) immediately following the

words "A person" the words "other than Inco and its subsidiaries and operations

at Voisey's Bay".

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the past several

days, including today, several questions arose concerning the harmonized sales

tax. I would like to just take a moment or two to respond.

Last week I was asked - and I forget who may have asked the

question, it may have been the Leader of the Opposition - concerning which tax

adjustments we would make. I mentioned at the time that we would keep alcohol

and tobacco taxes where they presently are, or our yield from those two

particular sin taxes, as they are called, that will yield $25 million. The

insurance premiums, a total of the 15 per cent, will give us $35 million - that

was my recollection, that is correct - and the tax on used vehicles which is now

12 per cent will go to 15 per cent and we receive all that revenue and that is

at $15 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: That is at seventy-five and we will have to

make another $10 million in adjustments in other areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Perhaps some of the groups we fund, will be

benefitted by it so we will make approximately another $10 million in

adjustments in the programs for a total of $85 million which will result in a

harmonization shortfall of $105 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Oh, as opposed to - any other measure we would

take would lessen the shortfall.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, those are the three major areas. There may

be some other expenditure adjustments we will make of $10 million which will be

examined in the Budget process. There may be areas where we benefit, there were

certain sectors that we now find benefit as a result of harmonization so they

will have more funds at their disposal, so we may make some adjustments in that.

That is something we have to look at.

The second question was - pardon me?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I get a copy of those adjustments?

MR. DICKS: Well, those have not been decided yet. They

will be decided in the Budget process. The three major areas of adjustment were

the alcohol/tobacco taxes, insurance premiums and used vehicles. That is a total

of $75 million; there will be another $10 million we will have to make up there

as well.

The other questions which arose during Question Period, from

my learned friend from Baie Verte, had to do with the mechanisms for changing

the rates.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Just decreasing, you do not want to know about

the increase, much more intriguing.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes. What we have agreed, Mr. Speaker, is that

none of the provinces will decrease the provincial rate during the term of the

agreement without unanimous approval.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: That is right, and any increase is subject to

the majority of the provinces and then there are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he ask that today?

MR. DICKS: Well, the hon. member also asked, I believe,

about the Federal Government rate? I don't want to over-answer the question, but

did the hon. member also ask about the mechanism for the Federal Government

rate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: The Federal Government is limited to half a

percentage point increase at a time, and I will be tabling the full agreement

shortly when I introduce the bill.

Under

section 21, the Federal Government must give us notice

of intent to increase that. The increment of increase is limited to one-half of

1 per cent -

MR. SHELLEY: So they cannot increase unilaterally by

(inaudible) -

MR. DICKS: No, no. They -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) per cent twice without anybody

(inaudible).

MR. DICKS: If you let me finish, I will tell you how it

works then you - You are presenting conclusions. I will tell the mechanism, you

draw your own conclusions.

Under

section 20, if they are going to - have you read the

agreement?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Oh well, then I don't need to answer it. Do

you want me to go ahead?

Section 20, limits the Federal Government to half a

percentage increase at a time and they have to give notice to the Province.

What we then have under

section 24, we have two months

notice, we can then indicate back that we intend to increase our rate by

one-half a percentage point, under

section 25. Now, what further happens is that

What we have also agreed in

section 28 is to maintain a

differential between the two taxes that is not more than one percentage point,

so we can increase ours by the same half percentage point increment. It is a

little complicated in terms of the legal language required, Mr. Speaker, but

essentially, the mechanism is that if the Federal Government wishes to increase

the tax, it tells us that, it will intend to increase it by half a percentage

point, we can then opt to increase ours by half a percentage point as well.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, no. Our mechanism is that they cannot

raise it by more than a percentage point.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a raise?

MR. DICKS: Oh it is a raise, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unilaterally?

MR. DICKS: That is right. At all times we have to

maintain a differential of one percentage point; under

section 28, neither the

federal portion of the harmonized tax nor the provincial portion of the tax can

be increased, if the increase would result in a change in the difference between

the base rate of each tax, that is more than one percentage point, yes.

MR. SHELLEY: So we have an option (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) one in Hansard in Question

Period.

MR. DICKS: No, I see them with the decrease (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: We will see about that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I indicated in Question Period is the

same thing I am indicating now, that we have a mechanism so that if either party

wishes to raise a tax, the other party has the option to take half the tax

increase. But the other thing to remember is that we are bound into this for

four years and we cannot increase our portion of tax for four years because we

have been compensated for it. It is conceivable that the Federal Government,

during the course of this, could increase the tax.

MR. SHELLEY: According the unanimous (inaudible) the

increase by the Province (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No. Here is the situation. At the end of four

years, we can throw the agreement out the window and revert to the current

structure. What we have agreed to is that, if we stayed part of a harmonized

system with the other two provinces and the Federal Government, this is the

mechanism we will have in future for any decreases or increases. So, if at the

end of four years, we do not like this, we can opt out of the agreement, give

notice under the agreement and then you can do what you like, but you do not

have a harmonized tax. The whole idea of having a harmonized tax is that you

agree on principles and mechanisms that keep it uniform.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: If they want to give us some, I will take it.

Petitions

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

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

In Question Period today, I asked some questions of the

Minister of Environment and Labour, and he never got a chance to expound upon

them because Question Period expired.

I stand today to present a petition by some 5,700

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who support those Newfoundlanders who are

extremely qualified, who are ultimately trained, and who have been denied work -

commissioning work, instrumentation work - at the Hibernia site.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new issue. It is a significant

petition that calls for, essentially, an investigation of what is taking place

right now, an investigation of what is happening with qualified local

construction workers, specifically electricians, who have been denied

commissioning work at the Bull Arm site, who are asking this House, and

ultimately government, and are insisting that development companies present a

much more detailed plan, a more transparent employment and training plan for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to ensure that those people who are qualified,

who have the training, who have the necessary experience, who have the academic

credentials, that if work exists in this industry, those people, those

Newfoundlanders, have first crack at it.

Also, this petition is calling for enforceable regulations

that are needed, in the view of the people who have signed it, to protect our

construction workers from being treated, really, as second-class citizens in our

own Province, in an industry that should be benefitting them, and them first.

This is an issue that was first raised in the House of

Assembly about seven or eight months ago, in the first opening of the House

after a new government was elected. My colleague, the Member for Bonavista South

has certainly brought this matter to the attention of government. In fact, the

IBEW, the union that is representing these workers, essentially, met several

months ago - about eight months ago, I say to the Government House Leader - with

the Social Policy Committee to review the situation. They have laid on the

table, to the ministers who said in this House today, who sat on the Social

Policy Committee at the time, that they have laid on the table the occupations

that have been affected, the number of positions that have been affected, and

the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have been laid off one day, only to see

people from outside the Province come in to assume the same work the very next

day. Yet, Mr. Speaker, nothing has been done.

I hope that this week, we are anticipating, that the Minister

of Development and Rural Renewal - she responded to questions asked in the House

last week - that she and the Minister of Environment and Labour have met with

the IBEW, she has referred the matter to the Canadian Offshore Petroleum Board,

and she is anticipating some time, the mid part of this week, that an answer

will be forthcoming on this, as I see it, very important issue affecting workers

in this Province, people who do not understand today why they are sitting home

when they have the qualified experience, background, academic and otherwise, and

they should be on site working.

What we are talking about, just to make it clear, we are not

talking about complicated work. What we are talking about are hands-on,

industrial jobs that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are qualified to maintain

and qualified to have. We are talking about high-paying jobs. We are talking

about heavy industrial jobs that, if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who should

have those jobs would have them now, certainly would be paying into the tax base

here and we would not see money leaving the Province.

I do not think it is too much to ask. I do not think the

people who have been denied that work are asking too much when they ask every

member of this House, and in point of fact when they ask the government, to put

the interest of our working people first, and that qualified, professional,

local, tradespeople be given the first opportunity, as was promised them when it

comes to employment in the offshore oil and gas industry.

A great deal can be said about the issue further. It strikes

at the heart, I think, of the type of Province we want to be, and what we hope

to gain from mega-projects and other large industrial sorts of projects that are

just currently coming on stream that will mean a brighter future for many in the

Province, and hopefully the royalties and the monies we receive from those

projects will mean a brighter future for all of us.

For now, Mr. Speaker, I am content to ask on behalf of those

who are affected, and on behalf of those who have signed this petition, again

some 5,500 to 5,700, that this House accept the petition, support it, and do

whatever is necessary to ensure that those people who are qualified right now to

access that work, that government, through legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: - pressure the situation and change it so

that those who are qualified actually find the work and get an equal chance to

get it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition so ably put forward by

my friend and colleague, the Member for Kilbride. I am very much aware, I say to

the Government House Leader, of what is happening out at Hibernia, because it

has been happening out here for quite some time. The prayer of this particular

petition was brought forward here when we had another Minister of Labour, the

former Minister of Labour. What is happening out there today is nothing short of

being criminal to Newfoundland and Labrador construction workers.

In the beginning there was an agreement that was sought, and,

I guess, approved with the Hibernia Oil Development Council and the unions in

this Province whereby there would be a no-strike and no- work interruption

agreement with the Hibernia contract. Mr. Speaker, at that particular time, and

the minister can correct me if I am wrong but I do not think I am, when a

contractor came in from outside the Province there would be some local

provincial contact, or joint agreement, if you would, or a partnership, whereby

they would come and form a partnership with another Newfoundland company and go

there to carry on the work they bid on.

It is nothing new. It happened out there with G. J. Cahill.

They formed a consortium, if you would, with State Electric in Ontario, and now

we have a particular company known as Kenonic Controls from Calgary who formed a

partnership with Ozark Electric. From what I understand, that particular company

was supposed to bring its supervisory personnel into the Province and all

hands-on work would be done by our own local people but that is not being done.

From what I understand, at that particular site today there are something like

140 electricians there from Calgary and something like nine of our own people

working with this particular contractor.

Now, we talk about work that is complicated or not

complicated. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders have worked all over this world doing

complicated work. Newfoundlanders built the city of New York. Newfoundlanders

built Toronto, but still here in this Province today ourselves are not willing

to go out and say that Newfoundlanders have the capability to perform skilled

labour. It seems like we are not willing to accept that.

On the bridge going across, the link between New Brunswick

and Prince Edward Island, one of the gentleman from my district is today one of

the chief engineers on that particular bridge, and I fear if that particular

bridge was being built here in Newfoundland he would probably have to leave the

Province to find a job. It seems like we don't have faith in our own people. We

do not want to go out and put them in a position whereby they do responsible

work, and this is evident here today when we see our own Newfoundlanders laid

off and told to go home while other people from other provinces continue to

work.

I have travelled all over this country myself and worked in

jurisdictions. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture shouts across the

floor, and he shouted the other day and said there was nothing wrong with this.

There was nothing wrong with this situation because Newfoundlanders are allowed

to go to other provinces and work. That is very true, but I say to the member

opposite that when there is a layoff, when there is a downturn in work, the

people who are travellers outside that jurisdiction are the first people who are

laid off. You do not see people from other jurisdictions continue to work in

another province while their own people are laid off - it does not happen. But

it is happening here. It is happening here and it is a situation where

Newfoundlanders, members of Local 2330 of the IBEW, are certainly skilled enough

to go and do these duties - like I said, we have no problem with them keeping a

couple of supervisory personnel there in order to make sure that they have

company representatives to make the job a success, but there is certainly no

reason for them to have 140 people from Calgary there and nine Newfoundlanders.

That is very, very unfair, especially when you are looking at an employment rate

in this Province in excess of 20 per cent, Mr. Speaker, that is unfair. It is a

situation out there at that particular construction site today where

Newfoundlanders are told to pick up their tools and go home, there is no

opportunity for them, but the next day or that evening, you see workers from

other provinces coming in through the gate and going to do work that

Newfoundlanders are very capable of performing, and should be performing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just to take a couple of

minutes to respond to the petition. We are working together. The Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal and I are working together, Mr. Speaker, to deal

with a number of issues pertaining to hiring at Hibernia and also to the labour

relations regime at Hibernia.

The specific question about a specific contractor is being

dealt with right now as we speak, with the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore

Petroleum Board who are doing an evaluation of the hiring practices of certain

contractors for the commissioning phase of the GBS. That work is being

undertaken right now. We have had meetings with union business agents from the

different unions in the last two weeks. The ODC, oil development council, were

in and gave us a presentation of the their views and HMDC were in and gave us a

presentation of their views. We are getting an evaluation done of that

information, completed, so that we can know what the facts are, so that the

minister and I can then, together, move forward and deal with any concerns that

people have, any workers have, about hiring practices at the site.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to ensure that the Atlantic

Accord is lived up to. The spirit of the Atlantic Accord is about protecting

workers and protecting the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get

hired in the offshore and in the industry when it comes to the oil industry. So

the government is very concerned about it. We are working very hard at it. This

agreement, there is some discussion, and some discussion about the

interpretation of the agreement because a commissioning phase was not agreed

upon for these practices to be covered. So there is some confusion over what is

occurring now. We are trying to straighten it out as best we can. It will take a

little bit longer but we should have an answer in due course. We do have the

concern, Mr. Speaker, to say to hon. members, that we have the concern and we

want to make sure that it is addressed as we look forward to an offshore oil

industry for this Province. Thank you.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition on behalf of some

parents in my district. It is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly of

Newfoundland and Labrador and it asks the House to accept the petition. It says:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, do

hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Education to

legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for all school buses in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that students are presently being

unsupervised and are at risk in their safety going to and from school on school

buses. The safety of our children is being compromised. We ask the hon. minister

and his government to show compassion, leadership and understanding to ensure

the safe transportation of our children and in duty bound your petitioners will

ever pray.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I presented the petition as an ongoing

series of petitions that have been signed by my constituents and are being

presented to me almost on a daily basis. The prayer of the petition is self

evident. Many of the parents in my district are concerned that their children go

to school each day and that their safety is being unnecessarily compromised.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in previous times when I have

spoken on this particular series of petitions, we cannot put a price on a

child's safety, and certainly, when we fail to take action after we have had so

many incidents in our Province where children have been hurt merely by the fact

that they get on a school bus to go to and from school. In some cases,

unfortunately, there have been very, very tragic results when children have

indeed been killed.

Mr. Speaker, parents want the government to look at the

monies that have been saved through efficiencies. They want the government to

look at monies that have been saved in other ways in the educational budget -

the reductions in staff and these kinds of these kinds of things. I say to the

government, consider implementing paid adult bus monitors, particularly at the

primary and the elementary level. Although the prayer of the petition is for

paid adult bus monitors at all grade levels, I do believe that the priority

would have to first start with the primary and elementary divisions.

There are other issues. There are issues that affect the age

of the buses we have in Newfoundland, and the fact that buses, I do believe, can

come from other provinces where they have outlived their life expectancy. We

have buses coming particularly from, I think, the Province of Quebec, where I

understand that they have stricter guidelines than we have in this Province.

Certainly, I say to the hon. the minister that we have to

look at the issue of safety not only from the role that the bus driver has to

fulfil. I do not think anybody is blaming the bus drivers. What they are saying

is: Yes, we have educational programs for bus drivers, yes we have, I do

believe, a willingness on the part of the government to look at the physical

structure and the age of the buses. We are asking the minister, however, would

he today consider implementing an adult bus monitor program for this Province,

and not necessarily have it restricted to volunteers? Because that will probably

end up being, shall we say, uncertain in some cases, because we know that

volunteers are wonderful people, but parents want the assurance that the adult

monitor is there. One way to ensure that is to have them paid to do the job that

they do.

I say again that there is a series of petitions being

circulated throughout all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am aware of some

10,000 or more signatures that have been gathered to date. They are coming from

all parts of the Island, and I present the ones today coming from the District

of Waterford Valley. There will be more petitions like this presented in the

days ahead by my colleagues on this side of the House.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I would like to rise today and make a few comments and

support the petition that was just presented, and make a few comments with

respect to this being long overdue.

For years now, I guess, we have all as parents and teachers

and so on looked at the safety of school buses, and in particular - and I tell

the minister this - my own experience in my first year teaching. I watched

through a school window while I saw kids running behind a bus, and one of the

children, grade II or III, I don't know exactly what grade, slipped, and the bus

was still backing up. I watched that from inside the building. Luckily he did

get up in time and get away from the bus that was moving backwards and the

driver didn't see the child.

When I saw that incident, and since then have seen other

similar situations where you have so many children running around the bus -and

you know what happens after school, how excited they are, and on a Friday

evening how excited kids are when they run out and all these buses are in the

parking lot. Of course, we have the situation where a lot of these parking lots

are not salted or there is no sand or gravel put on those parking lots and it is

very dangerous. I said to the group, as I talked to them today, that it is, you

know, something that I have been concerned with for a long time as a teacher,

and now as a parent who now has a child in grade II and another expected to go

into kindergarten next year. As I see that year after year as a teacher, and now

as a parent, I get more and more concerned.

Really, we have all, as politicians, teachers, parents and so

on, procrastinated in acting on this. Because that is exactly what we have done.

We have always known that the problem was there. We have always known the threat

to our children. Some of the statistics speak for themselves. I think every

member in the House is very sincere when they do speak on this particular issue,

and we would like to do something about it.

The fact that six fatalities in this Province, with school

buses, Mr. Speaker, since 1985, 150 personal injuries because of this same

issue, and over 500 accidents related to bus safety, is incredible statistics

and when you stop to look at it, you say it is no wonder that parents are

finally starting to say you know, this is the time now that we take the right

approach at least, I say to the minister and not solve the problem overnight and

decide what the policy is going to be, but take a long, hard look at it.

I know the minister has met with these groups and are very

sincere when they talk about that, and you have children in school - I know a

lot of the members do here, Mr. Speaker, it really hits home when you think

about what price tax you put on safety and the fact that another child in a year

from now might be killed in such an incident.

Of course, my colleague here from Waterford Valley,

experienced such a thing, Mr. Speaker, back in 1975 or '76, I am sure exactly

what year but, Mr. Speaker, what an imprint that leaves a person for the rest of

his life as a parent or teacher to witness such a thing, and how it strikes

home. So, Mr. Speaker, the message that we had from this group as we spoke to

them is, we know that the government is not full of money, there is not a lot of

extra money floating around but, Mr. Speaker, what they say, is the start to at

least move in the right direction. They do not expect $10 million next year to

correct this but they do expect the government to take notice of it and to start

to implement something that will seem positive in the way of bus safety in the

Province: sensors on the buses, upgrading of buses.

The fact that a bus driver, Mr. Speaker - think about the

pressure on that person especially now as this issue becomes more highlighted,

and as a bus driver who has seventy-two kids piled on to his bus in the

mornings, at noon and maybe in the evening, and the pressure that that poor bus

driver, once they get on the bus, we are basically saying to that driver: Now,

you have the responsibility of those seventy-two kids, not only loading and

unloading, but the fact that there is not even a seat belt on a bus, and a lot

of these buses now and especially with the reform we see in Education, will be

travelling the highway at fairly high speeds, fifty, sixty, seventy kilometres

and imagine, Mr. Speaker, a moose and all those situations we think about on the

highway, an accident with seventy-two children sitting there without seat belts,

Mr. Speaker, so that issue it self should be reviewed.

Then we look at sensors and as one of the people on the

committee said to us, it makes a lot of sense. We have technology these days

where we can detect a worm in a fish but we cannot detect that a child is behind

a bus so, Mr. Speaker, these issues have to be addressed and addressed quickly.

The minister, and no one in government want to stand in this House and send

regrets to any family who see more problems that might arise in the near future.

So the answer, Mr. Speaker, for government, is to address it quickly and to at

least show that they are committed to this by moving in the right direction and

some of the monies that are saved through Education, we start to implement and

look at some of the issues raised by this concerned group.

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to commend that group for

finally getting together and putting these points forward, something that I

should have done as a parent and a teacher, something that we all should have

done as parents and teachers years ago, but we did not. We put it off, over and

over and finally we had to have another fatality to remind us again, so the

point is: how many times are we to be reminded before we act on it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: So, Mr. Speaker, I support the petition and

hope we can address it soon.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the hon. members bringing the petition forward

and raising the issue again.

The issue is a serious one, Mr. Speaker, that we have in the

final stages of review at the Department of Education but again, Mr. Speaker, I

would take it, and for the record, that the position now of the members opposite

in supporting this petition is that there have to be paid, adult monitors,

because that is exactly what this petition calls for and I am assuming, Mr.

Speaker, that the members who spoke, signed the petition, therefore agree with

the petition because the Opposition critic, I say again, Mr. Speaker, and this

is a serious issue that we are dealing with seriously and we want to have some

real progress made.

But again, there is difficulty in the opposition party giving

a mixed message in terms of information, a while ago, indicating that they

thought the solution was probably not paid monitors at all but volunteer, adult

monitors. There are public statements to that effect, Mr. Speaker, on the

record, in the Province, because it was not commented on by me, as the Minister

of Education. The issue was not commented on by anybody representing the

government. It was commented upon, Mr. Speaker, by the Opposition critic for

education in the press, saying that they felt there was a need and that it

probably could be met without the expenditure of any money. I'm just puzzled,

Mr. Speaker, as to why now they would not say that together as a united group in

Opposition when the petitioners come forward to say: No, I won't sign this

particular thing because it asks for paid monitors.

The point made by the Opposition party is that there doesn't

need to be paid monitors, we need monitors. Yes, we do need monitors. We have

monitors by the way, in Newfoundland and Labrador today. It is a fairly regular

feature with respect to school busing in our Province. It is going to continue

I'm sure to be a feature. We have committed with the groups that we have met

with to look at a whole range of issues from the age of the buses themselves,

from some safety devices on the buses, from some two-way radios on the buses,

first-aid training for drivers, a whole range of issues. The proper signals and

so on, back up lights and back up signals on the buses for when they are moving

in reverse, and other issues. Training for the drivers. All of those issues.

The reality though, and I committed to get back to the groups

with the results of our cross-Canada review, is currently, today - and members

might like to know this, in dealing with the constituents who they speak with,

because I'm sure they would like to deal with the issue with more knowledge than

with speculation. Yes, there have been accidents; yes, there have been very

tragic deaths with respect to school buses in Newfoundland and Labrador. We all

agree that one is too many, we understand that. But the record in Newfoundland

and Labrador is as good as, if not better than, any in the country. I know that

is poor comfort to anyone who has been involved in an accident, and it is no

comfort to anyone who has a family member who has tragically died as a result.

But those are the issues.

With respect to monitoring, which is what this petition is

about, this is the Province that in the current circumstance leads the country

with respect to monitoring initiatives. Nobody else in the country has a

monitoring program in place today that even comes close to what is in place in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Even the parents themselves who have been asked, when

I met with them about the idea of paid monitors, they understand that money may

be hard to come by, and that if we are going to spend money in an education

budget with respect to paying monitors then there are some other things that we

will probably have to stop doing.

Some of them as well have come forward and said: Maybe we

should be charging a fee ourselves. Because they don't need the government to

put paid adult monitors on a bus today. If any parent wants to be a paid adult

monitor, and any group of parents anywhere in the Province wants to have a paid

adult monitor on a bus with their child would like for it to happen today,

December 2 1996, it can happen. It is just a matter of the parents themselves

paying from their own resources the fees so that they can pay the monitor.

Because in the Province today there are parents and young people doing these

jobs without a fee. Whether or not any version of a paid monitor will be a part

of the final solution, I don't know.

The issue we take very seriously. Sometimes I'm just a little

bit confused by the Opposition. Because their public commentary has been that we

don't need paid monitors. Then they stand in the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: - sign their names, and say they support

motions and petitions where there have to be paid monitors. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. We will address the issue again in future days, I'm sure.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a

petition which I would like to present on this issue, and hopefully at the same

time give some clarification to the hon. minister on a point which he continues

to raise in response to this serious issue of bus monitors.

The petition reads:

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

and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

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

accept the following petition:

We the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department

of Education to legislate paid adult bus monitor programs for all school buses

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that students are

presently being unsupervised and are at risk in their safety going to and from

school on school buses. The safety of our children is being compromised. We ask

the hon. minister and his government to show compassion, leadership and

understanding to ensure the safe transportation of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the petitioners with

respect to this issue. Secondly, I stand here in support of what this says.

Constantly, when this petition, this very serious issue, is raised in this hon.

House, the Minister of Education stands and somehow tries to twist what is

really the central thesis of these petitions, and says: Oh, the Opposition is

unsure as to what its position is. The Opposition says one thing, with respect -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: My position is this, and I will make it

quite clear. Number one, it is our duty to represent the voice of individuals in

this Province, and we do that by making this petition.

Secondly, with respect to the issue of volunteer bus

monitors, it was indeed a reaction that this party, and I as education critic,

made a day following a very serious tragedy. It is clear, and obviously

understood by everybody in this Province, that a system of paid bus monitors

could not be implemented within twenty-four hours of a serious accident. And it

seemed to me, and it seemed to our caucus, to be a logical interim step and an

option that could be addressed by this government to encourage and implement

this system of volunteers. However, because we in this party are prepared to

listen to what the people of this Province have to say, we in this party are

prepared to invite the stakeholders on this very important issue and listen to

what they have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In fact, only this morning -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman is supporting a petition. Is

he saying that it is the policy of the Opposition, if they were in government,

they would have paid school bus monitors, paid for by government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We support this position because through our research, and

listening to the people of the Province, and having heard what particular groups

of concerned parents have said, I am of the belief that what this government

ought to do, and ought to do immediately, is encourage and implement a system of

paid school bus monitors, adult monitors, who will clearly supervise the young

people of our Province while travelling on buses over the roads of this

Province. Mr. Speaker, the circumstances are clear. It is my own personal

belief, and I have no difficulty whatsoever in presenting this petition.

The point that the hon. minister makes every time the issue

of bus monitors is raised in this hon. House, the hon. minister twists the

central thesis of the petition, and that is what our position is.

Mr. Speaker, our position is clear and I support this

petition wholeheartedly. Thank you.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What is wrong with you over there today, I

say to the Minister of Government Services and Lands? You are awfully fidgety. I

have not even opened my mouth and I have your irritated already.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I must be doing a very good job, I say to

the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place today to support the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's East, but I have to say, right

off the bat, that the Minister of Education, every time there is a petition

presented in this House, is on his feet trying to say that we are sending out

mixed messages. The fact is that the Minister of Education is the one who is

doing his job. As the Premier says often times about us doing our job: You can

understand that the hon. member is doing a job criticizing, blah, blah, and what

have you. The Minister of Education is over there doing his job. He is the one

trying to send out mixed messages. He is trying to say that we, on this side of

the House, are sending out mixed messages.

When the Member for St. John's East, the critic for

education, responded a day or so after the terrible accident with respect to a

child being killed in a bus accident, of course, one of the solutions - one of

the solutions - was to put volunteer bus monitors on the buses. There are

approximately 1,000 buses in this Province, so obviously one of the immediate

solutions would be to put volunteers on them.

Now, just in that instance alone, according to my figures,

there were approximately sixty volunteers who came forward, as volunteers, in

that area with respect to the school which that child attended. Sixty came

forward, and now it is down to ten; from sixty down to ten. What that would lead

you to believe, that maybe, because of simple logistics, that the volunteer bus

monitors may not work. So obviously the next solution would be to put paid

monitors on. Now the minister gets up and says, okay, do you support the paid

monitors and what have you, it is a good question. I personally do because the

minister has, on numerous occasions, as other ministers of the department - what

is you problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I have a few to do, don't worry. Mr.

Speaker, the Government House Leader is not taking this issue very seriously I

don't think.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the paid monitors on the buses in

this Province and it would not necessarily have to be every bus possibly but

certainly the lower grades where the little kids almost have to be lifted up

into the buses, probably from grades K-6 or something of that nature you could

have paid volunteers??? on it. There are all other kinds of solutions too, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to sensing devices and mirrors on the back of the bus like

different people have but the government now talks about saving another $9

million I believe. I think the figure is $9 million in education this upcoming

year. Is that a figure that is -

AN HON. MEMBER: $9 million?

MR. J. BYRNE: $9 million, yes, after the $20-some million

that was saved last year in education. Don't get too upset, I say to the

Government House Leader, listen and you might learn something.

If in fact the government is being upfront with the people of

the Province when they are talking about education reform - all the money that

is going to be saved in education reform is going to go back into education to

improve education - Mr. Minister, maybe it would not hurt to take some of this

money and put it towards bus monitors. That is one solution that the Minister of

Education can look at.

Now just for instance, so the people will know, and I was

quite alarmed basically or surprised to find out that since 1985 we have had

five fatalities in this Province directly related to bus accidents and children,

five. There have been 150 injuries directly related to bus injuries and

apparently over 500 accidents with respect to buses in this Province. Now that

lends a whole new perspective on what is happening in the Province with respect

to busing and in busing children back and forth in this Province, 1,000 buses,

something like 90,000 students possibly being bused in this Province, I say to

the Minister of Education. So obviously the whole thing has to be looked at with

respect to the regulations, what is put in place, I say to the Minister of

Education, and if these kinds of stats are accurate - and the Minister of

Education is shaking his head in agreement - I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if these

facts are indeed accurate obviously we need to do something as soon as possible

with respect to bus monitoring in this Province.

Another point that we found out, if a bus breaks down on the

highway between communities, that there is no communication. Would it hurt, I

say to the Minister of Education, to have a cellular phone on each bus? Could

that not be a part of the tendering process to say that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker. Just in conclusion,

Mr. Speaker. Would it hurt to have that as a part of the tendering process that

there has to be communication on the bus?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just glad that the petition was raised a couple of times

today. It is clear now for the record that the position of the official

Opposition in the Province is that there must be paid adult monitors on the

buses in the Province and that is a priority. So I understand that and we take

that as the position of the party. So when we finish our review - I am not sure,

Mr. Speaker, that it will be one of the final outcomes but I understand that

that is the position supported, of 100 per cent, by the members opposite that

anything short of paid adult monitors - not only that, Mr. Speaker, paid by the

government, directly from grants to school boards, not paid by the parents

themselves but paid adult monitors. So it is nice to see, at least, that they

are flexible and they can change their position from time to time because that

clearly was not the position just a few short weeks ago.

Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, because this is under

review and they mentioned some research that they have done with respect to this

issue and monitors in other provinces and other jurisdictions, Prince Edward

Island, monitoring program, none; New Brunswick, monitoring program, none, not

students or adults; Manitoba, monitoring program, none; Alberta, monitors, none;

British Columbia, monitors, none; Newfoundland and Labrador, student volunteers

and adult volunteers trained by the school boards with materials provided by the

Department of Education, supplemented by the boards, and supplemented by the

Newfoundland and Labrador Safety Council. The most extensive and comprehensive

program in the country exists in our Province today, but it is clear, for the

record, that the Opposition will settle for nothing less than paid adult

monitors, paid for by the government through grants to school boards. I am glad

they have finally put their new position on the record so that it is clear for

everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Motion No. 2 for first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and

Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Pension Benefits," carried. (Bill

No. 46)

On motion, Bill No. 46 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Order No. 19, "An Act Respecting Judgement

Enforcement". (Bill No. 44)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Judgement Enforcement." Bill No. 44.

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

MR. TULK: In the absence of the Minister of Justice who

was called out because of a matter he has to attend to, I rise to move second

reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement."

It is my understanding that by leave of the House the

Opposition critic will speak on this bill, and the principle of this bill,

outlining whether he agrees with the principle or disagrees with the principle,

that we will conclude the debate on this side, and then move the bill into

committee for ten days, whereby the people in this Province, the organizations

and professions who have an interest, and indeed if the Opposition have an

interest in making a presentation, or for that matter people on the government

side of the House, who have an interest in making a presentation to the Standing

Committee on Social Services, they will be enable to do so by that process. Then

when we come back we will move the bill into Committee of the Whole and carry

out the various stages of the bill. I think the Opposition House Leader will

concur. He does not hear me but I think he will concur that is the procedure we

intend to use with this bill.

MR. H. HODDER: Absolutely.

MR. TULK: I am glad the hon. member wasn't listening

because we just reduced his salary.

In the absence of the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General it gives me great pleasure today, and I am going to read a few notes

here if the hon. gentlemen will permit me, to outline the nature, purpose, and

effect of an "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement." It is my understanding

that the bill represents a significant initiative from the Department of

Justice, and it is my understanding that it has been prepared after long study

and wide consultation as intended to effect comprehensive reform of

Newfoundland's existing system of execution law. I am sure that the Member for

St. John's East will elaborate on what we mean by execution law when he rises.

I understand it is the body of law that has to do with

enforcement by the High Sheriff or his officers of judgement of the court. I

understand that the High Sheriff is in the gallery, a former member of this

House. I believe he was the member at that time for Grand Bank. Some of us in

the House had the privilege of serving with him, I say to the people on this

side and on the Opposition side of the House. I have to say the member was a

very good member and I am sure he is just as good a Sheriff.

Hon. members of this House are aware, I am sure, that it is a

fundamental precept of our society that individuals should honour the

obligations they have undertaken, or that the court determines that they have to

other individuals. Our civil legal system exists to support that precept and it

provides processes by which the scope of these obligations is determined,

generally through the judicial system and then they are enforced as a rule

through the office of the High Sheriff. The quality of these processes is

measured in terms of justice and efficiency. Just and efficient processes for

both the determination and enforcement of individual obligations are

fundamentally essential to the health of the business community and of society

in general.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before this hon. House today for second

reading will create a modern, efficient, just, and balanced enforcement system

for Newfoundland. It is my understanding from the Minister of Justice and from

other people I have talked to that this initiative has a long history. I

understand there have been a number of efforts to reform by various bodies and

various institutions, justice institutions, legal institutions, to reform

execution law in this Province and that today I believe the Judgement

Enforcement Act before this hon. House is proof positive of the commitment of

this government, and I believe of previous government to see this through to a

final conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland is not unique in recognizing the

need for reform and undertaking research in the area of execution law. I

understand that the Ontario Law Reform Commission in its major report on the

enforcement of judgeable debts noted that the structuring process of the Ontario

system contrives at the outset to promote a substantial degree of confusion and

an efficiency in the enforcement of judgement debts.

The commission then referred to the existing system as

fragmented, ambiguous, incomplete and archaic and later commented that the law

often has left debtors, their advisers and enforcement personnel in some

confusion concerning the administration of the enforcement system as a whole and

concerning the existence and effectiveness of statutory rights.

Mr. Speaker, I think the comments of the Ontario Law Reform

Commission - and I think all of us, as citizens, know this as well - are equally

applicable to Newfoundland today.

The fundamental problems with the current system affect not

only judgement creditors, but judgement debtors and ultimately society as a

whole. The lack of simplicity, efficiency and balance in the present system is

unquestioned and this bill seeks to change, Mr. Speaker, that state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, it gives me great privilege to

move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 is quite lengthy, as all hon. members

are now aware, having received a copy of the proposed legislation on Friday

past, and, as the Government House Leader indicated, is the result of a

significant effort which, I would suggest, has gone on for perhaps years,

perhaps in the days of the Law Reform Commission when, I am sure, this work was

either commenced or continued, during the period of the Law Reform Commission in

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that this particular

legislation will be going to Committee and it is appropriate to do so. The

legislation is quite involved, quite important and tends to streamline

enforcement law or, as the hon. Government House Leader indicated, execution law

in this Province. It is imperative that this legislation be scrutinized

carefully and that interested parties from the general public have an

opportunity to make submissions and raise questions during the Committee stages.

From the preliminary documentation which has been received,

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the objective of the Judgement Enforcement Act is

to create a modern, efficient and unified enforcement system through a code of

procedures that reaches a balance of the interest of creditors, debtors and

society as a whole, in a manner that is appropriate for this Province. Again,

that draws out the importance of uniformity and consistency with respect to

judgement enforcement.

The basic principles which underlie this system created by

this act, Mr. Speaker, to reach these objectives, may be summarized as follows:

Unification or consistency; the separation of binding of the debtor's property

and enforcement procedures to realize on that property; creditor initiation and

control of enforcement procedures; collective enforcement and enforcement with

respect to all valuable rights owned by the debtor, subject to reasonable

exemptions. So clearly, we have the basic principles as expressed in the

Executive

Summary which was distributed along with Bill 44 on Friday of last

week.

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, it is highly complex. What

this does to the layman is, introduces individuals in this Province to the

features, the terminology and the concept of execution law in this Province. It

is, as I have just indicated as well, essential that this go before Committee,

that it be carefully reviewed, evaluated and the appropriate questions asked.

With respect to the details of this particular piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve that for further discussion

after Committee stage when this legislation is once again before this honourable

House. I welcome the legislation. I would like to say that it is time that we

have consistent legislation with respect to execution law in this Province, and

I look forward to the Committee stages to delve into it further.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, without belabouring any points in

this bill, I would move that we, by leave of the House, that we refer this bill

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have not had second reading. I understood if the minister

is closing -

MR. TULK: Well I am closing second reading, Mr. Speaker,

and will you consider it now closed?

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement,"

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

tomorrow. (Bill No. 44)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving Bill 44 to Committee

of the Whole, I would move that Bill No. 44, having received second reading, be

referred to the Standing Committee on Social Services, and that the chairperson

of that Committee be so instructed and be ordered to report to this House within

ten sitting days.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the bill be

now referred to the Standing Committee of Social Services.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 7, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act," Bill No. 33.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will pick up, I guess, where I left off on Friday

concerning this particular act. I still have some points I wish to make in

regard to this act.

Both the current and the new act say that the government pays

the cost, the expenses and the fees, if the Board increases the award of

compensation; the aggrieved person pays the cost, expenses and fees if the Board

doesn't increase the award; and if no compensation was offered before

expropriation, then the Board determines who pays the cost, the expenses and the

fees.

This new act, Mr. Speaker, introduces a new element, by

saying in clause 11 that the expenses shall include the cost of "counsel,

engineers, valuators, stenographers, accountants and other assistants employed

by the board as well as the salaries and expenses of the members of the board

while employed in and about the hearing." It isn't certain if witnesses are paid

under the new process and if that would constitute an expense.

Clearly the PUB process can be far more expensive than the

cost of a three-member and one stenographer board. Mr. Speaker, the PUB can

increase the cost by commissioning input, which somebody on that particular

board may decide that they need in order to reach their decision. The government

can act in a mean-spirited way to increase cost at no risk to itself but at

great risk to the aggrieved person who could lose a case and be forced to bear

the cost. The new process, unlike the current one, allows the government to beef

up its counsel and spare no expense to try and win the expropriation case. The

potentially unlimited cost would serve as a deterrent to anyone considering a

challenge of the government's compensation offer. This is pursued by the threat

to accept of course the government's offer. In other word, we are going to say

to the person: It may be expensive, you may lose this case, and you are better

off accepting. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is wrong.

Unless the Board's award is greater than that offered by

government, the aggrieved person must pay the cost and all the expenses. Again,

I feel that that is certainly wrong.

The new subsection, which is 34(5), which is the same as the

current subsection (4), is even more ominous given the new process. If the

government makes no offer for the land prior to expropriation, the Board

determines which party pays the cost. The minister, without providing any

compensation offered, which a landowner would almost certainly object to - and

of course when we do that and we are going to the PUB, then I guess we can all

realize just what could happen here. So again, the minister, without providing

any compensation, and again which a landowner would almost certainly object to,

could order a PUB hearing, the cost of which could be borne by the person whose

land is up for expropriation.

I have to wonder here, are we bringing in this new

section to

deal with maybe the Goulds by-pass road? I understand that landowners in this

particular area are now being offered one-sixth of what other landowners in that

area, or approximate area, were paid over the last few years. If we are, then I

think there is definitely something wrong here. When we look at, from what I

understand to be one-sixth of the cost, then, you know, we certainly will find

families and people who have had lands in their family for years, some of them

probably going to use this as retirement or whatever, and now we are going to

pay these people one-sixth of what we paid several years ago. I think, Mr.

Speaker, there is certainly something wrong.

Again, I would hope that is not the reason for this

particular bill, but again I raise that caution, especially when I know, or

understand, that one-sixth of the cost is being offered now to the present

landowners.

The current sections, 21, 23, 24, and 25, are to be repealed.

Under the current act,

section 21, the minister, subject to the Cabinet, sets

the board member fees, but these would now be determined under the PUB

legislation. This, of course, is under the new part of

section 34. Under the

current act, the board has civil court power to call witnesses, demand evidence,

subpoena documents, and administer oaths. The PUB can do this as well under its

other sections.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I am talking about expropriation; I wish you

had come in earlier. I was hoping to get somebody over there on side with this

bill, I say to the Minister of Education.

While the current act sets fees for hearing witnesses, is

there such a provision in the new act or the PUB legislation? Provision for

stenographers is current in

section 25, and is taken care of elsewhere under the

new scheme. So again, in the end, the landowner will be the person who will

suffer.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to shaft somebody.

MR. FRENCH: I hope that one is on the record. The

Minister of Education says you have to shaft somebody. I hope we have that one

recorded.

Section 32, part of which is to be repealed, the new act does

away with three provisions of the current act. The board shall include the

award, its findings, on all questions of law, in fact, that it has tried, and

the amount of compensation that is awarded. The award of the two arbitrators

shall be considered to be the award of the board, and the board may correct in

any award a clerical mistake or error arising from an accidental slip or

omission.

Mr. Speaker, I think this act is certainly wrong. I do not

think we should put it under the Public Utilities Act, or put it under the

Public Utilities Commission.

I attended a meeting this morning where there were people

from the Public Utilities Board, and the impression certainly left by them is

that they have all kinds of work to do now. So I wonder here about delays and

certainly about costs, because one thing, in some questioning today, they were

certainly very straight in the questions that were put to them, and the amount

of work that goes into it. Of course, in a lot of areas their whole thing is

financed by what they charge public utilities, what they charge Newfoundland

Power, what is the fee for the insurance companies that they supposedly

regulate. So now we are going to take our expropriations and we are going to

carry them over. We are going to say to the PUB, now you are going to do this.

We are going to fix the charges and most times these charges probably will go

back to the aggrieved person, who in the beginning owns the land. I, for one,

certainly don't feel that that is right. I think that is wrong. I think that the

person has the right to appeal to a board. That individual has the right, Mr.

Speaker, to appoint his own representative to that board and does not have to

deal with a body to which he has nobody appointed to represent his or her

particular interest.

I feel that that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure over

the next days as we get further into this bill and get further down the road, I

feel pretty confident that somebody on the other side will see that this act is

certainly not a benefit to people.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to refer to the Goulds Bypass Road

where I understand a fair amount of land is to be expropriated. Whether my

sources are correct or whether they are not, I really don't know, but they tell

me that they have been offered one-sixth the value of their land. If that is the

case, Mr. Speaker, then that is a shame; one-sixth of the value of what somebody

has had for most of their lives, that they are now going to lose. I think that

these people should be compensated and compensated as in the past. My

understanding is that right now that is not happening. Again hopefully the

minister can intercede there and see that this whole system changes.

For now, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. I am sure as

we get more into debate and so on, I will have more to say.

For now I thank you, sir, for your time.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to offer a few comments and to support the rather

detailed analysis given by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South,

the critic in this particular case for this particular bill, called an "Act To

Amend The Expropriation Act."

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill is pretty clear in the

explanatory note. It says, "This Bill would amend the Expropriation Act by

providing that hearings to fix compensation upon expropriation would be

conducted by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities." Mr. Speaker, this

is a fundamental change in the way that this Province has been doing things in

terms of how we deal with compensation to people when government finds it

necessary to take away their property.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental right of people to be

compensated fairly, honestly and equitably when government, for whatever reason,

deems that it is in the public interest that their property be taken from them

for public uses. Mr. Speaker, all of us can cite examples of where it has been

deemed to be in the public interest because of the erection of a new highway.

So, Mr. Speaker, we can think of places like Pasadena in Western Newfoundland

where the Department of Works, Services and Transportation has taken land for

the new bypass road. We can note, in passing here, the plea of the lady who was

on television there a couple of weeks ago saying that she was not happy with the

fact that her life's investment had been taken from her to facilitate the new

highway. She felt that all of her property had not been adequately evaluated by

the government, and she was aggrieved by it.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to know some of the homeowners in

Pasadena and I know some of the anguish that they have gone through when they

were told that the piece of property and the home that they had built on that

property is now to be sacrificed for the public good. While all of us believe

that we have to build highways, we all believe we have to find land to build

public buildings, we also have to agree that people who own those public

buildings deserve fair, reasonable, and adequate compensation.

My difficulty with the bill is that it takes away from the

ordinary person an opportunity for a fair and reasonable