November

19, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Minister

Responsible for Labrador to update this hon. House of Assembly on issues of

great importance to Labrador and the people who live there.

Mr. Speaker, since the election the people of Labrador have

voiced their frustration over outstanding issues, broken promises and the

perceived disinterest of past governments in addressing their concerns. Issues

such as the Trans-Labrador Highway, health care and the delivery of basic

government services remain deep and abiding concerns in Labrador. The government

is committed to resolving these.

To that end, our government has been working under my

direction and with the support of the Premier, to focus efforts on resolving the

inequities facing the people of Labrador.

As Minister of Government Services and Lands, my first

priority is improved delivery of efficient and effective services in rural

areas, in particular, to Labrador, and to this, Mr. Speaker, this morning, for

example my colleague from Labrador West announced, on my behalf, the provision

of full motor vehicle registration services for the citizens of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: The lack of these basic services in Labrador

City and Wabush has been a concern to residents for many years.

As well, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation is committed to a vision of a paved Trans-Labrador Highway

becoming a reality within ten years. The hon. Minister of Forest Resources and

Agrifoods is actively pursuing forestry development in southern Labrador and

addressing the many issues associated with management of Labrador's wildlife

resources. The hon. Minister of Health has assured me that health needs of all

the residents of Labrador will be given the same priority as any other citizen

in the Province. As Minister Responsible for Labrador, I am confident that this

government is sensitive to these concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: In the weeks and months to come, Mr. Speaker,

this government will continue to show its commitment to Labrador through action,

not words. With the cooperation of my Cabinet colleagues and my colleagues from

Labrador West and Torngat Mountains, the interests of the people of Labrador

will be well represented within government.

The people of this Province, both on the Island and in

Labrador, recognize the great contributions of the Big Land and the spirit of

the proud people who call it home. It is clear to me, as a man whose family has

lived in Labrador for generations, that Labradorians do not want out of the

Province, they want in. They want to be treated as full partners as we move

forward into a promising future.

Mr. Speaker, I am fully committed to this goal, the Premier

is fully committed to this goal and the government is fully committed to this

goal.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for his statement a little

while before the House opened. First when I started to read it I was delighted

that we were going to pay some concern to Labrador, pay some more attention to

it. Then the minister gets up and talks about past governments and so on. I

remind the minister that it has been seven-and-a-half years now and the people

of Labrador are still waiting on some of these very important issues. I would

also like to raise something else, Mr. Speaker, and make note of, and that is,

his colleague also from Labrador, happens to be the independent for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair who has brought up many of these concerns in recent

weeks in the media and who has brought them to the forefront and I think the

minister should have mentioned that.

Mr. Speaker, then we look down through the list and I am

glad, as a person who lived in Labrador City, I can tell you that I am glad and

I will commend the government and where credit is due I will give it to them.

The upgrading of services for Motor Registration in Labrador City, good, a fine

job. Now, let us look at the rest of them, Mr. Speaker. The ten-year vision of a

road - what is the vision of a road? What is the commitment there? We talk about

actions; well, we will see what the follow-up on that is, I say to the minister.

Then we talk about Forestry and with our record on the

Island. I think the people in Labrador are going to be very concerned before we

talk about Forestry in Labrador. Then we go on to talk about Health Care and all

of a sudden you hear Air Ambulance. Ask the people in Labrador how they feel

about the decision to privatize Air Ambulance and what the final result will be

to privatize which will be the landing of Air Ambulance here in St. John's. Ask

people in Labrador how they feel about that, Mr. Speaker.

The people in Labrador are going to also be wondering from

the minister responsible for Labrador why, why today, in this timing that

Voisey's Bay is not mentioned in the Minister's Statement, not even mentioned.

The biggest issue in Labrador today is Voisey's Bay which is not mentioned in

this statement. Mr. Speaker, all this is, is the calm before the storm. We all

know the smelter is about to be announced, we all know from the records that now

we are (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - will be announced on the Island. This is

the calm before the storm and the minister knows it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au Clair, on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MS JONES: No, I am asking leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking leave to speak to

the statement. Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to commend the minister responsible for Labrador today

for the efforts that he has made in having the issues of Labrador addressed by

government.

The minister noted in his statement that the people of

Labrador have voiced their frustrations over outstanding issues and broken

promises and so on, and I certainly agree. I feel that it is the voices of the

people of Labrador that has motivated the issues with the provincial government

and demanded the response. I also congratulate the minister today on several

points that he raised in his statement. The provision of full motor vehicle

registration services for the people of Labrador West, long overdue; the efforts

that have been made to deal with the forestry development in my district, I

thank him for that, as well as the Minister of Forestry, I feel that we are

making a difference in that area. I would also like to take this opportunity to

thank the minister responsible for Labrador for taking my lead in endorsing the

process that I have started in my district in consulting with Labradorians and

what it is they want from this Province and I am happy to say that that process

is progressing well and I hope to be able to present something in the House on

it in the coming days.

Having said all that, I too, I guess am a bit remissed by

parts of the Ministerial Statement. I feel that there are some areas that did

lack substance and commitment on behalf of the people of Labrador. I cannot see

how we can stand here today and say that this government is giving priority to

health care Mr. Minister. When I stand here today knowing full well that there

has not been any decision or commitment for Air Medevac services in my district.

There has been no decision made as to where this service will be based to serve

the people of my district and how can you tell us that government is committed

to a vision of a highway, we want a commitment to a highway and not a vision. I

also have to say that I was taken aback by the fact the Voisey's Bay development

was not mentioned in his statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MS JONES: By leave?

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

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. HARRIS: If I understand that correctly Mr. Speaker

the Opposition is denying me leave?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no leave. Order, please!

The hon. member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on a point of

order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like perhaps a

clarification from your Honour. I think the member has asked for leave to

continue and complete her statement and I am quite happy to grant that leave for

her to continue and finish and when she is finished I would like to have - I am

not sure who is being denied leave here, whether I am continued to be denied

leave by the official Opposition or denying her leave to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: The rule states that a member of a third

party when speaking to a Ministerial Statement gets one half the time the member

from the Official Opposition gets in responding to a Ministerial Statement and

in that respect the hon. member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair - her time had

elapsed.

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker if the member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair needs another sentence to clue up we will not deny her that. Go

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse

au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying about the Voisey's Bay development, and it was

very remiss that it wasn't mentioned in the ministerial statement regarding

Labrador. I think this is the largest issue that has faced us in the history of

Labradorians. It is certainly a development to which all Labradorians are

looking to to solve the economic crisis that we are facing, and it is certainly

an issue on which this government can bridge the gap of separation between

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We talk about unity, and it is unity that we want. It can be

solved in the development of issues like Voisey's Bay, and I look forward to the

minister responsible for Labrador to stand in the House and tell us that the

smelter will be coming to Labrador, that royalties will be coming to Labrador,

and that Labradorians will be the first people to benefit from this resource

development. That, Mr. Speaker, will be the issue that will unify the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Vidi on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Yes. I would like to ask the House, Mr.

Speaker, or ask you through the House, whether or not the Official Opposition is

going to continue to deny me leave to speak to ministerial statements, whether

that is out of fear or whatever reason, preventing me from speaking to a

ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member has asked for

leave, and leave as I understand it has been denied. From time to time when

members ask for leave the Chair can only ask for leave at a time whereat the

point when a member stands and asks for leave. I cannot make rulings on what may

or may not happen down the road; that is hypothetical.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this

opportunity to update hon. members of the House on the government's work to date

on the development of an all-weather transportation system in Labrador. The

Minister of Government Services and Lands, Ernie McLean, and I, along with local

Labrador government members, met with community councils, business associations,

other interest groups and the general public in Labrador City, Happy Valley -

Goose Bay, Port Hope Simpson, Mary's Harbour and L'Anse au Clair last week to

speak about the Labrador transportation initiative. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

tell you that the people of Labrador are very excited about development in this

area and are confident that the project will move ahead.

We have listened to the people of Labrador and are now

putting their ideas into action. The people have clearly expressed a need for an

all-weather Trans-Labrador Highway which would encompass upgrading the route

from Labrador West to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, include a highway linking

coastal communities with the highway at Red Bay, and connect Cartwright to Goose

Bay. We are working towards a vision for this highway which integrates Labrador

into the main links to the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that the current

highway infrastructure in Labrador is inadequate and in many cases non-existent.

Accordingly, we have begun negotiations with the federal government with a view

towards developing a partnership on this issue. In order to facilitate this

highway development, the Province would agree to accept operational

responsibility for the Labrador marine services and the associated wharves and

facilities now operated by the federal government. In return, the federal

government would provide sufficient funding to allow the construction of the

highway project.

Our proposal for an all-weather highway is divided into three

stages of development. first, we propose to upgrade the road from Churchill

Falls to Happy Valley-Goose Bay to a high standard gravel surface highway and at

the same time commence construction from Red Bay to Cartwright. Second, we will

link coastal communities with the highway at Red Bay. This will mean completing

the construction between Red Bay and Cartwright with community access roads. The

coastal marine service from Red Bay to Cartwright would then be ended. The third

and final phase will involve connecting Cartwright to Goose Bay. The Blanc

Sablon-St. Barbe ferry service will continue, and the marine service on the

North Labrador Coast would be provided by one passenger/freighter.

The benefits of a construction project of this nature are

significant for our Province and, in particular, for the Labrador region.

Besides providing a major economic development stimulus for the area, the

transportation initiative would eliminate the isolation of many Labrador

communities and create many job opportunities in the area.

During our presentations in Labrador last week, the residents

spoke optimistically about the potential for growth in the forestry, mining and

tourism sectors. Residents of the South Coast were particularly excited about

their opportunities for development which are currently limited by the lack of

road connections. In addition, the people were quick to point out that other

major developments throughout history have followed the successful completion of

transportation infrastructures throughout the world, citing the many

developments which followed the completion of the railway in Western Canada as

an example. We too have taken this into consideration. Government believes that

infrastructure of this kind is key to economic growth in the region.

Furthermore, I can assure you that we will pay every attention to maximizing

employment opportunities for Labradorians and Newfoundlanders in this

initiative.

Mr. Speaker, while we have visited five communities in

Labrador to discuss the transportation initiative, this is only the beginning of

our consultation process. Residents can expect to participate in discussions

about the planning of the highway route, economic opportunities from

construction, and rationalization of existing services. I also plan to visit

additional communities in Labrador including Churchill Falls, Cartwright and

Charlottetown to provide the people with first-hand information on this project.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, government is continuing to work

diligently with the federal government and hopes to reach an agreement by late

December. If an agreement is signed, construction could begin as early as the

spring of 1997, and continue for approximately ten years or more until a

completed system of paved roads is in place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the hon. minister for

providing me with a copy of her statement well in advance to coming into the

House this afternoon.

I guess again a vision is certainly not pavement. A vision is

certainly not connecting up major highways in Labrador. I guess until this

vision becomes a little bit more, that is exactly how it has to be looked at.

I am very cautious as to what is going to happen with the

operation of the marine service into Labrador. I hope, Minister, before this

government signs with the federal government, that we have the opportunity to

debate in this House exactly what this whole deal is going to be. Again I find

it rather strange that there is no mention of Voisey's Bay; there is no mention

of a smelter. One has to wonder if this is not a softening of the blow for

things to come a little bit further down the road. I seem to remember back

around February 22 that somebody campaigned for a better tomorrow. We haven't

seen it yet, and we certainly don't see it in what has been presented here this

afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to announce today the appointment of fifteen

members to the new Professional Fish Harvesters' Certification Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: As hon. members will recall, this new board

is made possible through legislation that was passed in the House of Assembly in

July of this year. At the time, I indicated that the new Certification Board

would be functional by January 1, 1997. With the appointment of members to the

Board, we are right on target.

Mr. Speaker, the appointments are based on nominations from

industry stakeholders and government agencies that comprise the Board. They are:

Representing the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union are its

president, Earle McCurdy, Fr. Desmond McGrath, Bill Broderick of St. Brendan's,

Cyril Dalley of Twillingate, Dwight Spence of Port aux Choix, Percy Brown of

Little Harbour East, and Bill Walsh of Cartwright.

Tom Best of Petty Harbour is the representative for Fisheries

Co-operatives; Bren Condon for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Tom

Curran and Ken Carew for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; Les O'Reilly

for the Marine Institute; Bob O'Neill for Human Resources Development Canada;

Dr. Frank Marsh for the Department of Education; and Sharon Taylor for Memorial

University.

Mr. Speaker, I thank these individuals for agreeing to serve

as officers on the Certification Board. The Board will hold its first meeting

tomorrow, at which time members will, among other things, elect an executive

committee and appoint an executive director to oversee the day-to-day operations

of the Board.

Newfoundland and Labrador is the first province in Canada to

formally recognize fish harvesting as a profession.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Professionalization is intended to protect

the rights of fish harvesters who depend on the sea for their livelihood. It

will also provide for the setting of occupational standards in a professional

manner, and an independent appeals procedure for certification purposes.

Mr. Speaker, with appointments to the new Certification

Board, government has again demonstrated its commitment to and strong support

for fish harvesters and the fishing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for having the courtesy of extending me

the opportunity to read the news statement prior to the opening of the House. I

might have knows that the minister didn't do it because it came from one of his

public relations people.

Mr. Speaker, I go on to say that this professionalization was

certainly a long time coming, even though the minister says he is on target with

the appointment of names. As I read through the names, many of the people named

there I know personally, and I say to the minister that I think they will do a

good job as long as they are not dictated to from the top down, as long as they

are not dictated to by the minister.

If I could give one other word of advice to the minister, I

would suggest that he take this professionalization one step further and talk to

his cousin in Ottawa, the Member for Bonavista - Trinity- Conception, the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and have him do away with the core

designation, and have professionalization of fishermen consider fishermen's

activities within that industry and have them be given a total allowable catch,

licenses, boat size, etcetera, judged on their activity in the industry and not

the wishes of one or two people who might look at something that they have done

in the past one or two years. Go back, Mr. Speaker, and look much further than

that. I suggest the minister do that, and I suggest he do it immediately because

there are a lot of fishermen out there today who are being discriminated against

because of the core designation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible) food fishery either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am seeking leave to

respond to the ministerial statement.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave granted.

The hon. the Member for -

MR. CANNING: I rise on a point of order because I believe

I heard the critic for Works, Services and Transportation a moment ago say that

a paved highway across Labrador is not a part of a better tomorrow. I would like

the member to clarify that for me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clear up some

misunderstandings regarding the debate and the discussion and the amount of time

that we are going to allow, as a government in this House, for debate on various

issues. There has been some concern raised whether there is sufficient time

during this fall sitting of the House of Assembly to discuss and debate

legislation. I want to assure the people of this Province, as a Government House

Leader, that this government plans to give every bill the attention it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, there will be less than twenty-five bills

presented this fall as opposed to the forty reported by the Leader of the

Opposition. The vast majority of these bills are housekeeping and administrative

in nature. The two key bills we hope to deal with concern educational reform and

GST/RST harmonization and, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Now I have had to teach him a few legislative

lessons before.

Mr. Speaker, because of factors beyond our control, these key

pieces of legislation could not be dealt with until this time. The Memorandum of

Understanding on sales tax harmonization was signed on April 23, 1996 and set

out the broad parameters for the negotiation of a comprehensive agreement on

sales tax harmonization over the following six months; and I would note, Mr.

Speaker, that we are well inside that six months. Intensive negotiations were

held over the six months following the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement,

resulting in the signing of the comprehensive integrated tax coordination

agreement on October 18, 1996. The signing of the CITCA - are we getting to them

over there or what already? - was announced on October 23, simultaneous with the

release of a technical document which outlines the operation of the proposed

harmonized sales tax.

Since the signing of the CITCA, the participating provinces

and the federal government have been working together on the development of

draft legislation to implement this agreement. Implementation of the agreement

requires complimentary federal and provincial legislation, and considerable

analysis has been expended to ensure a seamless legislative package.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in spite of these facts and in large

measure due to the efforts of the Minister of Finance, Newfoundland will be the

first of the four governments to table legislation respecting sales tax

harmonization. It is our understanding the federal government will table

legislation in early December. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are not expected to

table legislation before the new year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about PEI? Is PEI expected to

join the tax harmonization deal?

MR. TULK: I am frightened to death, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Government plans to proceed with its Education

Reform Bill, immediately upon passage of the Term 17 amendment in Ottawa. Also,

government, again through the efforts of the Minister of Education, recently

completed an extensive public consultation process on key elements of this

reform. The new legislation will reflect the results of this consultation. We

are ready to proceed with this legislation once the federal system decides how

it plans to answer the wishes of the people of this Province and it's

Legislature. Given that the time of the federal decision is not certain, we, as

a government, will ensure that there is sufficient time to adequately consider

the legislation even if the House of Assembly has to be re-convened early in the

new year and even Mr. Speaker, if we have to sit through Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, to repeat, there will be less than twenty bills

presented this fall, most of which are housekeeping and administrative in

nature. However, should it be necessary we would be more than willing to open

the House of Assembly early in the new year. Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel an obligation to respond to this Ministerial

Statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That is not a Ministerial Statement.

MR. SULLIVAN: The information that gives us the

impression that from thirty to forty bills are going to be debated in this

House. I hear the Minister himself, the Government House Leader, indicate that

at least thirty bills in this House. Now he is telling us, I heard it in a media

broadcast, now he is telling us less than twenty-five bills are going to be

debated here in this House and he is going to give us ample time. He called the

House together to deal with education this summer and we had a Kodak bill and we

had closure. I can tell you the shutters closed in a hurry on that bill, just

like many other bills. He talks about harmonization, when for six months,

several months since it was a Memorandum of Understanding, they refused to come

into public forum and debate the bill. They signed it in secret. If it was good

the Premier would have a news conference with hundreds of people, instead it was

signed in silence, the Premier on the mainland and sent his minister to the

forefront to announce an HST harmonization bill. We should have legislation, yes

on education reform, we support it. The reason we do not have it is because

Senator Kirby and the Liberals will not bring it to a vote in the House and I

say to the Government House Leader, thirty-six people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - out of the forty-six people in the House

of Commons who voted against it, thirty-six were liberals, I say to the

Government House Leader. That what has caused the problem and I am still -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to come back

in January. We are still waiting for last January's session of this House, when

the House was going to come back to deal with mineral and mining tax and

education. We are still waiting and we will delightedly be here to do it again,

I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

Currently, Inco is governed under the Mining and Mineral Tax

Act. Now, as is common in all provinces, that is the determination of a

provinces royalties. Now, it is not an issue regarding smelters, refineries or

employment, it is an issue regarding how people share the wealth from their

resources.

Now, when do you, as the minister responsible, plan to amend

the Act which gives all new mining operations in this Province, including Inco,

a ten year avoidance of royalties?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We have been handling this issue jointly. As the minister

responsible for mines I have generally answered and taken a lead when we are

talking about mining tax and I have answered this question a number of times

over the last few weeks. What we are ensuring is that whatever amendments we

make are going to be the right and proper amendments to guarantee, to absolutely

guarantee, that we get the appropriate amount for the people of this Province.

We have been doing further assessments since last year. Last

year when Bill 43 was introduced into this House, Voisey's Bay was thirty-two

million tons and today the companies themselves acknowledge 150 million tons.

Voisey's Bay in that sense is a moving target in times of the size, the value,

the implications for its development. It is not appropriate for us to do this in

a rush. What is appropriate for us as a government is to ensure that we do this

right. We are going to ensure that we do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that in

the absence of the Minister of Finance last fall when this new act was

introduced here in this House you sat in your seat and let the Government House

Leader introduce that bill. You have not been taking a lead on this. It is a

diversion, and I say to the Minister of Finance it is your responsibility. The

Minister of Mines and Energy was not allowed to stand in his place.

I say to the Minister of Finance that this act forms the

basis of the mining royalties for all mining operations in Newfoundland and

Labrador with the exception of a couple of deals which have a historical basis

here in our Province. Now, the amendments in the act were to encourage, as the

minister said, borderline operations and further explorations of smaller

discoveries. What does the Minister of Finance plan to do with the other

potential large discoveries, both on the Island and in Labrador, which would

also receive this tax break?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, our mining tax regime is not

something that fell out of the air last December 1995. Our mining tax regime has

been in place in this Province as legislation of general application since 1975.

We made some minor amendments to that legislation back in 1994 in view of the

discovery of Voisey's Bay and the size of Voisey's Bay, the implications of it,

obviously for a big, rich deposit there are implications in the amendments that

we made that we have to correct, and we are going to make these corrections.

We introduced Bill 43 last year to move towards making these

corrections. The debate started on Bill 43 and Bill 43 was moved to the

committee stage for public hearings. The hearings were called. In the newspaper,

I think, there may even have been an advertisement for late January or February

but then the House was dissolved when the election was called. The bill died on

the Order Paper and since that time, as I said in my first answer, Voisey's Bay

has continued to grow and we have continued to evaluate.

We are not going to do things in a rush and not do this

right. We are continuing to evaluate all the implications of all the options.

Before Voisey's Bay sees once ounce of ore produced the appropriate amendments

will be made. There will not be any production from Voisey's Bay until 1999

based on the company's present projections, not one ounce. We have time, Mr.

Speaker, to do it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Minister of Finance that this

is a fundamental issue of royalties taxation. That is the minister's

responsibility, and that is why your government and the Opposition were anxious

to see the changes put through last year. Now, you were so anxious last year,

and we all felt it was necessary, why is the minister jeopardizing the people of

the Province by delaying the amendments to the Mineral and Mining Tax Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, how anyone

can say anything is being jeopardized because we are not rushing to do it wrong.

We are going to ensure we do it right. We have at least two years before the ore

comes out of the ground. This is 1996 and there is no ore going to come out of

the ground until 1999. That is three years, frankly. It may not be quite three,

but we are not going to be rushed into doing something that is the appropriate

thing to do to ensure that we get the maximum amount for the people of this

Province in the most appropriate way.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to wait

until we sell the resource and then decide what we are going to get for it. I

again ask the Minister of Finance if he is reducing the Province's negotiating

ability by having to give INCO unnecessary tax breaks in a deal on the

development of Voisey's Bay because the Mineral Tax Act has erroneously promised

a ten-year tax holiday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, and quite the

opposite.

Inco knows that they are not getting a ten-year tax break;

they know they never will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Minister of Finance: Is he

opposed to Algebra and can he not put in place an equation as is done in other

provinces to show the structure of royalties and let the people know what their

royalty benefit is? Now, is this government selling out royalties for a smelter?

Is it selling out royalties for a refinery? Is it selling out royalties for

jobs? I say to the minister, the smelter, the refinery and jobs based on our

resource should be a given. Now we need a guarantee of royalties and why are you

selling us out again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we will have a guarantee of

royalties. We do have a guarantee of royalties; we are going to have jobs.

Voisey's Bay development is going to be the most significant

mineral development in this Province since the development of the iron ore mines

of Labrador West in the 50s and the 60s, and we are going to ensure to assessing

it properly and doing what is necessary to make sure we get the maximum benefits

for this Province.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, to the Minister of Finance: What will

be the use of the reduced clawbacks they are talking about on transfers from the

federal government, should the government achieve this, if we do not have

satisfactory royalties to begin with? The federal government is not going to

reduce transfers if we get nothing from our royalties.

Now, will the government stop playing mind games with the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and do what is right and now change that

act?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: We are concerned about the impact of transfers

being minimized, particularly equalization as a result of our efforts in the

sectors. For example, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alludes to, as we

increase our revenues in certain areas particularly in Voisey's Bay and areas of

personal income tax, corporate income tax, mining tax and so on because if

revenues increase, it means we lose monies in equalization. I point out to him

that we have a number of saving factors, particularly under the Atlantic Accord

which was signed in 1990 and that preserves on a two-tier basis almost - tier

one is 95 per cent of the revenues and tier two, adds back 95 per cent, so the

minimized equalization loss and it branches down over a period of years, each

year it goes down to the former year base under tier one.

So I just point out to the hon. member that there is a system

which will minimize those losses in the early years. Unfortunately, as the

project continues in duration, the equalization offsets become increasingly

large. It certainly is our government's intention to raise the matter and to see

if we can extend that protection out over a longer period of time so that the

people in the Province get to enjoy the full benefits of equalization to the

same extent as they would if this resource were in a province like Alberta where

all the revenues accruing stay in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said here today and the

Premier has said before, and he has indicated that Voisey's Bay in this specific

instance INCO, or possibly other potential large discoveries will not be subject

to the current mining and mineral tax that is now in place, that is what the

minister said today; they know that. The minister said: Inco knows that, they

are not being subjected to the legislation that is in place, so I say now to the

Minister of Finance: If that is the case, why don't you amend the act to reflect

in law what you are uttering verbally and protect the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador in the event of a legal challenge or an

interpretation disagreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not say today that the

Mining and Mineral Tax Act would not apply to Inco. I said that Inco is aware

that they are not going to get a ten-year tax holiday.

MR. SULLIVAN: And that is what that states.

MR. GRIMES: We are going to make amendments. I said that

as well today. They know they are not going to get a ten-year tax holiday but

right now we have in place a Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act which is of

generic application that applies to and has applied to everybody since 1975.

That is still the situation since -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. GIBBONS: Nineteen ninety-four is the amendment of the

tax holiday, yes, but the act has applied since 1975. We have made it clear to

them that they will not get the tax holiday. There are going to be amendments

made. We have made that clear as well. We tabled the legislation a year ago

almost to the day last December, but before we come back with our final

amendments, Mr. Speaker, before we bring back the bill again, we have said that

we want to fully and thoroughly analyze the implications of Voisey's Bay, so

that what we do we do right. We want to make sure it is done right.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stood in his place and said: Inco knows that it

is not getting a ten-year tax holiday. Well, this act that I have here, that was

passed in 1994, states that it will get a ten-year tax holiday applied against

the provincial income tax; and you standing and saying that is not the case? The

minister is saying: Inco is not going to have to comply with this act. I will

say: Put your money where your mouth is; put an amendment and change it if that

is the case.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, how many times do I have to say

it? That we are going to be bringing in appropriate amendments. We have informed

the company that it is not getting a ten-year tax break. We have informed it and

we are going to make appropriate amendments. The amendments will come when we

are ready to bring them, when we have adequately assessed it, when we are sure

that we are doing it right.

Before we bring them back, understand this, Mr. Speaker, we

are going to have public discussion and debate. This is not going to be

something that is going to be done in secret. We are going to have some public

discussion of it. Last year we had called through a committee of this

Legislature for public hearings on the bill. We will have no less than public

discussion of what is in it, and there is lots of time to do it. As I said

earlier, there will be no mining in Voisey's Bay until 1999, based on the

company's present projections. This is 1996. We have time to do it right, and we

will ensure that it is done right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

In view of the fact that the Premier, with two other Liberal

Atlantic Premiers, is in Bay Street or in Toronto today announcing something

about tax advantages, or advantages to business because of the Harmonized Sales

Tax, I would like to ask the minister a question dealing with -

MR. TULK: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I hate to interrupt Question Period to do this,

but Your Honour has made the ruling on several occasions. I want to tell the

hon. gentleman yes, the Premier is in Toronto, and he will be back again

tomorrow. Here is a Premier who, because he wants to be in this Province and do

his job outside the Province, took it upon himself to fly to Vancouver and back

in one day. But I also want to tell the hon. gentleman that he is not allowed to

refer to people being out of their seats in this Legislature, and he has done it

again.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader is accurate, that

particularly for ministers and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That from time to time their duty and their responsibility

take them away from the House, and members ought not to make reference to the

absence of any member in this House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if I breached any act of

parliamentary democracy I sincerely apologize. I was about to ask a serious

question, I say to the minister. In terms of Harmonized Sales Tax, and the

impact that it will have on everybody in the Province, will the minister confirm

today that as a result of this Province signing a tax deal with Ottawa, HST,

that each and every one of us as home owners, electricity users, that

electricity rates will rise today, or when that deal takes effect, by 8 per

cent, thus - and this is the important point, I say to the minister - putting up

the average cost to home owners, electricity users in this Province, about $40

to $50 per month? Can the minister confirm that?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole question of power rates is one that has been under

review. I note on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point zero one overall.

MR. DICKS: Yes. In The Evening Telegram today they

had a notice of some newer application, or a newer rate increase request, by

Newfoundland Light and Power.

Our assessment at the early stage of what the impact of the

GST/RST harmonization would do to electricity rates, if my memory serves me

correctly, is something in the order of 4.5 per cent. The reason, I say to the

hon. member, is that although you do have a 7 per cent GST on there now, with

the addition of the 8 per cent harmonized rate, for an effective rate of 15 per

cent - what the member is not allowing for is input tax credits, because you

have them from two sources. You have people who are supplying Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, which is the producer. Those people will flow through input tax

credits on what they procure in service and materials. In addition, when

Newfoundland Hydro makes its own purchases and services and so on, those savings

flow through to Newfoundland Light and Power which, in turn, is a retailer.

I note two things: one is that the Public Utilities Board, in

its recent decision, reduced by 1 per cent the amount sought by Newfoundland

Light and Power's rate increase due to the impact of GST harmonization with the

Retail Sales Tax. The second thing they did was order a study to determine what

the exact input tax credits would be that were indirect. So I suspect by the end

of the year, Mr. Speaker, we will have a much clearer picture of what the impact

will be in domestic rates, but at this point it is a little premature to say. As

I say, our in-house assessment is something in the order of about 4 per cent to

5 per cent.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, for the people in the gallery,

what the minister has just said is that he does not know what the impact of HST

will have on the Province and the people in it with regard to electricity rates;

that is exactly what he said. So let me inform him that if you factor in input

tax credits, which he talked about, the reality is that we will not be paying

4.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker, but closer to 8 per cent, about 7.8 per cent to 7.9

per cent, which will be a yearly increase of about $400 to $500 for the people

in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: My question, Mr. Speaker, for the minister

is this: Last year in this House a 70,000 name petition was presented by the

people of the Province because they did not want to see an increase in

electricity rates. Government then appointed a Consumer Advocate, spent

$300,000, which we agreed with, which we applaud, so the Consumer Advocate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask the question, Mr. Speaker - so

the Consumer Advocate could fight on behalf of consumers not to see an increase

in taxes. Yet, Mr. Speaker, government signs a deal that will see a significant

increase on taxes. My question is: Why has government undermined their own

process?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In part of his

preamble the hon. member said that I did not

know what the prices would be. That is not accurate, Mr. Speaker. As the member

well knows, the setting of domestic electricity rates is done by the PUB. It

hears evidence and is perfectly free to set whatever rate seems appropriate,

given the evidence before it. What I said to the hon. member, as the result of

our analysis indicates, electricity rates should rise something in the order of

- or the additional tax impact should be about 4 per cent to 5 per cent.

The hon. member says, and he should know, that at this point

there is 7 per cent GST on domestic electricity rates anyway. The added impact

will be 8 per cent at nominal level, but when you factor in input tax credits

all the way through the system it will ultimately result in about half that

flowing through to the consumer.

The second point is, why we did it is that the ordinary

consumer spends money on more than home electricity and oil; that overall the

impact on the economy will be $105 million going back into the economy. Retail

sales tax which now yields $570 million will be substantially reduced; and

although one may pay somewhat more on domestic electricity, one will save on

virtually every other product and service that one acquires and consumes.

So across the board it makes a lot of economic sense. It has

been well received in the Province, and we think that come April 1 people will

have a great degree of joy and rejoice when they see the overall rates dropped

from 20 per cent down to 15 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kilbride.

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

I am amazed. The minister knows full well that the Public

Utilities Board has nothing to do with setting the rates as the Province has

dictated with regards to tax. There will be a 7 per cent to 8 per cent increase

on electricity in this Province as a result of HST.

Let me ask the minister this: as a result of your press

conference, where you admitted there would be a negative impact on low income

earners in the Province, will you do the honourable thing? Will you provide an

exemption for electricity and home-owners so that they will get a break and will

not see a dramatic increase in electricity rates as a result of the harmonized

sales tax? Will you do that now and commit to it today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the first point, what the hon. member is not pointing out

is that when the PUB establishes the rate to be charged for domestic electricity

it has to look at the whole cost structure both of Newfoundland Hydro and

Newfoundland Light and Power ultimately. What it has to make allowance for is

imbedded tax that is now there. All the utilities, in the manufacturing of

electricity, pay GST to the Province, which comes to us directly. They get no

input tax credit. After harmonization, all their capital outlays, all their

equipment, and all their services on which they pay a Retail Sales Tax now,

become the new tax, HST which has all the rules of equivalency of the GST, which

results in input tax credits. That will reduce the cost of producing power in

the Province for those goods and services. That should reduce the cost to

consumers.

MR. E. BYRNE: Will there be an increase, yes or no?

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, that is up to the PUB. In our

view there should be a decrease in the rates based on what the cost would

normally be, because there should be an appropriate allowance made for input tax

credits. That is a very fundamental point in the system, and one that I am sure

the hon. member can understand if he takes the time to do so.

On the second point as to what, if any, inputs and allowances

we may allow to consumers, that is a budgetary matter. It may very well be that

the government may take some action in that regard; but I have to say to the

hon. member that it would be impossible to provide an across the board tax

reduction of $105 million and then start offsetting everything on which there is

an increase.

We believe that although some things will increase, the vast

majority of things will decrease to a marked extent and that people will see in

their overall expenditures a substantial tax saving at every income level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister of Health.

Minister, it is a well-known fact that there is a shortage of

medical doctors in rural Newfoundland today. I wonder if the minister would

inform the House as to exactly how severe this shortage is, and what his

government is doing to correct the situation.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for

the question.

There has been a chronic and a historic shortage of doctors

in Newfoundland, particularly in some rural areas of the Province, and that

continues to exist. The number fluctuates from time to time. There are a couple

of things happening in the Province to address the issue, as the member would

know.

About a year-and-a-half ago government introduced a

significant bonus system that, in effect, significantly enhanced the

remuneration package for rural doctors. Most rural doctors who have stayed for

the two-year period will be able to avail of that and collect it come April of

next year, but probably one of the more significant things that I could report

to the House and to the hon. member is that as a result of the restructuring of

the health care system the reduced number of institutional boards, the eight

boards that now exist, have agreed under the auspices of the NHNHA, the

association that represents the institutional boards and the other boards in the

Province, have come together in a collaborative sense and they have hired a

common recruiter, if you like, to address the issue, in part, of physician

shortages in the Province.

What that really means is that rather than all of the boards

out there in the future competing individually with each other within the

Province and externally for doctors that might be available to come, they are

coordinating their efforts and are recruiting on a basis that will, in effect,

have one recruiting effort and have a better chance of not only attracting more

physicians but in ensuring that when we do attract physicians there will be more

of an equitable and reasonable distribution within the Province, through the

boards, of these physicians. So there are a number of things happening, as you

would know.

One of the other significant things we have done over the

past two years, and something for which I have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members want

answers to their questions, I am prepared to answer them. If they are not

interested in information, as I suspect they are probably not, I know their

minds can only take in so much and that is a limited quantity of information,

but let me share a little more with them. As a result of our activities over the

past couple of years -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: You do not want the answers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period is not a period for debate. It is an

opportunity for members to question the government on matters of urgent

importance to the Province, and I ask the hon. minister to keep that in mind and

to conclude his answer quickly, please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The third initiative I just wanted to mention in answer to

the question is that we have been refocusing the attention and the direction of

the people at the medical school through the rural health forum in particular,

and through the offices of rural medicine that we have opened up there, to

ensure that they focus more succinctly upon the needs for recruiting rural

physicians and for training doctors to go into rural parts of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a Supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I can realize that, I am sure the

minister himself does not even understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that his answer to the

shortage of rural doctors has been historically predominant since 1989 in the

policies of his present government.

The minister will have to agree that his government's

programs in getting doctors into rural areas are certainly not working. I ask

the minister if he will offer some incentives to have doctors relocate in rural

areas, rather than have disincentives to have doctors setting up in urban areas

that have taken doctors completely out of this Province and on to the mainland

and into the United States?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The initiatives that I have outlined earlier are three of the

major initiatives that we have taken over the last couple of years to try and

get a better distribution of our doctor population within the Province.

In terms of offering more incentives, I would be happy to

hear from the member if he has suggestions that might be reasonable. If he is

talking about putting more money into the MCP pot, or more money into the

salaried physicians pot, or the fee-for-service pot, I have to tell him clearly

that this government, while it increased the health care budget last year, does

have a flat line, three-year frozen budget, and we simply do not have more

financial resources to put into the Province.

Given the fact that we start our physicians at $67,000 a year

as a salaried physician, given the fact that Saskatchewan, the next

jurisdiction, starts their physicians at $98,000, and given the fact that

recruiters are up here from the U. S. recruiting at $125,000 U.S., it is clear

that we cannot compete in the area of compensation alone; therefore we have to

use the tools that we have at our disposal, and one of the biggest, one of the

best, and one of the most effective and efficient, I believe, if we continue to

focus their minds properly, is the use of the medical school to ensure that they

take in students who will, at the end of the day, go out and give some service

in rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the direction we are taking, and

that will be our emphasis on a go-forward basis.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is certainly aware of the medical doctor

shortage at Bonavista. Just a couple of weeks ago the Bonavista Hospital was

left without an attending doctor for a full day. Even now, today, as we speak,

there are only two doctors at this particular health facility when there has

been a recognized need for five. Will the minister inform the House, and the

residents of the Bonavista Peninsula, what his department is doing to make sure

that this very serious situation is resolved?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Very simply put, Mr. Speaker, through the

peninsula's health care board, which has primary responsibility for organizing

and managing health care in the region, we are doing all that we can. We have

provided a sufficient budget to pay doctors to come and work within the system,

based on our ability to pay them on the scales that we have. Through the

institution's board, the peninsula's board, through the central recruiting

agency, and working with the people in the area, we are maximizing every effort

that is possible, we are using every lever that is at our disposal, and we are

doing what we can to ensure that we have doctors not only at the appropriate

level in Bonavista, which is important to the member from that area, but to all

parts of this Province that are equally and equitably entitled to good medical

services. That is what we are committed to providing; that is what on balance

and for the most part we are providing; and that is what we will continue to

ensure is provided to the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Freedom Of

Information Act, And The Privacy Act."

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

Labour.

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

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act."

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to

accept the following petition:

We, the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department

of Education to legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for all school buses

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We find that students are presently being unsupervised and

are at risk in their safety going to and from school on school buses. The safety

of our children is being compromised. We ask the hon. minister and his

government to show compassion, leadership and understanding, to ensure the safe

transportation of our children.

This is a petition being presented by approximately fifteen

residents of the Province who have expressed concern for the supervision of

students aboard school buses throughout our Province. We have had a recent

unfortunate incident in our Province whereby the availability of school bus

monitors - if, in fact, there was a provision and a program of school bus

monitoring, whether it be on a volunteer basis or, as this petition is seeking,

a paid basis, if such a program were in fact a part of the requirement of a

particular school board, as in response to direction from the minister through

the Department of Education, it is quite possible that such similar tragedy

could have been avoided.

Mr. Speaker, clearly the protection of young people is

paramount in our society. The protection of young people as they travel to and

from the schools over the roads of this Province is something which must be

given priority by the minister, and the minister's department must give

appropriate direction to the various school boards to ensure that young children

are protected at all times.

Mr. Speaker, there are a variety of options that may be

available with respect to the incorporation of school bus monitors aboard school

buses. There is a volunteer system which is an option. This is a system by which

concerned parents or adults, in response to government's cry for lack of

funding, may very well want to, on a volunteer basis, give of their time and

give of their effort in the proper supervision of young people. However, what

this petition is seeking is that, as a result of legislation, we have a system

of paid adult bus monitors in a fully incorporated paid adult bus monitoring

program, whose duty and responsibility it will be to ensure at all times the

safety of our young children.

As a critic in the education area, I am pleased to present to

this hon. House this petition on behalf of concerned Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who wish to see changes which will, in due course, ensure that our

young people are protected and guided at all times.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition that has been

presented by my hon. colleague. This is the second day on which we have

presented petitions relative to the issue of bus safety and the necessity for us

to consider, in this Legislature, the paid bus monitors.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that every parent should feel that

when their child leaves their home in the morning, that child is riding on a bus

that is safe, that is going to experience conditions that are safe, getting on

that bus, while the child is riding on the bus, and while the child is getting

off that bus.

We know that the accidents that have occurred in this

Province should cause all of us to consider the necessity of having proper

monitors. It isn't satisfactory for us to say we have training programs for bus

drivers. As I said yesterday in this Legislature, bus drivers have a

responsibility primarily to drive the bus. They cannot be responsible for

student safety exclusively. They can take some precautions, they can do all that

they can, but when you have a young child who is getting off the bus you can't

say to a bus driver that you have to do all of those tasks simultaneously, and

be perfect with them.

We know that the history of this Province shows that children

have been the victims of accidents. We are not here to cast blame. We are here

to try to find a solution. The parents of this Province have said they think

that paid bus monitors should be considered. That is what the parents are

saying; that is what the taxpayers are saying. So we ask the Minister of

Education if he would consider it, particularly if he would consider it for

primary and elementary students. Maybe there can be some different system for

junior high school and high school students.

We know that some of the primary students who go to school

are only four years of age. A child can be in school and still not be five until

December 31 of the year in which that child enters school. So a child at four

years of age, not quite five years of age, can find himself or herself in a

rainy situation, in a snow situation, and in just getting across the street from

where the bus stops that child can encounter hazards. What we are saying is that

if we had some way to be able to assure the parents that their child is

protected to the maximum extent, then certainly we are saying here that these

parents want this government to consider some system of bus monitors.

It is a worthy cause that my colleague is presenting. We know

that there will be other petitions. We are asking the government to listen to

what the taxpayers of this Province are saying, what the parents are saying.

Let's do all we can to assure the ultimate and maximum safety of all of our

young children, particularly primary and elementary children.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

a petition.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. I will read the prayer of

the petition; it is to voice opposition against the changes to the City's act:

We, the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, wish to

petition the House of Assembly to voice our opposition to the changes to the

City of St. John's Act,

Section 284, which will repeal the funding of $10,000 in

funding for Bowring Park and $10,000 in funding for road repair. While this

funding repeal may not seem significant, it is our understanding that the

Liberal government has cut millions from the municipal budget over the past

three to four years, and the overall cuts are quite dramatic.

Mr. Speaker, $20,000 in the scheme of things in a budget of

perhaps $100 million to the City of St. John's may seem very petty, and in fact

it is. It is so petty I have to question why the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs would even bother to cut this $20,000. Now, to the City of

St. John's, it is my understanding from speaking with officials of the City,

that this $20,000, while petty, is actually very significant because of the fact

that since 1989 the Liberal government has cut somewhere in the vicinity of $5

million to $6 million from the City of St. John's budget. These cuts to the

budget of the City of St. John's are not only harmful to Bowring Park, which is

a regional park - it is not just a park utilized by the residents of the city of

St. John's; it is a park that is utilized and enjoyed by people from all over

the region - it is unfair to the taxpayers of the City of St. John's to have to

foot the bill entirely for the maintenance and upkeep of Bowring Park.

With regard to the road repair, the City of St. John's gave

up the rights to collect monies for motor vehicle permits back in the 1920s and,

as a result, the Province had promised them $10,000 a year to make up for the

funding that they had collected in motor vehicle permits. Now this money was

granted to the City back in the '20s, both for Bowring Park and for the road

repair, and it is under a historical agreement that the City receives this

funding. I think it is absolutely shameful that the Province is taking from the

City, at this point in time, this $20,000, after cutting millions from their

budget.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

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

petition presented by the Member for St. John's South, because I think that

outside the issue of a decrease in funding, which some people may consider

trivial, what really is at stake here is an attitude; the philosophy of how this

government deals with the City of St. John's and surrounding areas.

Now let me remind some members in this House that when parts

of the district that I represent were amalgamated with the City of St. John's

they did not receive one penny for infrastructure development, not a cent. When

other amalgamations took place around the Province, around the City,

communities, municipalities were provided infrastructure money that would see

services increased to a point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I will give examples if you like, Minister.

Maybe you were not in Cabinet that day, but I can provide you with examples if

you would like - that provide infrastructure money that would increase the level

of services so that when taxpayers in municipalities at the end of the day had

their mil rates go up, they received an increase in services on the other hand.

Now in my case, Mr. Speaker, raw sewage runs in the ditches

in the Goulds. Streets are in disrepair. It is not only a local access road or a

local road for a particular number of people in a community of about 14,000;

there are about 22,000 cars a day that travel that highway. What it is, Mr.

Speaker -

MR. TULK: Do you know what? They wanted me to run in

there the last time for the Liberals, I should have done it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government House

Leader, that should have been, would have been, could have been. He was a has

been; that is all I can say, Mr. Speaker. If he wants to run in Kilbride, come

in and seek the nomination in the district of Kilbride, he is free to do so. He

is free to do so at any time; but if he is going to do it this time he had

better leave the deputy Prime Minister home. He had better bring out some

heavyweights. Leave the deputy Prime Minister home and come campaign with the

Prime Minister, but that is up to him. The reality is that the small cuts - what

is perceived as small cuts - is exemplary of an attitude and philosophy of how

this government has dealt with the City of St. John's since 1989. It is not

fair, and this Opposition and members from the City of St. John's will stand our

ground on issues that are important to the City, important to the people who

live in this Province, and let this government know that the City of St. John's,

as well as people who pay provincial taxes, deserve services and deserve their

fair share as well.

Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of motions 2

to 9 inclusively, if I could. No, first reading, I am sorry. We had hoped to get

to first reading yesterday so we could give hon. members the bills and have a

chance to do some debate today, in order that the hon. gentlemen on the other

side who are complaining about the length of time of this session could stand on

their feet and debate bills, and the Member for Cape St. Francis would not give

leave. So I would ask for first reading of Motions 2 to 9.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill No. 21)

AN HON. MEMBER: There was no leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are under Orders of the Day and there is no leave

required. The notice was given yesterday and we are now doing the second

reading.

On motion, Bill No. 21 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act", carried. (Bill No. 23)

On motion, Bill No. 23 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Jury Act", carried. (Bill No. 24)

On motion, Bill No. 24 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. The Minister of Government Services and

Lands to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act", carried. (Bill No.

22)

On motion, Bill No. 22 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act",

carried. (Bill No. 33)

On motion, Bill No. 33 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act (No. 2)", carried. (Bill No.

28)

On motion, Bill No. 28 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act"

(Bill No. 35);

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act (No. 2)"

(Bill No. 38).

On motion, Bill Nos. 35 and 38 read a first time, ordered

read a second time on tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Cape St.

Francis, we could have been farther ahead today if he had given us those few

minutes yesterday, and his Leader could have had the bills yesterday to debate

them today, to get into it today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: There they go again, look. When you tell them

the truth they jump up and down. Look.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Isn't that shocking, boys? You have a full day

wasted now, and the Leader is grumbling about the time.

Mr. Speaker, Order No. 1, Address in Reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 1, the Address in Reply.

I believe the hon. member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. Member for Bonavista South adjourned the

debate.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am happy today

to stand and take

part in debate in the Address in Reply. In fact, happy is an

understatement, I would say. I am excited, I say; I am invigorated!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the members opposite, I am full

of enthusiasm! Because this is a great day for the Tories, Mr. Speaker. It is

`Tory Tuesday,' I say to the hon. House Leader. When you see a party in one of

our neighbouring provinces go from one seat up to forming the government, the

people on that side of the House should pay attention and take heed.

AN HON. MEMBER: The beginning of the end.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is the beginning of the end when you

see what has happened in Prince Edward Island. When you see what happened

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: When you see what happened last night at

St. Theresa's parish on Mundy Pond Road it would give you another reason to be

happy, to be full of enthusiasm. Over 4,000 people came out to a Tory nomination

meeting, with a sitting member from the opposite side, from the government. Mr.

Speaker, I went out to vote about 8:30 last night. The rain was pouring down. I

had a job to get a place to park.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it's not illegal, I say. We are an

open party over here. We don't go out and say you must have this or you must

have something else. We welcome you with open arms. We are not afraid of people

coming in and taking over our nomination meetings. We are not afraid of electing

somebody of the opposite faith. We are an open party, I say to members opposite.

Over 4,000 people, a lot of them were there not to vote like

we were. A lot of them were there because they wanted to know how to become a

member of our party. "How do we join your party?" was the question that was

asked. I knew there was something happening when I got out of the car and walked

across the street; traffic going in every direction, windows steamed up, people

having a job to see, but very polite. They knew what was happening, and you

heard the `burmp, burmp' of the horn, not the long blow when you put your hand

down when you are upset and you are cheesed off with what is happening; it was

the `burmp, burmp'! In other words, what you are doing is right and how do I

become a part of this movement? How do I come in and vote? How do I become part

of it? Mr. Speaker, this is happening right across the country. This is

happening right across the country today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know; I think there was a poll

done a few months ago or a couple of weeks ago by a couple of Cabinet ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were they?

MR. FITZGERALD: I think it was the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology - the elusive Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -

and the Minister of Mines and Energy. They did a poll. They did not know which

one of them could win, wondering if they had a chance, did not know if they

should come out and take on their colleague, was not happy with her performance.

No, she has to go; no, she does not have a chance. The knives went in, the

knives came out. They went in, the two of them, others in the background

wondering, what chance do I have if I run against her?

AN HON. MEMBER: What colour was on the knife?

MR. FITZGERALD: All red, all red.

Mr. Speaker, this today is a wave that is flowing across this

Province, and I would like to stand and personally congratulate Premier Binns

for the wonderful performance that he put on last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: When you look at the Progressive

Conservative Party up in Prince Edward Island, that came from obscurity, one

seat, to forming the party, it tells us with two seats up in Ottawa we will be

twice as good the next time. We will be twice as good. I say to the Government

House Leader that one seat to eighteen is not two. I remind him of that, one

seat to eighteen is not two.

For people over there today who feel that we are a party that

is not to be taken seriously, and the Progressive Conservative Party is not

capable of forming the government the next time around, I say to you, stand up

and take notice.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what is happening.

Sunday, I went out to CBS for a drive. I figured I would go out to CBS for a

drive. I knew there was an election taking place there, a municipal election,

called by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. There should not be

half the people running there as there are, because of his doings. That is not

to say that they should be denied the opportunity to run. Anyway, apart from

that, who should I see out there knocking on doors on Sunday? Who should I see?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Education, out knocking

on doors on Sunday supporting one of his colleagues out in CBS, trying to get

him elected.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was he supporting?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was he knocking on doors for?

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Health out knocking on

doors.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good way to lose.

MR. FITZGERALD: A good way to lose. I don't know who the

candidate was - maybe the Minister of Health might like to tell us - but whoever

it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Education, whoever it

was. Whoever he was, he does not have a chance now.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what I told him, he shouldn't

take me.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know why he did it. If he did it

under the veil of darkness I could understand; maybe he would get away with it.

But the disguise was good. The minister had his hat on, his sombrero. He had his

sombrero on, I say to the Minister of Health, out knocking on doors for a

candidate in the election. I have to find out who that was, and I tell the

Member for Topsail I want him to keep an eye on who it was he was campaigning

for, because I do not think the gentlemen will have a chance at winning.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is great to be a Tory. It

is great to be a Progressive Conservative in this country and in this Province

today.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech has happened so long ago that

I had to look through it and see exactly what was in it in order to remember

some of the points. One of the points that was touched upon, I say to the

Minister of Education, if he does not want me to stop, and I will bring that up

now, was the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I will turn to it in the

book here now and just see where I can find it.

The minister went on to talk about aquaculture, and building

a new economy, and that sort of thing. He talked about putting new money back in

and creating facilities which all of a sudden seem to be forgotten about; and

the thing that he touched on was the aquaculture industry down in Bay d'Espoir.

The Member for White Bay referred to it the other day. What a farce, what an

embarrassment to the government, to see this minister get on television and say

what I am saying: Now I want you to keep quiet. I do not want everybody to know

it, but there are tape worms in the steel head trout and in the salmon down in

Bay d'Espoir. I do not want anybody to know it. We have to keep it quiet because

it may go away.

Mr. Speaker, what a thing for the minister to say. From my

understanding, if this particular species of fish was allowed to do what they

normally do over the winter months, and spend the winter months in the salt

water, this particular disease would all but disappear. Instead, the minister

went out and played it right around the world. It was the same kind of

television antics that he used a few months ago when he was going to run for the

leadership. He called a news conference to say he was not going to run, unheard

of. He called a news conference to say he was not going to run. He will do

anything when you put a microphone and a camera in front of him.

Then he was on a few weeks ago talking about increasing the

seal herd, increasing the harvesting capacity of seals. Nobody will disagree

with that, I say to the minister. Everybody is in favour of increasing the

harvesting capacity of the seal industry, but you do not have to go out and tell

the world. You do not have to go out and get all those animal rights activists

rallying behind you; it cannot happen, it cannot happen. Let's deal with the

people, let's with the fisherman, let's deal with the departments, and if there

is a need to do it, let's do it ourselves without going and telling the world.

You do not do those kind of things, and the minister should be slapped on the

wrist for doing it, I say.

Every time I hear him interviewed, he talks about how happy

he is to be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It was always his dream.

This is what I always wanted to do. When I grew up and they asked me what I

wanted to be, I wanted to be the Minister of Fisheries. I do not want a fire

truck. I do not want a ski-doo. I want to be the Minister of Fisheries; that is

what I want to be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Now that it is laid in his lap, what has

he done? He introduced fisheries privatization. He introduced that the other

day, but that was all done by his colleague who preceded him. That was all put

in place by Bud, a good minister, I say to the people opposite, who stood in his

place here and represented the people. Then, when he is interviewed, the first

thing that comes out of his mouth is: You must remember that I am not God. I do

not have all the answers. He is brought down a little bit now; he knows he isn't

God. He has come down a little bit, I say to members opposite; he realizes that.

So he is gradually coming back to realization.

Then he goes on to say: I welcome participation. Then in the

next sentence he says he: Put Cashin somewhere, involved in some committee

called the Industry Renewal Board, and he came back and he reported to me. Well,

I didn't like what he said so I sent him back again! He didn't say that: Me and

my officials met with them. `I met with Cashin', were his words. I met with

Cashin, I didn't like what he had to say, so I sent him back again.

So, minister, what you have done today by announcing that

board, as I said before, a wonderful step, but stay out of it! Stay away from

it. You are a has-been. You won't be in the front benches very much longer. You

are an embarrassment to the establishment. You will soon be that far back there

that the QC from Topsail might even be sitting in your place. Mr. Speaker, it

seems passing strange.

Before I go on, it is nice to see everybody back again. We

have all returned from our summer retreats and our summer holidays. Some of us

spent them in our district trying to help our people. Others have spent them

touring other provinces and finding out new ideas, I suppose. But it is nice to

see everybody back again. Some people have come back with changes, new hairdos,

new ways of doing things. The Government House Leader has come back with a new

way of dressing. He wears a set of suspenders now, that he tucks his arms in. I

say to the House Leader, if they ever let go - and I thought they were today;

you had me worried today - you are going to get an awful smack in the jaw. So be

careful, because there is a lot of pressure on them.

On a more serious note, when you look at some of the things

that are happening out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is certainly

too long to wait for a better tomorrow. What we want is a better today. When you

look at the cutbacks that are happening out there in health care, you look at

the cutbacks in education, you look at the cutbacks in social services - we all

know we are living in bad times, we all know we are living in difficult times,

but it seems like every day the people who are taking the hit are the people who

can least afford it.

We all talk about how important it is to be on the government

side, that we all should get on the government side because you can get more

help that way; you can have more things done in your community. What is

happening here in this House today, and up in Ottawa, flies in the face of that

kind of judgement and that kind of thought. When you see the changes that have

been brought about today in unemployment insurance, and some of the changes that

have been brought about especially as it relates to the fishermen's UI, and

nobody standing on the floor of the House of Commons to get up and take

part in

debate and put forward the concerns of the fishermen and the fish plant - not

the fish plant workers, but the fisherwomen, I suppose, of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the seasonal workers, it is nothing short of being disgraceful.

I think far too often today when we get elected we lose sight

of why we are elected, why we offer ourselves to serve our constituents, why we

get involved in politics, and look at following the line and the itinerary of

your party or of your government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the member opposite, yes, I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you forget?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I don't forget, but to the best of my

ability, I say to the member opposite, if I see a need in my district then I

don't come up and say that it has to be done because my Leader says so, or it is

against my party philosophies, or it is against my party policies. I speak out

on it because I believe it right here.

My district is no different from the district of the Member

for Port de Grave, the Member for Bonavista South, or the Member for Terra Nova.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Bonavista North, Mr. Speaker. The people

are all going through the same kind of situation. When you see the people down

in my district today not knowing where they are going to find a job, not knowing

if they are going to have to relocate to another part of this country, not

knowing where the next meal is coming from - and for some people down there it

is almost that bad, I say to members opposite, then there is something wrong.

When we look at the wonderful country we are living in and

somebody tells us it is the number one place in the world to live, and I believe

it is. I believe Canada is the number one place in this world today to live in.

When we see the things that are happening around us and when we see what is

happening to our people, and when we see them having no hope, having no vision

of being able to live in their home towns in the future, sometimes it is a job

to continue to be optimistic. You have to swallow a sudden dose of reality

because you know what they are saying is probably true.

For many of those people going to Alberta or going to British

Columbia, or going even as far as St. John's may not be an option. A lot of

those people left school at an early age and went to work in the fish plants of

this Province, got in the fishing boats and made a very good living for

themselves. In many cases they did not have a choice of getting in the fishing

boat or going to school. Many people never had a choice of going to work in the

fish plant or going to university. That option was not always available to them,

and in many, many cases it is not today.

Mr. Speaker, at one time they found themselves being able to

work in their own community and probably work side by side with their son, their

daughter, or their mother, go home for dinner every day and make a very good

living working in those particular facilities. Now, that possibility disappeared

and will possibly never, ever return again. Now, they find themselves fifty,

fifty-three, or fifty-four years old without an education, without a job, and

having to still provide for their families. Many of them out there today are too

proud to go to the Department of Social Services, and I can understand all that.

They are too proud to look for a handout, not knowing what is going to happen

come 1998 when the TAGS program comes to an end and there is nothing there for

them.

There are no more answers out there for those people today

than there was in 1992 when they were told they were going to be laid off from

their fish plants. Go home. There will be a pay cheque there for you and we will

tell you when you can go back to work. They do not have any more answers. We

have seen other ministers of fisheries besides the one who occupies that

position now come and go. We see them federally and provincially. They all come

with a lot of enthusiasm and figure they have all the answers. I do not know if

they have all the answers, but figuring they will have some input into shaping

what the fishery of the future is going to hold for some of those people, but it

seems to me that every day and every minister is just as, I suppose, blank with

ideas as the people who were there before. The people who should be involved in

the decision-making and the people who should be involved in putting forward

their suggestions as to what the fishery of the future might look at, or what

can happen in their particular region in order to provide some economic

opportunity, the ideas are not there.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that if he

is going to take full advantage of this particular board, and there is a lot of

capability there, good people - I have looked down through the names and there

are very capable people who know the industry quite well. If he is going to take

full advantage of them then let them go out and do what I think they should be

doing, go out and meet with the people there and let the fishermen and let the

fish plant workers bring forward their thoughts and their ideas. Even if we

generate some hope, Mr. Speaker, it will be a beginning because I can assure you

it is not out there today and it is needed in the worse kind of way.

I would like to refer back to the election again in PEI. From

my understanding, in listening to the news last night, the reason the government

of yesterday in Prince Edward Island lost was probably not a lot different as to

the problems that this government opposite is experiencing here today and not a

lot different, Mr. Speaker, on what might decide their fortunes in the future.

Some of the reasons brought forward I think were the cutbacks in education,

cutbacks in health care and the abandonment of rural Prince Edward Island and

that is not a lot different of what is happening in our Province here today.

When you look at our roads, when you look at our education system and when you

look at our health care facilities and our health care systems in rural areas

today, you very quickly realize that there is not a lot of sympathy in the

government benches opposite for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

When you look at down in my particular district - and I think

of Route 235 leading down the Bonavista Peninsula and it goes right through my

district. One of the worse roads in Newfoundland and Labrador - when you look at

the way that they have restructured the busing system there where people will be

on buses now for in excess of an hour getting to and from school and having to

drive over a road such as we have there, it is nothing short of criminal, Mr.

Speaker.

In fact, I suppose we could talk about over-crowded buses as

well when we throw that in because somebody referred to the situation down in my

district a few months ago, as the minister is well aware of, that if you had

taken seventy-three animals, if you would, and put them on a bus that size that

the SPCA would make enough noise that it would be changed but still, Mr.

Speaker, we seem to be content to go - and because the buses are capable or

identified as a seventy-two passenger bus we seem to accept that. It does not

matter if you are on the bus for an hour or if you are on the bus for ten

minutes, if it is capable of taking seventy-two passengers, pile in, get aboard,

we will do a head count after and if there are seventy-two or less you are on

your way. That is hardly acceptable, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that

education goes a lot further than just having students show up in the classroom

and teaching for five hours and assigning homework. I think the school day and

how the students achieve goes much, much beyond that. I am not going to get into

the situation of talking about all the things that might make a difference but

certainly busing should be included as one of them.

Now I can see if we are going to bring about some changes

first and if we are going to do up our roads and because the roads are now done

up that we are going to make some changes, probably if it means lengthening the

busing to an acceptable degree then that would be understandable, it would be

accepted because now they have a decent road to drive over. But when you see a

bus route that was put in place - and the children have already complained that

they cannot get up in the morning, eat their breakfast and go to school the same

day by being on the bus half-an-hour to forty minutes and then you come back and

say that we are going to stick you on that same bus now for an hour and ten or

fifteen minutes, there is something wrong, I say to the minister. Mr. Speaker,

there is something wrong with that and I think that we should be putting our

efforts forward in correcting those situations in order that our students can

achieve, and be subjected to an environment where they can compete and be equal

to everybody else, not only in this Province but right across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the poverty rate I am reminded

of a bill that I brought forward and maybe the Government House Leader can refer

to this. I introduced a bill here some time ago called the Good Samaritan Bill

which dealt with food banks and I think it was a good bill. I still think now

the only reason why it wasn't accepted is because it was proposed and brought

forward by a member in Opposition. I think it would have been a big help to food

banks around the Province. In fact, in conversation with the people who are

supervising those banks, and in conversation with some of the store owners who

might be expected to take advantage in that particular situation whereby they

would be allowed to take

part in donating food to food banks without having

litigation brought against them should some problem occur - Mr. Speaker, it

wasn't allowed to proceed through the House.

The only reason it wasn't allowed to proceed is because a

member from Opposition brought it forward. That is the only reason it wasn't

allowed to go through the House and brought back to a committee. I think it was

supposed to be the Minister of Health, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture at the time, and I think the Minister of Social Services. That is

months and months ago, and nobody has responded to it since. So it seems like

when we get here into the House, and I suppose we make a decent pay cheque, that

all of a sudden we distance ourselves from the real need that is out there. We

don't want to be bothered with it. We can close our door and we will go back to

St. John's or back to our own houses and close the door and block out the

memories.

I think we have to rise above that. We have to reach out and

help those who are less fortunate and unable to help themselves. If it takes

speaking in this House day-in and day-out, then let's do it. Nobody can convince

me that we should have done away with the $61 in emergency care to the

Department of Social Services. That was mean. To begin with, you had to pass the

test for it. This wasn't something that was automatically passed to you. Bashing

the poor. You had to go and you had to appear before the social worker, or your

financial assistance officer, and you had to show them where you needed that

$61.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is where the Premier pays for his

travel (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, whatever the money is being spent

for now is wrong. I mean, what greater need because somebody needs a special

diet, or because somebody needs special clothes, or because somebody needs a

special brace to wear, what greater need out there is there than to be able to

provide them with a paltry $61 a month? Not a lot probably to me or you

sometimes. Probably not a lot. But a great amount of money to somebody, a family

of four that is trying to raise a family on about $600 a month.

Those are happenings that are out there today. I know of an

incident just a short while ago where somebody needed a $75 brace, identified by

the doctor, in order to go to school because he had - the four-year-old child,

and I stand to be corrected but I think that was his age - in order to go to

school, the father was afraid that somebody might push him or he would get

elbowed on the bus, and he needed the brace. Seventy-five dollars I think the

brace was recognized at. The Department of Social Services said: Sorry, it isn't

in our budget to cover that.

That to me isn't right. I think we have to be more

compassionate than that. I think if we are going to solve the problems in this

country today, we shouldn't be doing it on the backs of the unemployed and on

the backs of the people on social services, and on the backs of those who are

less fortunate. Because this is what is happening today.

This Province today has the highest poverty rate in all of

Canada, 20.8 per cent. One-quarter of all the residents in this Province today

live below the poverty line. That is unbelievable. Family poverty is the highest

in Canada: 19 per cent. Child poverty, 26 per cent. Twenty-six percent of all of

our children in Newfoundland and Labrador today live in poverty. Those are the

times when people opposite get up and talk about the wonderful things that are

happening in their districts, the wonderful things that are happening in their

communities, the wonderful work the government is doing.

Where is it happening? This is not unique to any one

particular district; this is not unique to a rural district and not an urban

district right across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Listen to this: One-half of all school children in our

Province today, will underachieve because they are growing up in poverty.

One-half of all our school children will underachieve because they do not have

the opportunity to be able to go to school with a good lunch in their stomachs,

a good breakfast or to be able to access a suitable dinner or diet, and those

people are not all from families who go out and blow their money on slot

machines, Mr. Speaker, they are not from families who go out and drink all

night, those people, Mr. Speaker, those children whom we are talking about do

not have that opportunity because in most cases the families cannot provide for

them because they do not have the opportunity to go out and earn a living and

work in order to get an income to provide them with a decent standard of living.

That is shameful, Mr. Speaker, that is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, nobody here has all the answers to our economic

problems. We know that we are living in bad times and we know that Ottawa is

there to help us, but let us realize that we too, I think, can play a part. We

too can, if we speak out loud enough and if we speak out often enough - maybe

somebody will listen to us - when you look at the unemployment levels that are

existing in this Province today and we talk about 20 per cent.

We were all alarmed the other day when the unemployment

levels, because of the way they were forecast were identified as going from 19

per cent to 20 per cent, a big alarm went up: Unemployment levels now in the 20

per cent levels. Mr. Speaker, the real unemployment rate in this Province today,

is probably closer to 35 per cent not 20 per cent, and if you look at the number

of young people under twenty-five who are unemployed, you will find it is

probably much, much higher than that.

When you look at some of the work opportunities that have

been brought forward here and you look at the number of Newfoundlanders who have

been allowed to go and work and take advantage of those programs, Mr. Speaker,

we seem to be always satisfied when we can get a dozen people in there if they

are hiring two dozens. We seem to be happy if there are five other people

working. We stand up and say but we have three other people there, but we should

never ever be satisfied until we have every Newfoundlander in this Province back

to work and to take advantage of every opportunity that exists here today.

Hibernia was a prime example. It is happening out there today

where people in this Province are being denied an opportunity to go to work

because we brought people in from other provinces and allowed them to come, go

to work with their tools, Mr. Speaker, while we send our own people home.

Unemployment is good enough for you, Mr. Speaker, but we will hire you and we

will keep you and that is wrong. That is wrong I say, Mr. Speaker, it does not

happen in any other jurisdiction, it does not happen in any other province, but

the first thing happens here, you bring it up, and the minister stands to his

feet and says: What are you complaining about? We have 300 people out there, we

have 500 people out there.

Mr. Speaker, there is no point in taking great consolation

with that when you know that there are thousands of other people capable of

doing the same jobs, out there walking the streets today. Those are some of the

things that I think have to be done. The people who are out and need an

education, who need retraining and want to be retrained - and there is a big

difference - we should allow that to happen. We have to get away from the

foolishness of training people for unrealistic jobs. We have to go out today,

Mr. Speaker, and train people for opportunities that exist either in this

Province or somewhere in this country and do whatever we can in order to get

them off employment and welfare and get them back to work.

If we have an opportunity we should take full advantage. What

has happened at Hibernia, we should learn from, and should be correcting

immediately and we should go on and learn from that. When Voisey's Bay comes on,

Mr. Speaker, we should make sure that we take advantage of every opportunity we

can for every one of our own people here. That is why the Leader of the

Opposition when he stands, is asking questions; he is suspicious, Mr. Speaker,

and the people of this Province are suspicious. They are suspicious because they

don't trust the decision makers and they have every right not to trust the

decision makers in this Province for the mistakes, the inequities and the

shortcomings that have happened here in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that Voisey's Bay is there

today committing billions of dollars in order to put infrastructure in this

Province and in Labrador without knowing what the Minerals Tax Act holds. I am

not convinced of that I say to the minister. I know you are trying to redeem

yourself but the damage is done minister. The damage is done, you have caused

it, it is out there, you are an embarrassment. Mr. Speaker, this is what has to

happen and like I say I am not convinced, I am not convinced that they do not

know. Would you go, I say to the Speaker, would you go and invest all this money

into a country or into a province if you did not know what somebody was going to

charge you? They know, I say to the members opposite. The little deals are

worked out under the table and they know very well what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, in conclusion Mr. Speaker, I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member does not have leave.

Before I recognize the hon. Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, the Chair would like to rule on a couple of points of order that

were raised during the lazy, hazy days of summer. There were a couple of points

of order that was brought forward from the summer session.

On July 25 the hon. the Opposition House Leader raised a

point of order with respect to the following comment of the hon. the Premier:

But the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that what he is saying is

absolutely false, Hansard July 25, 1996 at page 1171. In response to the point

of order the hon. the Premier said: Mr. Speaker, upon reflection I think it is

quite possible that the Leader of the Opposition is not aware when he makes

false statements that are false, that indeed that they are false. Therefore, I

want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has clearly made false

statements and I hope he now realizes they are false.

As the hon. the Premier has clarified his remarks to the fact

that he was not saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had

deliberately made a false statement, the Chair is satisfied that nothing

unparliamentary has been said. However, having said that the Chair is of the

view that one would be better advised to avoid using the word false in certain

contexts since it has several connotations, one of them being according to the

Oxford dictionary, deceptive which in turn suggests deliberation.

On July 24, the hon. the member for Bonavista North raised a

point of order with respect to the application of the rule of anticipation, to

questions raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition concerning Bill 19,

the Printing Services Act. The rule against anticipation is that; a matter must

not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding

than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated. A bill or Order of

the Day is more effective than a motion, a substantive motion more effective

than the motion for the adjournment of the House or an amendment and a motion

for the adjournment is more effective than a supplementary question according to

Erskine May, the 18th addition page 365 and I also refer hon. members to

Beauchesne 409(12) on page 121; Questions should not be anticipated for a debate

scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate. We know that the

matter about which the questions were asked were to be debated later that day

because the hon. the Government House Leader had so advised the House upon

adjournment on the 23. The hon. member for Bonavista North was therefore quite

right in that the rule could have been evoked in these circumstances and I would

advise hon. members to take note in future.

Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that I would

ask your Honour to correct in the statement. I know the hon. gentleman was the

member for Bonavista North before the previous election and I am now the member

for Bonavista North and Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in this House who can do

this thing as well as the member for Terra Nova, and his name should be recorded

in posterity for what he did for this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair apologizes for the mistake, but I

guess after so many years referring to the hon. Member for Bonavista North - it

will be duly noted that the point of order was raised by the senior Member for

Terra Nova.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take a few

minutes to talk about the fisheries as the future of this Province, the

commitment that this government has always had, has today, and will continue to

have to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, through revitalization of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador - not one minister, but the whole of government -, and

to try to correct some of the inaccuracies which the Member for Bonavista South

has made.

I never thought I would ever stand in this House of Assembly

and agree, and almost applaud a Tory for making a true statement in this House.

But the first remark that he made is the absolute truth. He said: The result of

the election last evening in PEI was the beginning of the end. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

it is the beginning of the end of PEI, make no mistake about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The day a Tory government is elected in any

province is the beginning of the end, and he did make a true statement. Going

down the tubes. Make no mistake about it.

The other statement he made was some reference to the

cutbacks in social services paying for the Premier's travel. I don't know how he

was trying to relate or bring the two together, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker,

I will correct it again, the inaccuracy of what he has said.

The cutbacks or the changes in social programs, or the

changes in any programs in this government, are driven by one reason only. It is

driven by this government having to deal with the very difficult financial

position we find ourselves in today. An enormous interest rate that we pay out

on our debt owing around the world of somewhere between $585 million to $600

million annually. That is the reason why this government has to get its fiscal

house in order. I'm not going to take the next fifteen or twenty minutes

pointing out why we owe $6-plus billion in this Province. Why the former

government for seventeen years before this government took office in 1989

incurred such foolish spending for seventeen years which drove the debt up over

$6 billion, and why we have all that interest to pay back down to get our

financial house in order, and why we have to take all these drastic measure to

try to get the future of this Province on a stable financial position.

Because the one thing that I've said over again, and I will

keep repeating it, is that I would rather be voted out today as a minister or an

MHA in this government in making some tough decisions for the present that will

lay a foundation of a good financial stability province for the government for

the future of this Province for our young people. I do not want my children or

anybody else's children, our grandchildren, who are going to be educated and try

to get a career in this Province, to have to pay for the foolish mistakes that I

as a minister or any government that I'm a part of would be making.

That is the result and that is the position we are in today

because of what happened over the seventeen years the Tory government was in

power, the irresponsible spending, that now we have to take the responsibility,

make some unpopular decisions. Because this Province is going through a

devastated economy and a job loss in the fishery and many other sectors. Now on

top of incurring that debt, we incurred the moratorium on the groundfish, so we

had 25,000 to 30,000 people unemployed in this Province.

But we aren't looking back, we are looking to the future. We

are going to correct the mistakes that those people made. The misgovernment, the

mismanagement, and the irresponsible actions of seventeen years is going to be

corrected; short-term pain for long-term gain. If we have to take some hard

knocks, if we have to upset the electorate for a few short years - the good

thing about it all is that I have confidence that the people of this Province

understand the practicality of the hard decisions we have to make. They know

that we cannot continue to spend the way they spent. They know we have to make

some tough decisions. They know we have to change our way and have a vision for

the future so that we can correct the errors of seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: If they keep on, Mr. Speaker, I may be forced

to take out the pickle book and show them how silly they were for all those

years, and where the money went, but I am trying to stay away from that this

afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that it is unparliamentary to interrupt

another member when he is speaking, except to rise on a point of order or a

point of privilege, and it is really unparliamentary for a member to sit in

another member's seat and interrupt another member who is speaking. I remind the

hon. Member for Cape St. Francis that he is doubly out of order, and I ask him

to refrain from shouting across the House and occupying the chair of the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis that he

will never will be able to fill that role.

Another statement made by the Member for Bonavista South was

some kind of a statement that people outside the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador should not have worked in Hibernia. Nobody should have travelled from

outside of the Province into the Province and worked on Hibernia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He never said that.

MR. EFFORD: That is what he did say, `while

Newfoundlanders were walking around.' That is what he said. Check Hansard. If we

stood 100 per cent by that and we did not allow anybody into the Province to

work on Hibernia, what happens now that Hibernia is closed down? Before Hibernia

started up all of the people in Newfoundland had to travel all over Canada to

find jobs in the construction field. If we took that attitude then

Newfoundlanders would never find a job outside the Province, so it does not make

any sense. While we should have the majority of our people working at Hibernia,

we could not bar and close the doors to everybody from another province who

wanted to come here, because we would like to have the same opportunity, now

that Hibernia is closed down, for the people who worked in construction at

Hibernia in the different trade councils, to be able to go outside and find a

job somewhere else.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: That is exactly what I am saying. (Inaudible)

I am trying to make some sense of it. Do we want people to work in Ontario? Do

we want people to work in Fort McMurray, or wherever else there is a

construction job? Or do we say: No, we will close the doors and isolate

everybody outside of Newfoundland. Then we would expect the same thing, for

people outside of this Province to isolate everybody in Newfoundland. What sense

would that make? This is a country where we are all united, and while the

economy of Newfoundland, and the unemployment, dictate that we should have the

majority, we should not have 100 per cent total control of it; otherwise we

would lose.

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what I have been saying all along.

It is because of the irresponsible thinking and actions of members opposite that

we are in the mess we are in this Province today. Then, it surely proves another

thing, why the people of this Province voted the party on this side of the House

in, so that we would govern the way the people want to be governed, with common

sense, practicality, and thinking of the best interests of the people of this

Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dream on.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I am dreaming, Sir, and I have a

vision. I am going to take five or ten minutes to look at where I see the

fishery of this Province playing a major role, the fishery of the future playing

a major role in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I am going to start first with

the fishery of the past, the mismanagement of the fishery of the past, and we

will take the full responsibility in Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador for

that mismanagement. If we blame the foreign overfishing, if we blame all of the

other things that are happening on the Grand Banks and in the bays of

Newfoundland, those people who played a direct role, those people who played an

indirect role, and those people who sat idly by and did nothing about it, are

just as much to blame as those who were involved in it; because if we recognized

what was happening and we did not do anything about it, we have no reason to

criticize somebody else who is in the field and caused it to happen. We were

just as much to blame. So let's make sure when we assume responsibility and we

start pointing fingers, we first look in the mirror and find out exactly what we

should h