March 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 7

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform hon. members that

the selection process for the Art Procurement Program has been completed.

Approximately 1,300 pieces of art were submitted to the Selection Committee for

consideration. A total of eighty-eight pieces totalling $93,000 were purchased

through the 1995-1996 Art Procurement Program.

This program demonstrates government's commitment to

Newfoundland and Labrador artists and art works. Established in 1982 by Cabinet,

this program is designed to recognize and promote the works of our artists by

placing original Newfoundland and Labrador art works in public buildings. Those

items purchased under the Art Procurement Program are selected by a jury which

comprises representatives from the arts community, Newfoundland and Labrador

Arts Council, and the School of Fine Arts at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College. The

jury develops a list of recommended purchases with the final decisions based on

the program's budget.

The program's art works and crafts are intended to be

representative of the Province's various geographical locations as well as the

various themes, styles and compositions of visual art media.

Mr. Speaker, I have attached the list of selected pieces to

the statement which is being distributed in the House this morning.

I thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed very positive

news. I would like to commend the minister. It just goes to show that the

artists of Newfoundland and Labrador are making great strides forward. I see

that there were 1,300 pieces presented. We have purchased a total of

eighty-eight pieces. I have to commend the minister and the process in which

these pieces were selected. I think that, like I mentioned, it is very positive

news. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, in the absence of the Premier today, I will direct

my questions to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

We are all aware that the Marystown Shipyard has had its

share of problems. Does the minister believe that Marystown can be a major

participant in the fabrication of the production platform for Terra Nova?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I think if certain changes

happened at the Marystown Shipyard, if the recommendations continue along, if

the new board is given the opportunity to complete its mandate, then I think

that there is an opportunity for Marystown Shipyard, yes, and the Cow Head

facility, to participate in the Terra Nova project.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: My next question, a member of the Board of

Directors of Marystown Shipyard Limited is also party to a company involved in

one of the four alliances that is bidding for work on the production platform of

Terra Nova. The other three alliances may see this as a potential conflict,

because they might wish to use Marystown facilities as part of their proposal,

but in doing so they are exposing their bid to the competition. Now, has the

Premier, or the minister, had any representation from these companies or from

individuals regarding a potential conflict? Does the Premier, or the minister

responsible, have any concern that there is a potential conflict that could

result in those companies excluding Marystown from their proposals?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: A very good question. Mr. Speaker, the

situation with respect to Terra Nova, which was talked about on television last

night, did not quite paint the correct picture. There are four alliances or four

consortia of companies that have come together to bid on the Terra Nova project.

Marystown's position was simply this, we have a facility, we would like the

maximum amount of benefit and work for the workers at that facility, we would

like all of the alliances to come to the table and speak to Marystown and see if

in fact we can use that facility. The person who is responsible for marketing

the Bull Arm site, Mr. Speaker, under the Bull Arm Site Corporation, also was

asked to market and to advance the cause of Marystown with respect to Terra

Nova. That particular senior official, Mr. Ruelokke, I think faxed immediately

the four alliances that were put together and offered to sit down and speak to

them on a non-exclusive basis so that the maximum amount of work would go into

Newfoundland and into Marystown. I think the Leader of the Opposition would

agree, that that was a prudent thing to do.

One of the groups, the Maersk Group or the Fluor-Daniel

Group, as it is known, responded to that and said, `Yes, we would like to do a

deal with Marystown and Cow Head.' In fact, they went so far as to ask to do it

on an exclusive basis. Marystown said: `No, we are not going to do it on an

exclusive basis because if, in fact, you are discounted, and you may well be -

this coming Monday the list will go from four to three - we wanted to leave

those options open for other alliances to participate.'

With respect to the second part of the member's question, I

have had representation from one company about the perception that perhaps there

is a conflict there, but I don't recall - and I would have to check the letter

because it was some time ago - I don't recall somebody saying a specific board

member is in a specific conflict of interest. I can tell the hon. member this

much, though, that if we keep brutalizing the Marystown Shipyard, and battering

it publicly, there won't be much left at the end of the day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I seem to have gotten the minister upset. All I am trying to

do is ensure that Marystown get their full and their fair share.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Marystown put all its eggs in one basket on

the mechanical outfitting contract, and they lost, and my fear is that the three

of the other alliances might not consider Marystown in their bid because of this

potential revelation of their bid to the competition.

I ask the minister - and I say to him that Marystown is a

first-class facility - should we not make every effort to ensure that it is open

to a promotion by Marystown for all four bidders in the process?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. Earlier

in the week the Leader of the Opposition was criticizing us because we had work

in there and there were overruns. Now, he is criticizing us because we are not

chasing enough work. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't from that

perspective, but I can say this to you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Check the record for seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, you are damned if you do and

damned if you don't, but I can say this to you: We have made every effort with

the short-listed consortia of companies that have folded themselves in the four

alliances. One of them -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Now the Leader of the New Democratic Party

should be quiet because we have seen the decimation of the Ontario economy after

four short years from his party. Thank God they are not here.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply say to you, that the person

responsible for the marketing of that particular yard contacted those companies.

We can't force the consortiums to play ball with Marystown, Mr. Speaker, we can

only say: Here are the facilities, we would like you to put your work here. Bull

Arm site is available as well, Mr. Speaker, as are other sites in the Province.

I can tell you one has come to the table and they want to participate with us.

If any others want to, Mr. Speaker, the invitation is wide open to all other

three.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

Much has been said but little has been done over the past

years about the pollution problem at St. John's Harbour with raw sewerage. Does

the minister have up-to-date information on the extent of pollution at St.

John's Harbour, and do you have up-to-date information on the various methods of

rectifying the problem, the effectiveness of these methods and their costs?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank the Member for St. John's South

for the question.

It is an issue that we have decided, especially within the

Department of Environment and Labour and within government to attempt to start

facing, and over the past twelve months a number of meetings have been held with

the St. John's City Council, the Mount Pearl Council, area councils along with

the ACAP organization of St. John's which is doing research into the extent of

the problem in St. John's Harbour.

A number of technologies and a number of up-to-date

engineering work reports are being prepared, so that we know exactly what the

status of the cost of doing and bringing a solution to the problem would be. We

are looking at the spring to have another meeting with all of the concerned

councils in the area, the City and Mount Pearl and CBS also, so that we can

bring forward together a plan to start looking at the problem for the long term.

A plan of action must be put in place to deal with the harbour situation and

words are not going to be the solution, action must be. We intend to bring forth

a plan of action together with the councils and also seeking the federal

government's assistance within the next year to two years with that plan. So,

there is a lot of activity that has been underway and it is a situation which

must be dealt with and faced.

Thank you.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: The cleaning up of the St. John's harbour is

a matter of concern for the City, the Province, and the Federal Government. Are

you prepared to take a lead role in determining the current state of pollution

and the cost of rectifying the problem and putting action into place?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: I say to the member that we have been

taking a lead role in organizing and bringing together the people and the

resources to first of, identify the extent of the problem, and secondly look at

a plan of action to deal with the problem. We need to start facing the situation

and putting a plan in place for the long term. The extent and the cost of

dealing with a solution to the problem has to be identified, and do our cost

estimates that have been floating for years. Well we are going to nail down the

numbers, and then we are going to see what the total cost is going to be, and

then we will present a proposal, and a potential solution to everybody

concerned, from the federal government, provincial, and municipal governments on

down.

But it is going to be, I hope, a long term plan of action to

deal with it. It won't be done overnight, but if we have a plan of action put in

place to deal with this problem then we can look forward to, down the road,

seeing a solution in place. A number of other jurisdictions in Canada, Halifax

harbour has been having same situations same problem, they have done a lot of

work, but their plan of action seems to be right now at least in some trouble.

We want one done here that meets all of our requirements, our criteria, and see

the St. John's harbour cleaned up appropriately, in the near term and long term

and also we want to see it done within the financial capability that we have

with all jurisdictions of government.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

you a question in the absence of the Minister of Finance, and President of

Treasury Board, to the acting Minister.

Today sixty people from Revenue Canada who process Income Tax

Returns, Child Tax Credits, and the Goods and Services Rebate, for all of

Atlantic Canada known as determinative workers are being laid off at Revenue

Canada. Many of these people are women, single parents, can the acting Minister

confirm that this is actually taking place, and what action has this government

taken in responding to the federal government on the recent lay-offs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that

question as notice and pass it along to the Minister of Finance when he gets

back.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Kilbride on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr Speaker, am I to assume by the

minister's answer that the government is not aware of the situation? I would

like to ask the minister that.

Secondly I would ask him, while he is taking that issue under

advisement, can he also ask the federal government or his colleague in Cabinet:

Is it true that the Province of Prince Edward Island is launching a strong lobby

to take the GST portion, the people who process the GST rebate in this Province

for all of Atlantic Canada, is the Government of Prince Edward island launching

a strong lobby to take that from this Province so that it can process it in

P.E.I. and thus create more jobs in that Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under

advisement. After Question Period I will phone Prince Edward Island and ask the

premier or the minister of finance what they are up to.

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

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

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I understand that the minister is

considering proceeding with a plan of reducing the capacity of the Province's

fish processing sector. I ask the minister if he would inform the House as to

the structure of such a plan, and when we can expect to see this task force, as

it was referred to in the Throne Speech, start to begin its work.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no intention

of going forward into the future looking at the number of plants that can be

closed. I am going to proceed forward looking at the number of plants that can

remain open.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: That is the type of procedure that I want in

place. I am not going around this Province preaching doom and gloom and trying

to put people in further despair than they already are. Opening fish plants is

my responsibility, not closing them.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what kind of a

dream world the hon. minister is existing in but he is certainly not in touch

with reality. I would like to ask the minister if he would inform the House as

to the time frame he considers adequate for this task force to report its

recommendations, and will its recommendations be final and binding?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to place myself

in the same dream world that they did during the election when they promised

seventy-five fish plants were going to be open with all the fish that they were

going to bring in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: If that is the type of dream world, then I'm

some happy I'm on this side of the House and not over there with my eyes closed.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have not said, and I am not

going to say today, that another task force will be put in place.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: So I guess, Mr. Speaker, we can expect to

see another government put in place with still nothing done after being in power

for the past seven years, and a moratorium that has been on the go since 1992.

I thought I heard the Throne Speech mention specifically, and

I don't know if the hon. member is aware of that or not, but it went on to say:

"My government will establish a joint government-industry-union task force -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: "- to develop proposals for dealing with

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this kind of thing has gone on

long enough on the other side. I would remind the hon. gentleman that a

supplementary should be short.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind the hon. Member for Bonavista South that he is on a

supplementary, that our Standing Orders specifically state that there are no

preambles, and letters or documents should not be referred to in the -

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of hard to stick

to a question when you find nobody giving any answers. Will the minister

instruct that the public consultation process will take place when this task

force is put into effect, and would he assure the House that all stakeholders,

all communities now, that have fish plants and that need to have input into the

decision that this task force will bring back, will be provided ample

opportunity in places that are convenient to those people?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member

opposite that I am fully aware of what was in the red book and also what was in

the blue book. I am fully aware, and I will take the red book over the blue book

any day in the week.

The next thing I will assure the hon. member opposite is that

my responsibility as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is simply this: To do

what is right by the people involved in the industry for fisheries in all

aspects in this Province, to learn and to appreciate the expertise that those

people out there in the communities have had for so many years. There will be a

full opportunity for everybody to have a time to consult and to voice their

opinions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: But I can tell you one thing; we are not

going to drag it out over the five or ten years. It is going to be done very,

very quickly.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are

to the Minister of Social Services, and the questions centre around the approval

procedures for foster homes.

Could the minister tell the House this morning the general

principles and procedures applied specifically with reference to criteria used

in the selection, the number of references ascertained, the number of visits

made to the prospective foster home, and if the prospective parents go through a

police or Department of Justice reference check.

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

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

Well, in response to my hon. opponent or colleague's question

AN HON. MEMBER: Colleague.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Colleague - okay, colleague - I would

like to reassure you that there is a process in place for identifying foster

homes, for identifying the number of references and following through on those

references, and there are a number of specific visits, and a policy in place

that each of those have to be followed in order to register those as a foster

home that we feel comfortable putting children into.

In terms of the actual number of visits, the process, the

length of time, I can get back to you on the specifics but there is a policy in

place and, as I mentioned last week, one of the problems we are having is trying

to identify foster homes for children over the age of twelve years. And it is

because of the degree of difficulty, I guess, that we are finding in trying to

identify those homes that we are moving in a new direction to try to put a push

on identifying those homes as soon as possible to meet the needs of the

community.

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

supplementary.

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

Madam Minister, in mid-December - I believe it was December

14th - a senior professional in social work in this Province said in a CBC

interview that due to oppressive workloads foster homes were being approved

through telephone conversations with prospective foster parents. There was no

subsequent denial from the Department of Social Services.

Can the minister confirm now that accepted approval

procedures for foster homes were not always followed precisely, and that in

December, at least, children could have been placed in homes that did not meet

departmental standards?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the

decision that was made by a predecessor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: However, I can assure you that we are

well aware of the difficulties in identifying the needs for foster homes and, as

I mentioned, we have allocated resources to try to meet those needs as soon as

possible. I am not going to say that a foster home was approved over the phone.

I put a lot more faith in the staff of the Department of Social Services and the

policies in place, and our commitment to the protection of children.

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

supplementary.

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

Foster children and foster parents and social workers

complained about the lack of co-ordination in the assignment of social workers

to foster relationships. It is not unusual to have different social workers

assigned to the foster child, to the foster parents, and to the natural parents.

The Association for Foster Parents say that they want a team approach, one

social worker assigned to the entire procedure. Is the minister moving in that

direction?

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

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

We are aware of the need to provide continuity of care in the

care of children, and we are aware of the need of a team approach, but I am

sure, as my hon. colleague knows, there are many issues in identifying who works

at the front line, including collective bargaining issues and the ability to

work within that framework. So we are well aware of the issue. We are confident

that the staff that are providing the care are doing the best they can and we

will continue to work in a collaborative way with the various departments who

address this issue.

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

Vidi.

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

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and concerns the bidding for the

Terra Nova project.

I wonder why the minister has no concern about the three

non-Maersk bidders who are concerned that the other bidder is perceived as the

preferred bidder by Petro-Canada? The concern is that these other bidders will

not put together a bid involving the use of the Marystown or the Bull Arm

facility because of their fears that the marketer of the Bull Arm facility and

the Marystown facility is in a preference position with respect to one bidder.

Why is the minister not concerned about that?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, I did not say

that I was not concerned. I am always concerned about perceptions. They are very

difficult to deal with and perceptions sometimes become realities but the

reality, not the perception, the reality in this case is that there were four

consortia short listed for this bid and Marystown, through their marketing

people, invited all four to participate. It happened on February 21, when the

consortium of oil companies announced the short list. It was on that very day

that a letter was facsimiled to all of the principals of the consortiums. Three

weeks later one of them responded, that one happens to have been the

Fluor-Daniel Consortia which includes Maersk. They spoke to Marystown about

putting work in Marystown. I think the hon. member would want work to go in

Marystown. None of the other principals responded to that facsimile. The

chairman of the board wrote, I think, again last week. We will talk to them

again on Monday if there is a short listing and the particular one we are

currently involved with in a non-exclusive arrangement, the Fluor-Daniel Group,

if they are discarded and there are three left we will aggressively pursue the

other three that are left on the table but I mean we cannot strangle people or

take companies in a headlock and force them in our door and say you must deal

with Marystown. That is not the way business is conducted.

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

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the concern that the others

express is that they don't seem to be able to participate fully in engaging

Marystown and Bull Arm because of the perceived prejudice. Even if it is only a

perception, is the minister not prepared to do something to ease the concerns

and to make certain that if the alliance Newfoundland group, the Maersk Group,

does not get this bid - the danger is of course that there will be no work in

Marystown or Bull Arm for this Terra Nova project - is the minister not prepared

to do something to prevent that from happening?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult walking balance

here because the hon. member is in the papers and in the media this week

criticizing the minister, the government, the board, the yard and by reflecting

on that you are really criticizing the workforce and everything that has to be

done with Marystown. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you are damned

if you get the work and there are overruns, everybody is responsible and then

turn around from the other side of your face and say you are damned because you

are not going out and trying to get work. Look, it is a delicate balance. We

have put out a blanket offer to all four principals of the various alliances

that have been short listed for Terra Nova. I cannot force them in the door. One

has come to the door, one has sat at the table, one has said we will give 100

per cent of the construction work and everything we can to Marystown. I cannot

force the other three principals or the other three players in through the door,

Mr. Speaker, I just cannot do that.

With respect earlier to the Leader of the Opposition's

question on whether anybody on the board was in a direct conflict, I sent out

and asked and the answer came back, no. There is nobody on the board in a direct

conflict.

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

Vidi, on a final supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the reality is that

the other three bidding groups don't trust the independence and the objectivity

of the process. Now if the minister is not prepared to do something about that,

what he is risking is that the workforce in Marystown and the people of this

Province who might get work in Bull Arm won't get it and will he do something

about that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see a

socialist speak for big business, that is quite a twist and -

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Sure you are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, what I said earlier I stand by.

We are quite prepared; we have sent out an offer, we did it immediately when

there were four players left at the table, four who were accepted by the oil

companies. We sent out the message to those four companies that Marystown and

Cow Head are available. What we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, is a

workforce and facilities, not a joint arrangement, not a joint venture, not a

partnership but we will ally our facilities with any of those bidders and make

it available to all of them. That offer was there February 21st, that offer was

there last week, that offer will be there next week and it is there through all

of the media, a public offer to all three of them to come and do their work at

Marystown.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question this morning for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

There has been much talk lately, as a matter of fact, for the

past several years, for the need of improved ferry services for Bell Island.

Will the minister confirm that a plan is now to have a new

ferry constructed for Fogo Island and have the Beaumont Hamel transferred

to the Bell Island run to replace the Katherine ?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the key issues

that is facing the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. It is one

of the issues that up to this point, I have been briefed on, I am meeting with

members from the area and representatives over the next week, and of course any

final decision on this matter is subject to the Budget process, so I will be

continuing the consultation and through the Budget process, that final decision

will be made. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister also confirm that the financing has been

arranged for the construction of such a vessel, for the new vessel that would be

used at Fogo Island, it is basically the same as the Flanders and the

estimated cost is in the vicinity of $14 million?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have to make roughly the same

response to that question as I made to the previous one, in that, any financing

arrangements for a project of this size would have to be subject to the Budget

process for the coming year. My understanding is that that is part of, again,

the overall pre- Budget consultation process. It is another major work that has

to be looked at in my department. We will be continuing to examine the whole

Budget and we will be moving that through the normal Budget process.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Petitions

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

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

I rise today to present a petition to read into the record:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador:

We, residents of Newfoundland, oppose the reduction in service and effectiveness

of the Department of National Revenue caused by a reduction of staff at the

Revenue Canada Taxation Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland, and thereby

negatively affecting the residents of our Province. We, the petitioners, pray

that the hon. House of Assembly take action to address this matter with the

Mr. Speaker, it is a huge issue that sixty people have been

laid off, sixty what we call determinant workers at Revenue Canada. What is

unbelievable is that these sixty people, who have been hired contractually for

the past seven to twelve years, have been laid off at a time when their services

are most required. What we are seeing is a further reduction, and it is yet

another example of a reduction in service by the Federal Government to this

Province. We may, in fact, see services and jobs taken from this Centre and

moved across the Gulf to another province in Atlantic Canada. I hope that does

not happen and I think we have time to stop it.

It is my understanding that one of the MPs in the Government

of Canada, Mr. Baker, is actually rising today in the Parliament of Canada to

present a similar petition, to petition the Department of National Revenue to

look at this situation, to overturn its decision to lay off sixty people. What

will the effect be?

What we can expect as taxpayers as a result of these people

being laid off are delays in processing of income tax, refunds, delays that

really go on already, that are in excess of five to seven weeks. We can see more

delays. The number of people who process the child tax credit is right now

sixteen people. That will be down-scaled to six people to service all of

Atlantic Canada. Right now, within the taxation department here, in terms of the

Goods and Services Tax, this Centre here processes all the GST rebates for all

of Atlantic Canada. What we are seeing is a down-scaling in service there that

will cause further delays to people, to consumers like ourselves.

I think that we, as the House of Assembly, should petition

immediately and bring to bear whatever pressure we can as a House, and I ask the

government to bring whatever pressure they can, as government, on the Federal

Government to reverse their decision at this time, to reverse the decision that

not only negatively affects the people who are being laid off but will

negatively affect the service that all of us expect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition

as presented by my hon. colleague. It is amazing - I listened earlier this year,

when the federal Budget came down, to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

for this Province saying that it would not have any drastic effects on this

Province. The loss of sixty jobs at the Taxation Centre in St. John's is, to me,

a very drastic effect. I have people in my district who are employed there, or

who were employed there, and as of, I think, 3:00 p.m. today will be unemployed

- single parents who will find it very difficult. We are going to lay off sixty

people, yet at this Taxation Centre that processes the GST rebates and the child

tax credits; they are already six months behind in their work. They have one

phone for all of Atlantic Canada which answers the complaints on GST, child tax

credits, and so on.

If you have submitted your taxes last year and they have

asked you for receipts, if these receipts are not received and you are due a

refund for the year 1995, this refund will be withheld. If there are any monies

owed because they as of yet do not have your deductions, those refunds will

actually change and the money will be deducted to pay for last year's taxes,

when indeed, you may not even owe the money.

I think it is very shameful that this is happening in our

Province. It is very shameful that there is no comment whatsoever. The question

was asked today and, as usual, of course, there was no answer. I just find it

amazing again that we are going to lose sixty more positions, and yet the

minister of this Province can say it would have no impact on us. I think it is a

disgrace, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder if members would consent to allow me

to speak to this petition that was just presented by the Member for Kilbride?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 5,200

residents of Bay St. George. This petition was presented to me at a forum which

was held in Stephenville back in early January. First of all, I would like to

read the prayer of the petition:

To the Honourable House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of Bay St. George humbly sweareth:

WHEREAS any reduction in funding to the Western Regional

Health Board will result in the curtailment of surgical and obstetrical services

being offered at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital; and

WHEREAS such reduction can mean the difference between life

and death in cases of emergency when the patient has to be transported an

additional three hours; and

WHEREAS such measures will result in financial hardship and

inconvenience for patients and their families who will then have to travel an

additional one to three hours for health care services; and

WHEREAS the staff and facilities of Western Memorial Hospital

are stretched to the maximum; and

WHEREAS we have grave concerns about the ability of Western

Memorial Hospital to provide surgical and obstetrical services to an additional

25,000 people of the Bay St. George area; and

WHEREAS reduction in health care services will result in

downgrading of health care infrastructure, and have a negative impact upon the

area's ability to attract new industry and new business;

WHEREFORE we, the undersigned residents of Bay St. George,

respectfully request that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cease in

any further reductions in funding for the Western Regional Health Board. As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this petition was presented to

me at a forum which was held in Stephenville back in January, a forum, I should

point out, which was attended by, it was estimated, in excess of some 800

people. The Arts and Culture Centre in which the forum was held has a seating

capacity of 450. It was filled to capacity. The aisles were blocked; the foyer

was filled. As a matter of fact, there were people who left that evening because

they could not find a place to sit.

I think what it did point out is that, first and foremost,

concern for health care in this Province is certainly uppermost in the minds of

all of our citizens, including those who reside in the area of Bay St. George;

however, there is one other matter with regard to this that was somewhat

unfortunate because this whole crisis was prompted by the fact that a document

was leaked to the public, a document that was intended for internal use only,

and certainly it was never the intention of the Western Regional Health Care

Board, that what was contained in the document would, in fact, become law.

I am absolutely certain - I know, speaking for myself and my

colleague, the Member for Bay St. George, the hon. Kevin Aylward - there is no

way that we, as the elected representatives for the area, would be prepared to

stand by and see the downgrading of the facility in Stephenville to the point

where it would virtually become a clinic.

Why the particular document was leaked, what the motives

were, we can only speculate, but I am sure that it doesn't take a rocket

scientist to have some idea as to the intent behind the actions that were taken.

However, in the final analysis, I think that with assurances from the Minister

of Health, who visited Stephenville and spoke at a public meeting there, gave

assurances to the people of the area as to what the long-term plans were for the

Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital, and subsequently by statements made by the Premier,

the matter has now been effectively put to rest. The commitment has been made to

the people of Bay St. George to maintain the level of service that they have

been accustomed to at Sir Thomas Roddick Hospital. In addition, the commitment

has been reaffirmed as well, that plans to construct a new facility to replace

the existing facility in Stephenville is on track and will be taking place as

soon as the funds become available.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the

petition and express the concerns on behalf of the residents of Bay St. George

as I have been asked to do, but I can say to the hon. House today that, I think

in the time that this was presented to me, assurances of sufficient level of

comfort have been provided to the people and the signatories to this particular

petition.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the petition of the hon. gentleman

opposite. It is very interesting to note that he has been given assurances that

there will be no closures and that these people can expect the same level of

services they always had. I only hope that the rest of the hospital boards

across this Island will be treated equally and will be given the same level of

services.

We have sixty-two doctors whom we are trying to replace in

this Province right now and it just seems to go on and on and on and I think the

time has come, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, when we have to stop cutting

health care; we have to stop it and we have to stop it today and we have to move

forward. We have to find the sixty-two doctors to come into this Province and we

have to stop the people of this Province from suffering through health care as

they have; senior citizens and on and on it goes. I have a list probably the

length of my arm that I can talk about of real cases and people who have

approached me during the recent campaign and since the recent campaign. I

support your petition and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the same level of concern

will be given by the minister and by the Premier for every hospital board in

this Province.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to be able to take a minute to speak to the

petition that was presented by my hon. colleague, the Member for Port au Port

and, as the Government House Leader points out to me, was so ably presented.

The question of health care, of course, is not an issue that

this government takes as a casual matter in terms of the seriousness with which

we reflect on health care. We have said repeatedly that health care in this

Province is the number one priority in terms of public services that we feel

responsible for delivering.

As a matter of fact, I think if you speak to anybody in the

public and in the forums that you people have had as a caucus in the last House,

and from what I hear the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is hearing now

in his consultation process, health care seems to be, in fact, the item of most

concern to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. And, in that context, the

people on the West Coast in the Port au Port Peninsula area are no different.

I had the good pleasure of going out to Stephenville some

time during mid-February and speaking to the issue of health care in that area,

and I want to assure my colleagues from that area, the colleague who presented

the petition and the others, that in terms of our government's commitment to

health care on the West Coast, it is basically the same as our government's

commitment to health care in any other part of the Province, and it is this:

that we are committed to providing the highest quality of health care at the

most appropriate level for the catchment area in which the service is being

delivered. We are committed to providing it at the most appropriate point of

delivery, and we are committed to providing it in the most cost-efficient but

also health-effective manner, and we will continue to move forward in the area

of health care on that basis.

This government spends this year, which is closing this week,

approximately $900 million out of our Budget on health care; that is about 35

per cent of our disposable income after we allow for pensions and debt

obligations, and that is consistent with and better, in fact, than some

provinces in this federation does, notwithstanding our meagre resources. Last

year, the hon. member would probably remember - he wasn't in the House - but in

the deficit problem we had for this year's Budget of $60-odd million, health's

share would have been $27 million if we had to find the proportionate share of

savings that all departments were asked to.

I have to, again remind the House and I am pleased to be able

to do so, that at the end of the day, I couldn't find $27 million in health, and

I couldn't find $17 million and I couldn't find $7 million; so I said to my

colleagues in Cabinet: I can find, without causing difficulty to the health care

system, $4.5 million and I believe that is all we should take out of the Budget,

notwithstanding the magnitude of the problem. The government of the day accepted

that proposition, and they accepted it in this context that Health care had to

be protected almost above all other types of public services. Your health is

your wealth, a good job, a good education, other types of community

infrastructure is important, but at the end of the day if you don't have good

health you can't work, you can't get around, then all of the other things become

academic, and secondary in terms of importance.

So I would just say again that health care for the West

Coast, health care for the East Coast, the North Coast, and the South Coast and

the Labrador Coast, is of critical importance to us, and we will do diligence as

we move forward into this year's budget, in ensuring that we do the maximum in

terms of protection, promotion, and the provision of health care services. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Technology is on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Yes, on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if I could ask leave of the House to revert -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

By leave.

MR. FUREY: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the Leader

of the Opposition asked some questions the other day with respect to the Nelson

Group, and how many recommendations they had made, and what was the status of

these recommendations, that kind of thing. And I had undertaken to bring back to

the House some answers on that.

There were ten broad recommendations, Mr. Speaker, made by

the Nelson Group, in a report that they presented to the Marystown Shipyard

Board of Directors April 20, 1995, to the new board. They consisted of: (1) the

elimination of the long term debt; (2) to reduce the overhead costs at the

earliest opportunity; (3) to replace senior management; (4) to appoint a new

vice-president of operations; (5) to re-negotiate current union contracts;

(6) to develop a marketing plan; (7) to develop a facilities plan; (8) to develop a

business plan: (9) to implement an employee training program; (10) to adopt

systems and procedure changes.

I will just come to that in a second, because there is a

sub-set of - well it will be in Hansard for anybody to see what I am saying.

The first recommendation: Well government is attempting to

deal with that, that is the elimination of the long-term debt. I suppose if you

looked at it in today's dollars, you are probably approaching $300,000,000

dollars. But the current debt is roughly around $60,000,000 dollars, which sits

there now as long term debt. To reduce the overhead costs, well those

recommendations are aimed directly at reducing the overhead cost, and the new

board is dealing with that now. And I think in the current business plan, if you

look at the overhead costs for last year, which were roughly around $14,000,000

dollars, which was $3,000,000 dollars higher than its annualized overhead cost

because, of severance packages, and payments for the Nelson Group, and the

Argyle Group, and all of these other things that happen. So they are trying to

deal with the overhead costs.

Numbers 3 - 9 which will replace senior management, appoint a

new vice-president, re-negotiate current union contracts, develop a marketing

plan, facilities plan, business plan, and employee training, they have all been

fully implemented. All of those have been fully implemented.

The tenth recommendation adopts system and procedure changes,

consists of a sub-set of many other functional tasks oriented recommendations

that are being implemented, or will be implemented on an on-going basis, you see

because, after the Nelson Group came in and laid out a strategy, they also, as

part of their recommendation said we should stay on to help you implement this,

which they did for a ten month period. Now there final report I should tell the

House was submitted to the new board in March of this year, this month, and

there, there are forty seven sub-sets of operational recommendations which the

board are currently looking at, and are currently implementing as we speak. So

that is essentially where the Nelson report is. There were ten broad

recommendations, most of them have been implemented, or are being implemented.

The elimination of the long-term debt is a struggle for government and it is one

that we will have to deal with over the next little while. The forty-seven

operational and functional recommendations, which fall out of a broad

recommendation in one form or another, are being implemented now.

Now, the member's other question was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes. He asked whether in fact there was a

penalty clause in the contract language dealing with the contracts that were put

in place for Hull 53 and 54. I think I explained the other day in the House that

as a matter of course in large industrial projects, there is put in place what

are called performance bonds, a performance insurance and penalty clauses

written in legal language to protect either side, so that if there is a delivery

problem and there is a problem because of the client or in fact because of the

yard, that one or the other can execute on it. You are quite right when you say

in that language there is a $7,000-a-day penalty clause. Was it executed or

acted on by anybody, either side, particularly the client? The answer is, no.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, Committee of Supply.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Mr. M. Penney): Order, please!

Bill No. 2, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to address the House on the Interim Supply Bill

and in doing so, of course, there is fairly wide-ranging debate. I just note

that hon. members opposite refused consent to allow me to speak to the petition

presented by the Member for Kilbride. It is a bit ironic that that issue,

involving the loss of some eighty jobs in the St. John's area, did not spark any

interest on the other side of the House. Nobody from the government side spoke

to the petition. The Minister of Justice, in responding to the question from the

Member for Kilbride, seemed to pass it off as a bit of a lark, that he would

talk to the Premier of Prince Edward Island to see what they are up to. The

implication, Mr. Chairman, is that the members opposite do not seem to take this

issue seriously. I don't know if it is just because it is St. John's and they

don't care what happens in St. John's, what jobs are lost in St. John's or

whether it is just an unwillingness to take seriously what appears to be a

growing trend in the loss of jobs, Federal Government jobs, and transfer of

those jobs to other places.

I know, Mr. Speaker - and I agree with the Premier; the

Premier in the House the other day said that it was not his practice to jump up

and down every time one, two or three jobs might move around and he is not going

to make a practice or a habit of it. I agree with that. There has to be some

movement of jobs in society, whether it is federal jobs, private industry jobs

or government jobs, some movement back and forth. Some come to Newfoundland and

some move away. Some move into St. John's, some move out. That kind of thing

happens as a normal course of a vibrant economy where change takes place on an

ongoing basis. But what we see here, Mr. Chairman, is a trend, and it appears to

be a growing trend, that the kind of consolidation of employment at the federal

level is moving away from an attempt at diversification - of diversity of

government jobs out of Central Canada, out of Ottawa, to the regions of this

country, to share the wealth, to share the taxpayers' wealth, frankly, around

the country.

The Taxation Centre in St. John's was one example - one of

the very few, I am unhappy to say - very few examples of the Federal Government

actually trying to shift some of the Federal Government jobs out of the Ottawa -

Hull region, the national capital region, which has made that area, up until

recently, one of the most prosperous areas in the country in which to live. It

is all being paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Whether that taxpayer comes from

Labrador City or Wabush, which contribute a great deal of income tax to the

Canadian Government and to the Newfoundland Government, or whether that taxpayer

comes from British Columbia or the Yukon, it is that taxpayer's money that is

being spent to fund the federal public service, and to make a very fine economy

in the national capital region at the expense of all the taxpayers.

Now, there are some, I think, 250,000 public servants in

Canada - something like that. These are Canadian federal public servants. And if

the government had made any real effort - the various governments, the

Conservative and Liberal governments in Ottawa - to distribute that work around

this country, particularly in those regions of the country such as here in

Newfoundland where you do not have the same level of economic activity as you

have had in Central Canada, then that could go a very long way to making our

provincial economy, our Provincial Government fiscal opportunities, much more

viable and much more vibrant.

Anybody who has really looked at this knows that even on the

side of military and defence expenditure, Newfoundland's share of that

expenditure is rather significantly less than even the population averages would

determine. Granted, there is probably an oversupply of Newfoundlanders in

military jobs, but they are, in many cases, the first level or the low-entry or

the sailor jobs as opposed to the officer jobs, kind of using, in other words,

Newfoundlanders as part of the source of the manpower and womanpower in the

forces, but not having the jobs here in this Province to help our economy here

in Newfoundland.

So we do have a significant problem with a re-centralization,

if you will, of Federal Government jobs, moving them to Nova Scotia, in this

case, potentially moving them to P.E.I. And these are the kinds of jobs that are

responsive to the new technological wonders, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't take, with

the internet, with the communications facilities that we have, with the ability

of computers to transmit information across the country in less than an instant,

we don't have to have the concentration of jobs, and particularly Federal

Government jobs, in the Ottawa - Hull region, or in Halifax, as once was

required.

We see a province like Nova Scotia - when someone wants to

compare the wealth of various provinces, Nova Scotia always seems to be a fair

bit ahead of Newfoundland. It is a little bit larger in population as well, mind

you. But in terms of the economy, the per capita economy, the unemployment

rates, the ability of the government to manage fiscally, Nova Scotia seems very

far ahead. But one thing must be remembered, that Nova Scotia does very, very

well in terms of its share of Federal Government jobs, Federal Government

expenditures, whether it be in buildings, whether it be in regional offices for

government departments, whether it be in the vast military expenditure in the

Halifax - Dartmouth region by the navy, by the army and air force as well, with

several bases in the Province of Nova Scotia.

We don't really get our fair share. I know the Premier - I

don't want to make this the theme of this government as the last government.

Premier Wells, the former Premier, always talked about fairness and balance. We

heard it from one end of the legislative session to the other. Now, we have the

new mantra, the Tobin mantra. I suppose I'm allowed to say that, Mr. Chairman.

We call it the Tobin mantra after the Wells mantra. We are obviously referring

to the Premier. The new mantra is: Full and fair share.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The new answer is full and fair share, I say

to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We want to make sure that the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture gets his full and fair share of

opportunities to speak in the House, and I'm sure he will be able to get up and

speak afterwards.

If we are going to be talking about full and fair share as

the watchword of this government, why is the government failing to respond to a

petition to ask this government to intervene on what appears to be a significant

trend going on of a removal of jobs, a re-centralization of federal government

jobs out of Newfoundland and into another province?

There is no need for it. The Taxation Data Centre, as it is

known, in St. John's has performed very well over the last fifteen or twenty

years as a source of employment for the St. John's region. I say region because

there are people working there from Holyrood and farther outside the city than

that even who work in the Taxation Centre. The thinking and the word is that

there are approximately eighty jobs involved in this potential transfer, and

almost all of these jobs are jobs held by women that are being lost. They are

not permanent jobs, in the sense that they are not year-round permanent federal

public service long-term jobs, but they are jobs that are consistent, that offer

work. They work every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Minister of Health says they are up and

down in terms of their staffing at the Taxation Centre, yes, they are. I will

tell the minister, my sister has worked at the Taxation Centre for the last

thirteen, fourteen years. He says they are up and down. They may be up and down

but she was laid off a couple of years ago because they wanted to prevent her

from becoming a permanent employee. Because if you work for five full years

without a break of more than a certain period of time you get to be considered a

full-time employee, a permanent employee, and they wanted to keep people, or as

many as they can, on the less than permanent employee status.

So yes, it does fluctuate, but the people who work there,

many of whom are single parents, get work almost every year. Some of it is of a

seasonal nature, at tax preparing time, some of it is much more long term. There

is a fluctuation, yes, but we aren't talking about a fluctuation here in the

normal workloads of the Taxation Centre. We are talking about the transfer of

work, substantial bodies of work in the preparation of GST rebates and the child

tax credit, that is now done -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I thank hon. members for a few more moments

to pursue my remarks. We are talking here about substantial work that is being

transferred out of the Province that will not allow any of these people to be

recalled for any period of time, and will result in a permanent reallocation of

this work to another province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: My understanding is that this work will be

sent to Prince Edward Island, that the GST centre in Prince Edward Island may,

in addition to the handling the collection of GST, be now assigned the work of

handling the GST rebates. I'm sure any bureaucrat could come up with a

bureaucratic reason for doing that. Both services begin with the letter "G."

That might be good enough reason for some people. They are both related to the

GST, so let's put them all in the one place.

Why do that at the expense of jobs in this Province if it is

not necessary? It isn't a provincial government issue, I will grant you that,

but if the Province is concerned about the provincial economy then it becomes a

provincial government issue very quickly. It very quickly becomes a provincial

government issue if the ministers involved, if the government is prepared to

take seriously its obligations to look after the provincial economy. The loss of

eighty jobs plus in St. John's is significant, Mr. Chairman, and we have the

cumulative effect of this loss, the client services losses, coast guard losses

and the other losses that are taking place which are going to have a serious

impact on the economy of this City and this Province.

I do have a very serious concern there and I wanted to first

point them out before I got into some other issues involving the debate on

Interim Supply. I know the Member for Labrador West is anxious to make an

intervention and I understand yes, that he has to catch a flight. So I will take

my seat and let him make his remarks and then I will get up again and make my

second maiden speech in this session on the bill and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't use the word maiden its sexist.

MR. HARRIS: Its sexist isn't it? Okay I will not - my

second introductory speech in this debate I will make after the Member for

Labrador West makes his remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for

your kind expression of good faith.

I want to express my deep gratitude to the electors of

Labrador West in giving me this opportunity to stand amongst you here today and

speak on their behalf. My presence in this hon. House, Mr. Chairman, is by their

grace, confidence and enthusiastic support for this government.

In this hon. House on this day I want to also express my

gratitude and that of all the citizens of Labrador West for the public service

of the previous member, Alex Snow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: His work and commitment to Labrador West

deserves our collective admiration and indeed our respect and appreciation.

Public service does not go without personal sacrifice. I believe it is important

also to thank his spouse, Anita, and their children for having shared a husband

and a father with us in the public.

Labrador West is a significant, if not the biggest per capita

contributor to the provincial tax base. It is my hope that another Labrador

riding, Torngat Mountains, will assume that leadership role in the not too

distant future.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of our contribution to the tax base

of this Province, after all, our country was founded on the principle of

equalization, one that I appreciate and fully endorse. However, Mr. Chairman,

the collective views of the people in my riding, in fact the whole of Labrador,

has begun to gel. There is a great deal of anger and angst amongst all the

people in Labrador. We feel that our resources have not been used to benefit the

region. That is not to say that we ought not share our wealth. Our history has

shown that we are more than willing to assume a responsible share of

contributions to provincial coffers. However, we are not prepared to accept a

perpetual level of services that are simply substandard and unacceptable.

We hear of circumstances where others consider repaving roads

or paving roads that are yet to be paved. We, Mr. Chairman, are talking of

building a road.

Labrador is an important part of this Province. We have

contributed much and yet we find it necessary to convince others that there are

important needs in Labrador that must be met. Whether those needs are a road

from Churchill Falls to Goose Bay, municipal infrastructure along the north or

south coast, or dare I say it, a functional motor registration office in Wabush,

the needs are real. I recognize, as must all members, that we live in a time of

fiscal restraint. However, fiscal responsibility does not preclude focusing on

opportunities that will stimulate growth, create jobs and opportunity. We simply

need the efforts of all governments and I would hope all members opposite to

allow us the ability to create the new jobs and opportunity that our people are

craving for in this Province.

Mr. Chairman, if the Trans-Labrador Highway is not upgraded

to a sufficient state that would allow the conveyance of equipment and material

in a cost effective way, I believe much of the staging to the future Voisey's

Bay construction site, in years to come, will be from ports in other provinces.

We have personal experiences in Labrador West to that effect. Sept-Iles has

grown from a small fishing community to a modern community approximately the

size of Corner Brook, in large measure because of its position as a staging

ground for the mining development in Labrador West.

Labrador West will benefit only if the Trans-Labrador allows

Happy Valley - Goose Bay to be the transhipment point to the north coast. If

this does not happen, one only has to bear in mind that our economic connection

is with Montreal rather than the Island to quickly come to a conclusion where

the staging point for the goods and equipment to Voisey's will be.

During the election I met, as did the Member for Lake

Melville and the Member for Torngat, with representatives of the trucking

industry. Complaints of breaking 5/8 cap bolts, motor mounts, voided warranties

on new trucks, were common. These independent business people, most of whom had

mortgaged their homes, purchased a truck, and entered into a business to simply

provide for their families, were being overtaken by cost and constant toil.

In relating this, I also want to recognize that in judging

the distance we have yet to go in support of this important highway, I am keenly

aware of the distance that we have come. I want to publicly recognize the

efforts of Senator Bill Rompkey, Edward Roberts, and the past Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, and the past Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, now

Premier, for their unwavering support for this file.

Bill Rompkey's proposal of converting Marine Atlantic

subsidies into the road is our best chance, I believe, to provide funding for

the Trans-Labrador Highway. If you take time to consider the current routing of

freight, one will readily come to the same conclusion as we in Labrador have.

Currently, a product is shipped to Nain from Montreal. It travels from Montreal

to North Sydney. Then it goes to Port aux Basques, on to Lewisporte, and up to

Goose Bay, and on to Nain. The citizen of Nain pays that extra transhipment fee,

pays for those extra shipping costs, and you and I, all of us together,

contribute through the Crown to subsidize that extra transportation cost. The

additional shipping distance currently, of course, as the Member for Torngat can

speak to, allows it to be competitive still to the Trans-Labrador, but that is,

I believe, a function of the condition of the road, not the sensibility of the

method.

Mr. Chair, I have cause to be optimistic. This new government

was clear in the election. We were clear in the Speech from the Throne. Labrador

will finally get the recognition it so richly deserves. The name change is not a

matter of semantics. It is not an effort to polish over our past shortcomings.

It is a reflection of the reality of this Province.

There is a refreshing new air of understanding flowing from

that document and in this hon. House, one that I feel will mean a better

tomorrow for those we represent. I am very pleased, indeed encouraged, by the

degree of importance that Cabinet has placed on this weekend's combined councils

meeting in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. The four Labrador MHAs will be joined by

the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, and already the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has

been there. The government will be well represented indeed. I want to publicly

thank these members in advance for their trip into Labrador, and for their

interest and concern for Labrador issues.

Mr. Chairman, while some of our challenges may be daunting,

they are not insurmountable. With determination, respect for local views,

sensitivity to local needs, our opportunities are exciting and achievable. I

want to assure the people of Labrador West, and indeed the people of all of

Labrador, that this government is committed to high achievement. I am confident,

though expectations are high, together we will make a significant contribution

to improving their lot in life and give rise to a better tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to, first of all, acknowledge with great thanks, the

support that I received in this election from the people of Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi. The newly named district, formerly St. John's East that I represent and

have represented for five years now, since the by-election in 1990.

I know the government changed the name of the district to

suit other interests in other parts of St. John's and the Electoral Boundaries

Commission's work resulted in an additional one-third of a seat being added, so

the new portions of my district were from the old Pleasantville district and the

District of St. John's East Extern but a third new portions of the district, I

am happy to say that those residents in the new portions of the district

supported me in each and every poll except one which I lost by two votes, so if

there were any efforts to undermine my position in this Legislature, they failed

miserably and I want to thank the people of Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi for

supporting me now.

Now you may have noticed that I pronounced that word perhaps

a little differently than some other members of this Legislature and in fact, I

even pronounced it differently than The Evening Telegram . Now, you

wouldn't think a newspaper could actually pronounce words but they went

overboard a couple of weeks ago to try and chide me and wondered why I even was

elected because I don't know the name of my district according to them, and they

underlined it three or four times and suggested that it should be Kitty Vitty

and that I should learn to pronounce the name of my district. Well, I say to

The Evening Telegram that we don't ask the Toronto Globe and Mail to

tell us how to pronounce the word Newfoundland and I am not going to ask The

Evening Telegram to tell the people of Quidi Vidi how to pronounce the name

of their community as well.

The people in that location call it Quidi Vidi and I, as the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi will call it that. I won't go around chiding

anyone else even, Mr. Chairman, if you choose to pronounce it differently that

is certainly up to you and in fact, in and around St. John's various versions

are used to pronounce the name of the lake or the name of the street; Quidi Vidi

Village Road is a place, there is a Quidi Vidi Road as well and the lake of

course, is sometimes pronounced Kitty Vitty, sometimes pronounced Quidi Vidi,

but I am not going to get involved in the controversy except to say that I will

pronounce the name Quidi Vidi because that is the way the people who live in

the, I guess you could call it village or the community of Quidi Vidi pronounce

it.

Did I win those polls? Yes, I have to say to the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology that I won them overwhelmingly and I thank the

people of Quidi Vidi for giving me their support - so it is a magnificent

district, Mr. Chairman, that I represent. It has the elements of the downtown,

the Harbour, The Battery, Quidi Vidi and now, almost all, in fact all of what is

known as Pleasantville, not the District of Pleasantville but what is known as

Pleasantville on the shores of Quidi Vidi Lake, and it gives the district a

distinct name that is related to the geographical features of the district Quidi

Vidi, including the lake and the village and Signal Hill of course, overlooking

all of St. John's and I am very proud to represent that district and very

pleased to have the support of the people to continue my work in this House.

I want to congratulate all hon. members who have been

successful in being re-elected to represent their districts. As I said once, it

is terrific to be elected, it is even better to be re-elected, because it gives

you a sense of confidence that you are doing something right in representing the

people of your district. I do congratulate those hon. members who have been

successful in being re-elected to the House of Assembly.

Also to particularly congratulate the new members who are

taking their seats for the first time in this House of Assembly. Many of whom,

of course, not the first time in political life of one form or another. I see

the new Member for Grand Bank, obviously, had a strong role in the political

life of the previous government, as did the new Member for Topsail, and others

who have taken their position in the House of Assembly and are being called upon

to make a contribution to the House of Assembly on either side.

The new Member for St. John's East of whom I get confused

sometimes, because when the Speaker recognizes the Member for St. John's East my

heart leaps and I jump up. Then only to look behind me and see that my good and

learned friend from the Bar, the new Member for St. John's East, is on his feet,

anxious to ask a question or to say something. I have to sit down with regret

and wait for the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi to be recognized by the

Speaker.

It is a new House. We have a lot of new faces, and new issues

to deal with. Having finished sort of the preliminary niceties I want to deal

with some of them. Because there are very serious concerns in this Province

today. I'm not here to preach doom and gloom about the future. I think we do

have a brighter tomorrow somewhere down the road. We do have lots of options and

lots of opportunities, and lots of interest in pursuing them on all sides of the

House, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, not just on the

government side. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will find

support from this hon. member for activities of interest and concern to this

Province that will provide jobs and give people hope and give people an income

and an opportunity to support their families.

What we do have right now - and I know the Member for

Bonavista North has - the new Member for Terra Nova, and former Member for Terra

Nova, experienced this in travelling throughout his district, the hardship that

people face. The hardship that people face today is real. It is not something

that is concocted by people trying to make an issue or to raise doom and gloom.

It is very real hardship that people are going through and things are getting

worse for people.

I know we like to think that we are making progress in this

Province and in this country, but things are getting progressively worse for

individuals who don't have work, for individuals who are slipping off the TAGS

program and now into perhaps social assistance, if there is no job for them. We

see it happening. People who are on unemployment insurance who then run out of

unemployment insurance and face a future of either social assistance or perhaps

leaving the Province in hopes that they might make a future somewhere else.

There is a kind of grinding nature to poverty, Mr. Chairman.

People are getting ground down, gradually. People who have been forced to live

on social assistance are seeing their meagre income reduced every year by

inflation, by the price increases and the cost increases for food and basic

necessities in the supermarkets. By creeping increases in prices for

electricity. The light and power company claims its last increase was 1992.

There hasn't been an increase in social assistance rates since 1989, except for

the fuel supplement that applies for several months of the year which has

provided some help, but no increase in the general rate.

We have seen increases in all other commodities, from

transportation, to fuel, to such basic's as food, of a very significant nature

over the last seven or eight years. And it is making it tougher all the time for

people to live on social assistance. I have seen them Mr. Chairman, they show

me, and I am sure they show you, their tax stubs from social assistance.

I know when you come in someone's house, they haul you out

the cheque, look, look here is how much I am getting. They take this out they

take that out, they take something else out, and I get a $103.00 dollars in this

cheque that I have got to buy food for my family for the next two weeks. You

hardly see a stub from a social assistance recipient that does not have an over

payment recovery on it. For some reason or other, some error made by the

department, some miscalculation, perhaps some other reason. There is no ability

of the system that worked properly enough, so that there is an over-payment that

is being recovered.

Now in some cases it is a legitimate over-payment that

someone made a misrepresentation, failed to disclose an income that they had,

but in many cases it is just an action resulting from an error that someone made

in government, and the individual has to pay the price for it. So what do we see

happen? Do we see a compassionate response by government for this, do we see

them following the regulations that were placed after they were forced to do

that, by the Supreme Court, no, we don't see that Mr. Chairman, we see them

changing the regulations, making the changes retroactive to 1997, and continuing

to take money out of people's cheques because of mistakes that were made by

government, or mistakes that were made by bureaucrats, and making individuals

pay for it.

Then we have the new spectacle of taking people's income tax

rebates. One of the few opportunities that people have, particularly the people

who participated in Social Services Programs over the last number of years.

They get a job, they get a job, your government, your

constituents, I say to the Minister of Health, they are lucky enough to get a

job on a social services program, and they work for twenty or thirty weeks, not

at a very high rate I might add, not at a very high rate, and one of the

advantages of doing this, is that there is a little bit of income tax taken out

of their wages, that they get back six months later. And that is something they

look forward to, they look forward to - not so they can have some luxury Mr.

Chairman, so perhaps they can buy a pair of false teeth, we have seen examples,

or buy a washing machine, or buy something else that is a necessity. That is the

kind of thing they want this money for, this income tax rebate for, but now, Mr.

Chairman, we are going to take it back, we are going to take it back. One

individual wrote me a letter and -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please! The honourable

member's time is up. Does the honourable member have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. And thank the

Minister of Education for offering me this time.

I received a letter Mr. Chairman yesterday from an individual

who says he has a wife and three children. He is an unemployed security guard,

Mr. Chairman, who is receiving unemployment insurance and gets topped up, by

$100 dollars a week, from the Department of Social Services, and what he says

is, what is wrong with our society and the rules that apply to people like him

and his family, as compared to the family of the Premier? And what he says is

that the Premier gets to keep his $53,000 dollar annual pension, to support

himself, his wife and his three children,

whereas he and his family, can't get

to keep his meagre $500.00 dollar 1995 income tax refund, to briefly support

himself, his wife, and his three children.

Now is that fair this individual asks? We have gotten rid of

the previous watchword of fairness and balance; we are now in a full and fair

share. But let's apply the fairness and balance principle to that Mr. Chairman.

This individual is comparing on the one hand a sense of injustice that he feels,

because he is having his $500.00 dollar income tax refund taken from him, and

yet he sees the Premier and his family of taking advantage of a $53,000 federal

pension while collecting a provincial Premier's salary. So there is a sense of

injustice that is felt by people who are on social assistance, who are being

ground further down by the policies of this government.

Now, the Minister of Social Services, in the House a couple

of days ago, said that this was not a new policy. Well, I don't think that is

correct. In fact, it is not correct, it is a new policy. Last year the income

tax refunds were kept by the people on social assistance and this year the

government is taking it away. It is now the government's policy to take it away.

Now, they can make whatever weasel words they want about it, Mr. Chairman, they

can make whatever weasel words they want out of it, but it is a new policy being

implemented by this government. I see the Minister of Education wants to

intervene on that point and I will give leave and let him do it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to take a couple of minutes, if I could, to

make a couple of points in this very important committee discussion on Interim

Supply.

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

some very good points. It is a very serious issue because I know that he, like

all members of the House, are very concerned about the people who do not have

the wherewithal to make ends meet themselves and then come relying upon the

government for social assistance, which is, of course, the last straw for many

people and a position that - I have not met anybody yet and I don't think

anybody in this Legislature has met anybody who has indicated that they wanted

to be in receipt of social assistance. I think that is quite clear.

On behalf of my colleague, I know that the Minister of Social

Services at this point in time is out of the Legislature for a few minutes, as

are some of our other colleagues: the Budget consultation is going on here in

the St. John's area today. I think a number of the groups that are presenting

are people who represent people in need, the working poor, social assistance

recipients and so on. That is why they are interested in the presentations.

With respect to the policy, Mr. Chairman, my understanding of

it is -and I think we will probably both check with the minister for final

verification later - it has been part of the Canada Assistance Program,

apparently, for some time, as a matter of fact, on an ongoing basis. Income, by

definition, in the Canada Assistance Program, does include things such as income

tax rebates. What has been happening for a number of years, though, Mr.

Chairman, is that the government has not been as vigilant as it could have been

and they have not requested, in some years, that people return those particular

benefits. The argument is well known and understood by all of us that the people

obviously are getting the rebate because they did not earn enough money - in the

period of the year when they were lucky enough to get work - to have to pay tax,

but the system was such that it was deducted from their cheques at the time. The

only way they could it back was by making a claim and it would be rebated

through a system. If there could be a way to know that the person was not going

to earn enough money to actually have to pay the tax at the time that they went

to work, then they could be exempted at the beginning and they would have kept

the money. They would never have paid in the tax and it would have been theirs

to keep.

The only reason, at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, that it

is there - and it is not a new policy at all - but there is one aspect which is

new, that in the $60 million exercise that the government went through just

before Christmas - which will hopefully lead to a balanced budget being produced

for the whole of the fiscal year for 1995-96 which ends in a couple of days -

every department had to look at ways that they could either shave some money

from their expenditures or increase some revenues to make sure that they met

their targets. One of the issues that was addressed - rather than have to do

something which was much, much worse, like reduce basic social assistance for

the last three or four months of the year - they looked through their

departments and one of the things they realized was that if they enforced the

existing rules which required any income, including income tax rebates, to be

deducted from a social assistance cheque during that month, if they were

receiving social assistance, it was decided to enforce that rule for the

remainder of the 1995-'96 year. That would be less Draconian and less tough as a

measure on the people who unfortunately have to rely upon social assistance,

than any of the other measures that were being looked at.

So in respect to the commentary currently before the House in

Committee, Mr. Chairman, it is not a new policy. The policy, as I understand it

- and we can have it confirmed by the Minister of Social Services at a later

point - has always been part of the Canada Assistance Plan Program and the rules

of that program. It is true that, in some years, the money has not been taken

back because the staff, I guess, in the department, decided deliberately not to

be diligent in that area, because everybody understands, as is the point that

the hon. member is making, that they need the money, and this group needs the

money more than anybody else. But it was all part of a budgetary exercise in

which we tried to, I guess, spread the pain as evenly as possible, and to make

it as minimal as possible. But it could not be done having zero impact in the

Department of Social Services, and this was felt to be one measure that, while

it would impact on some clients in Social Services, it would not impact

generally on clients of Social Services. As a result, we are into the discussion

that we have here today.

But I believe that any normal year, and maybe with the new

changeover to the Canada Health and - the CHST, the transfer that is going to

replace the established program financing cap, and other programs in the next

few years, that many people, because this issue has been brought to light, would

like to see us leave incentives like that in the system. Because I think all of

us did bump into some constituents during the recent election that we went

through who would bring this to our attention and ask: Well, what encouragement

was there for me to work? Because I went out and worked; I got five or six

weeks' work. I was glad I got the work. I was delighted to do it. I had a bit of

extra money. I was off social assistance for awhile, and then, because I get the

rebate, because I didn't get enough I didn't need to pay the tax, I wasn't

supposed to pay the taxes, that when I get it back, because I am now receiving

social assistance in the month when I get it back, I cannot get to keep it.

If we could have found some way in the system to exempt them

from tax in the first instance, but that is an even more difficult bureaucratic

problem, apparently, then they would have kept the money.

So we all understand it is a very unfortunate circumstance,

but it was introduced not as a new measure, not as a new policy. It is in the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as I understand it, and it is a measure

that unfortunately is in place to the end of this fiscal year, will be reviewed

again by the minister and by all the government, and I believe all members here

would hope that we would find a way where we could take that out of the system

and allow the people to keep the money.

It is a very important point, and I appreciate the member

bringing it forward. I hope that my brief intervention has given him an

opportunity to gather his thoughts again and deal further with that issue, and

others that are very important. I appreciate the opportunity.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to put forward a further suggestion, or a further

comment to the minister, that could be considered as a solution to this problem.

Over all, I will use an example that he might be able to utilize, I guess, with

his colleagues.

A person whose UI ran out last May, as an example, and they

went and received social assistance starting in June of last year, a person,

prior to going on social assistance, had accrued certain Revenue Canada tax

credits, for example; they were due to get back some income tax. Now, when that

person went on social assistance the department should consider if that person

has debts incurred prior to going on social assistance - they have debts, bills

to pay - whether it is a light bill or whether it is on furniture, or on a

stove, or whatever the case may be, and they are due to receive assets in that

period that were accrued prior to going on social assistance, they should be

able to use the revenues they receive back to help them reduce their debt,

because social services doesn't pick up responsibility for those debts, so why

should they pick up and take revenues that are going to be used to pay for those

debts?

If a person goes on social assistance without this debt, and

goes in even, not owing money, and any revenues come in then - obviously the

role of the system is not to pay for social services for somebody who is going

to have another source of income. Then I can see some problems, but how many

people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, certainly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you. I am very interested in this

suggestion, and I am making some notes so I can pass it along to my colleague,

the minister, for consideration.

The only thing that I would ask the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition to clarify, because I believe what he is suggesting is that the debts

were accrued prior to entitlement to social assistance in a previous term. The

credits that they have won't be paid to them until they are in receipt of social

assistance because of the system. So if they have prior debts, even though they

don't accrue the money until a later date, we could then let them use that to

address some debt that was accrued earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you have it.

MR. GRIMES: Just so if I have it accurately.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, further to illustrate the

point, I say to the minister, too, if a person earns income - and that is how we

can parlay it - if a person earns income and receives it a little later - now

for UI purposes and in the UI act, income is always relegated to the period in

which it is earned rather than in which it is received. That would certainly be

in line with this and would enable a person who is on social assistance, who

owes Newfoundland Power probably $300 in arrears and they are not picking up the

cost for those arrears, and are in jeopardy of losing their electricity, it

enables that person to be able to apply that rebate of $100, $200, or $300 to

their light bill to enable them at least to do a bit of a catch up.

Because Social Services is not going to pay if they owe for

furniture, or even if it is an essential thing such as a stove, I think, that is

considered essential by Social Services. They are not even going to allow them

to pay down on that debt except getting clawed back on their social assistance

because of that. Certainly, even an item like a fridge, for example, is not an

essential item according to somebody on social assistance, which doesn't fit

into this equation. Still, I make the point that I think a fridge is an

essential item out there today. I know people on social assistance, they are

diabetics and they have other medical problems; and they have certain food they

are required to eat and they can't sustain that, and they don't have access to

get, in rural areas, to supermarkets, and rely just small stores to provide the

food for normal living. I think that is an important aspect, too.

Apart from that issue, and I'm sure the minister will make

note of it, there are certain areas - I know the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is not here at the moment. But with reference to $10 million I

saw in the estimates there to deal with road construction of a provincial nature

this year, I was just wondering is that just a preliminary figure of $10 million

that is going to be used across the Province in road construction? Has that been

identified for early tendering? Is that the purpose here now, to identify? Is

the minister prepared to lay out what specific projects have been identified in

that $10 million now, and could we hope to find out where these projects are

going to be going ahead this year? Secondly, do we expect some more provincial

expenditure under roads programs in this Province, and bridge repair and upkeep?

Because our road system in this Province is getting into a

very dilapidated state. Bridges are - I know, in my district people have written

the minister. In my district, one bridge is very narrow; it is on a turn, it is

dangerous there, of concern. The road structure in that area is probably a 350 o

turn almost, and a narrow bridge that is blinded leads into that. The councils

have expressed concern, people are out there today wondering. We have $10

million approved here today in that area. There was a breakdown I received, the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board identifying that. I will just give the

specific figure for the minister there in case he wants to comment on that. It

is $10 million, actually, the provincial road-bridge program, exactly $10

million that is being proposed. I am certainly interested in hearing what that

is all about, if we are going to approve $10 million there for interim supply in

that area. We would like to know that.

One other particular one, too, with the new Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal. There is $20 million there. Is there a transfer

with the proposed economic zones now, the transfer I assume from the Department

of Industry, Trade and Technology, ENL, and the continuation of funding? What is

in the particular overall pot here of funding. This $20 million, how much is

going into those economic zones, and what is the breakdown of funding that is

going to those economic zones to get them up and running? I would just like to

know where the expenditure is going. It is a pretty fair request.

We haven't got a big amount of time to delve into a lot of

those questions there. A lot of new members, and everybody is interested I know

on both sides of the House in getting some information on their district. We

haven't got much time at all, I don't think, to go through those things, but I'm

sure when we see the budget that incorporates total expenditure we will have

many questions to ask on budgetary expenditures in this coming year. I'm sure

the minister will be quite interested in letting us know what all the goodies

will be and all the elimination of hardship that is going to occur in this

Province over the next year.

Mr. Chairman, with that I will conclude my remarks and

hopefully I will get a few answers on those two specific areas anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. GRIMES: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I really thought

that the Leader of the Opposition wanted a couple of answers. I was going to try

to offer a couple. Some version of an answer, anyway. I don't know if it will be

the real answer or not.

I'm very pleased to hear the suggestions with respect to the

income tax rebates and the Social Services clients' things. I think that we will

pass those along and treat them very seriously. Because all of us I think need

to find a mechanism around some of Revenue Canada's rules and others with

taxation and the rebate, and the fact that because of when you get the money,

not when you earned it, that you lose it, when otherwise you would be able to

keep it. I think the suggestions are very useful and we will look at that.

Just by way of comparison. I think many of us recognize as

well that for many students who are trying to get some funds to help work their

way through post-secondary, they too, many of them, don't earn in their period

off enough to reach the basic personal exemption level. So they get their tax

back but they have to wait to another point in the year to get it. Many would

hope that you would be able to exempt them in the first instance if you knew

when they started to work that they weren't going to make the $6,000 or $7,000

which is the basic personal exemption. It is more difficult I think for them in

the tax system and Revenue Canada system to do that up front. But I think that

if we find a mechanism as was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, and

others, that we can credit it in the period when it was earned rather than the

period when it was actually received. Then it would actually be of more benefit

in the hands of the individuals. We will certainly take a serious look at it.

The quick answer as I understand it with respect to the roads

is that this is not to indicate the extent of the provincial roads program or

anything else, but because of the work that has already been announced under the

Roads for Rails deal, I guess, which is 100 per cent federally funded, and also

there was an announcement by the former Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation back just before Christmas or just after Christmas with respect

to some trunk roadwork which was also in that, federally funded. But in that I

think everybody should know that to achieve some efficiencies in areas where

there is major trunk roadwork going to be done that is funded by the federal

government, there are some small provincial projects in there that are being

tacked on to those contracts to achieve contract efficiencies and expand the

amount of work that is being done. Some of that is there.

There is also a financial administration act requirement that

you can't go through the bidding process at all unless you actually have some

money approved in the department for some part of the work. This will indicate

that there will be some measure of a program. The Budget will come in with a

further amount, we certainly hope, that will show the extent of the full capital

work on the provincial side that will happen with roads that are in the

jurisdiction of the Province.

The minister again, that particular minister, is attending

some of the Budget things today and is expected back in the House shortly. But I

believe that is largely part of the answer with respect to the roads. The

minister wouldn't be in a position to announce what the provincial road

construction program is going to be because it hasn't been determined yet

through the Budget process and it hasn't been determined by Cabinet in terms of

specific projects. But there needs to be some block funding allocated so that we

can begin some tendering, even on the trunk work projects that do include little

bits of provincial road work to achieve some cost efficiencies.

The Minister of Development and Rural Renewal I think is in

the precincts of the House and probably heard the question. I don't know the

specific detail about the $20 million and how much of it is related to the

economic zones but there is no question that some of it would be. Because

responsibility for the further transfer and the further switch-over to the

nineteen economic zones versus the current development association structure and

so on has been transferred through the Department of Development and Rural

Renewal and there are some funding arrangements through SRDA, other

federal-provincial agreements and so on, that are working their way through the

system to make sure that they can get some start-up funding because we are in a

transition period now that is causing a little bit of confusion and actually, I

guess it would be legitimate to say, causing the stalling of some economic

development initiatives that the local zone boards want to get on with but the

structure is not such that they can proceed in a definitive fashion right now

because of this period of transition, but there certainly is money voted in that

department budget head so that they can proceed with the transition into the

nineteen economic zones because responsibility for that has been moved to that

new department and to that ministry.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just very briefly, I think the Government House Leader has

checked with the minister who will probably give specifics there.

I just want to mention to the Minister of Education that,

there is also provision too in the estimates for $49 million under the

federal-provincial program under The Roads for Rails Agreement, that is already

asked for too, there is an additional $10 million account of which I am sure a

very minimal of that $10 million would be used to sort of beef up certain

inefficiencies in that the bulk of that will be going for projects strictly of a

provincial nature whether it is a bridge or a road in some other non-trunk road

or non-Trans-Canada Highway area I am quite sure, and maybe the minister, might,

a little later, if she is here, have a few specifics.

While the minister is coming in I will just probably redirect

the question to the new minister regarding the nineteen economic zones wondering

what will be, I guess, the transitional aspect of the funding now, where

economic zones were under ITT, and what exactly is going to happen in terms of

the monies availability under the nineteen economic zones for the transition and

the up-and-running and where are we at that stage? Maybe, the minister might

want to comment on that specific aspect that would be coming out of that $20

million, so if the minister wouldn't mind, to just update us on a few specifics

on that aspect of that $20 million that is geared to the economic zones

particularly.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the $22 million that has been

identified for Interim Supply is essentially to enable us to maintain the

existing programs that were under ERC and ENL. We have not specifically

identified how much of that will go into the zones because obviously the money

that goes for the zones is under the SRDA Agreement, so the portion of that, at

that point is, I still don't have a handle on that. All I know is that the total

amount is to cover existing programs and what we have to do now in terms of

integration is find out how much will go for what, so that is what I am in the

process of doing; but in terms of the specifics, I don't have a handle on that

other than to tell you that the money for the economic zones will come out of

the SRDA Agreement.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are doing a good job, Mr. Chairman,

trying to ram it through.

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

Mr. Chairman, just a few comments. First of all, I wanted to

welcome the Member for Topsail but I told him today that I was going to welcome

him when I got up to speak next and now that I have the opportunity, he is not

in the House, so we will leave it on the record that I had welcomed him to the

House. I worked with the gentleman some years ago when we were members of the

St. John's Metropolitan Area Board, and I wanted to say that it was a pleasure

working with him then and I am sure that he will be a good and faithful servant

of the people in the District of Topsail.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in this House now, this is our

sixth day and with the exception of the Private Members Day on Wednesday, we

have been five days now debating Interim Supply. We have had 180 minutes spent

on Question Period; the opposition has asked ninety-four questions in Question

Period and we have not had too many answers given. In fact, you know, one of the

things I keep is stats, and I can tell you exactly how many minutes every person

on this side has spent on Question Period, and how many questions have been

asked, how many supplementaries, and to date we have asked ninety-four

questions. Now, one would think that you would have ninety answers. Do we have

ninety answers? No, we don't have ninety answers. In fact, one would think maybe

we would give the government a passing grade and say that we have forty-seven

answers. Maybe they would want to say they are going to get a passing mark, and

they give forty-seven answers to the questions. No, we didn't get forty-seven

answers either. In fact, we were going through the records and saying: How many

answers did we get in ninety-four questions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. H. HODDER: That is Question Period. What we are

talking about here is Question Period. We have had 180 minutes; we have asked

ninety-four questions, not counting the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, the

ones that he has asked. The Opposition has asked ninety-four questions, and I

think we could say one day we got maybe two, or three at best. We are giving the

government credit for about eight to ten answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, generous, generous.

AN HON. MEMBER: At best; you are being kind now.

MR. H. HODDER: I am generous. I am very generous.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to give the government every credit

that we can.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is being kind to you, now.

MR. H. HODDER: We are being very kind, I say to the

Minister of Education and Training. We are giving you eight to ten answers, and

ninety-four questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I am following the presentation made in

Committee by the Opposition House Leader very closely, and I think it is time

for us to have a chat here with my colleagues in the Cabinet, because if he has

any answers we have made a mistake. We will have to check this out. I will have

to check with my colleagues, Mr. Chairman; there is something gone wrong here.

MR. H. HODDER: To that point of order -

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, we certainly respect your

ruling because there is no point of order. As a matter of fact, there is no

order at all on that side of the House. If they had any order, some of them

would be saying: Answer the questions. But we find ourselves, after six days in

the House, 180 minutes, we are saying we have maybe eight to ten answers that

one would qualify, if one were marking, one would say: Yes, that is partially

satisfactory. But the truth of the matter is that after six days in this House,

five days on Interim Supply, we have had very little discussion on Interim

Supply. In fact, all we have is this piece of paper here, which is the bill

itself, and we have a letter from the Minister of Finance to the Opposition

House Leader in which there are four more lines. What a lot of information in

which we are going to spend $1.23 billion, half a page of information here and

four lines on another letter.

So, Mr. Chairman, what we want to say in the debate this

morning is that if we were to keep this up all throughout today, tonight, and we

are tempted on this side to keep this going for awhile because we understand

ministers are now coming in, now that I am saying they have not given any

answers, they are now coming in, and I assume they are coming in to give answers

to the questions, and that I can see a demonstrated response from the members on

that side who want to go and say: I want a chance, before the session closes for

the Easter break, for us to give answers to the questions.

Mr. Chairman, I am today going to say to my colleagues here:

Are we going to keep the session going today, come back on Monday, and Tuesday.

I will say to the members, we intend to break for Good Friday. Out of deference

to our Christian heritage we will definitely break for Good Friday. Now it might

be on Holy Thursday at one minute to midnight but, Mr. Chairman, we will

definitely give a commitment right now that we are going to definitely break

this House for Good Friday. However if there are ministers who want to stand

after six days of debate and say to the public: We are sorry, we should have

given answers to some of those questions, then we are going to say: Yes, we are

going to let you do that. We will keep the session going on. We want answers. If

the members are going to stand, the ministers -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: If the Minister of Health is going to

stand and he is going to say that he has made provisions so that the children

who are waiting for psychiatric and psychological services at the Janeway, where

there are 600 on a waiting list, if he is going to go and say that he wants to

tell us how he is going to solve that problem, then, Mr. Chairman, we will give

leave.

It being just before Easter I want to give the government a

little report card. As a former teacher I want to say to them: Here is your

Easter report card.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. minister

of aquaculture and agriculture, whatever culture he is the minister of right

now, I say to the minister that here is the minister who prides himself on

giving no answers.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of

order.

MR. TULK: I just want to make my hon. colleague a

promise. If he keeps being as cooperative as he has been for the past week I

will guarantee him that every question that he asks the ministers over on this

side right after Easter will be answered. Guaranteed! When we get an estimate

you will get every answer you want. If you keep on as cooperative as you are

(inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order,

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

House Leader, again, he doesn't want to hear the report card of the first six

days. When I was a student and you had ten answers out of ninety-four questions,

giving you ten out of ninety-four, then we assign a percentage to that. We said:

This is the percentage that the government achieved in the days it had. So we

are giving them basically about I suppose 12 per cent. Twelve per cent of the

questions asked have been answered. We are saying to the government: Consider

what you are doing. Because our role here as an Opposition is to ask the

questions.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Leave granted?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. H. HODDER: The galleries are filling. I notice that

members are coming in; I notice that we do have more ministers coming in. Which

would tell me that they feel rather disgusted that they haven't had a chance to

stand yet and to tell us where they are going to spend the $1.023 billion. We

are glad that the Minister of Education has gotten up. He has had the nerve to

get up. Of course, we know him to be a man of great courage. We know that he has

never been afraid to get into the corners, whether it is in a hockey game or

wherever it is, and he has never been afraid to partake in the debate and to be

aggressive and that kind of thing. He has gotten up twice now and participated

in the debate. The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, she stood in her

place and she said: I want to participate in this debate.

We haven't had the Minister of Health get up. He is

essentially saying: No, there is no need for me to talk about the fact that we

are going to ask them to spend $317 million, and he didn't get up and have

anything to say. So Mr. Chairman, here we are on Friday, it has now been, I

think, around six or seven hours in debate, we have been here for five or six

days, and we want to say that the government have not been forthcoming with

answers in Question Period, nor have they been forthcoming in answers in debate,

or explanations as to how they are going to spend, and what they are going to do

with the $1.23 billion.

We have half-a-page here on the Order Paper, and we have four

lines in a letter from the Minister of Finance to the Leader of the Opposition,

and on that basis, we are probably going to be asked today to consider calling

the question. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my colleagues over here, you

know, is this a reasonable request from the Government House Leader.

With these things in mind, I will take my seat, and I am

sure, now, with that kind of report card presentation, that the government feels

contrite, feels compelled now, to call on the Ministers and to take advantage of

the opportunity, to get up and say, Yes, I am going to tell the people what I am

going to do with the money I am asking the public to spend in my department.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I could not resist the opportunity of getting to my feet,

after hearing such an elegant speech by the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Am I supposed to be kind here now? I will

ignore the hon. member. I am not going to talk about any of the things that were

in the past, I am going to talk about the things we are going to do in the

future. The hon. member said he did not get any answers. Simply, you didn't get

any answers because you didn't ask any questions. If you had asked some

questions - well, in Question Period this morning, the Member for Bonavista

South got his answers.

I guess, halfway through the supplementary, he wished that he

hadn't asked a question this morning. It didn't start off his week-end very

well. I think he will do a lot more research next week, than he did yesterday.

He learned the other day that he shouldn't make any more phone calls - no more

phone calls. He learned this morning that he should make sure when they ask a

question that he does a little bit of research and puts a little bit of thought

into it, that he doesn't get caught up like he did this morning. So I suspect

over the next week or two, he is going to be a lot more clearer on the questions

that he puts forward. But he did ask a couple of questions this morning and he

got his answers, very, very well, I think. Certainly, when he put his head down

and started to smile, I knew he appreciated the answers.

Mr. Chairman, what we have a responsibility to do is to pass

the Interim Supply Bill, which each and every department has a responsibility -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I can say that, too, very well. But I am not,

I am not, going to open seventy-five fish plants, I can assure you of that, Mr.

Chairman, with that money.

The money that I have the responsibility to spend in my

department - what I look at is opening fish plants, not closing them. That is

the key. We have to provide an avenue where people in this Province involved in

the most important industry, the backbone of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador - has always been, is today, and will always be, the backbone of the

Province. But the one thing, I think, that we can accomplish today, is that we

can learn from the errors of the past, and go forward into the future, with a

positive attitude, doing what is necessary in order to sustain a viable source

of income for the people who are involved in the industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, in all areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are going to build upon the good,

solid work of the former minister, is what you are telling us?

MR. EFFORD: I am going to build upon the past, Mr.

Chairman, there is no doubt about that. I am not going to point out any

individual of the past but I am going to look at the past as a whole. I am going

to look at where the mistakes were made in DFO in Ottawa. I often made reference

in the past to the people in Ottawa having had very little knowledge about the

fishery in Newfoundland, that we never ever listened to the people who had the

most expertise in the fishery of Newfoundland - and that is the individuals who

are involved in the industry themselves, not only the harvesters, the processors

and the plant workers, but all people. Who knows better than those people who

are actually working in the industry? Those are the people we should gain our

knowledge from, and what I want to do in the future is consult, listen and take

advice from the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I intend to listen to all

people, take advice, not necessarily - I have to rephrase that, Mr. Chairman,

and say, most all people. I can never see the day that I would take advice from

Tories. So I will take my advice from those people who, I have the confidence,

will give me the best advice; those are the people that I will take advice from

and consult with. But I cannot imagine that I am going to sit down with the

people opposite in a consultative manner and spend time and take advice as to

where I should be going as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the future

of this Province. I am not going to raise any false expectations here in this

Province, giving hon. members opposite the idea that I am going to cross over

and sit down for an hour or two and have a chat, because that is not going to

happen. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely not going to happen, I can assure you

of that - nor are they going to come over here and talk to me, that is not going

to happen either. So let us not get mixed up here now. There is a change in the

Department of Fisheries but it is not that kind of change, I can assure you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of hope, a lot of confidence in

where we are going into the future. Another thing that I also have to do is look

at the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture itself, provincially. I think one

of the most frustrating things that I have to deal with as minister - coming out

of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation you had the ability,

your staff and yourself, to ma