November

25, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 39

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin today's proceedings, I would like to welcome

to the gallery, on behalf of all members, thirty Level 11 French Immersion

students from Ascension Collegiate, Bay Roberts in the district of Port de

Grave. They are accompanied by teachers, Mr. Ed Wilding and Ms. Corinne

Ellsworth, along with teacher assistant, Ms. Marlene Clarke and bus driver, Don

Sullivan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.

members of the House of Assembly of the progress being made by the School Milk

Program to encourage the consumption of milk by children in schools all across

the Province. I am sure that many of the members are aware of this program and

can appreciate the value placed on it by educators and parents alike.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the establishment of this program in

1991 only 90,000 litres of milk were consumed in schools in this Province. Mr.

Speaker, in 1996, school mild consumption was over 1 million litres, an 1100 per

cent increase.

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

highlight some of the accomplishments of the School Milk Program for the benefit

of the children of this Province. For the 1996-97 school year there are 399

schools enroled in this program. There are approximately 102,970 students

registered in the School Milk Program which represents 96 per cent of all the

students in the Province. The rate of school milk consumption by individual

students is up again this Fall. Therefore, despite declining enrolments, milk

consumption continues to rise.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland & Labrador School Milk

Foundation was happy to announce that the 1996-97 price of school milk will

remain unchanged from last year with 200 millilitres of 2 per cent white and

chocolate milk retailing for thirty-five cents and 500 millilitres of 2 per cent

white and chocolate milk retailing for seventy cents. Mr. Speaker, this price

represent savings of approximately 60 per cent from normal retail prices.

Mr. Speaker, making milk available at this affordable price

is only possible through the continued support of the dairy farmers, milk

processors and this government. In 1995-96 the fifty-seven farmers in the

Province contributed approximately $500,000 to the program in cash and reduced

prices. The two milk processors, Central Dairies and Brookfield Dairy Group,

contributed approximately $500,000 through subsidized milk, for a total

contribution from the industry of $1 million. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

personally congratulate them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I ask all my hon. colleagues to

join me in commending all the dairy farmers and Central Dairies and Brookfield

Dairy Group for the tremendous support and contribution to the school children

of this Province. As well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Newfoundland

and Labrador School Milk Foundation, it's volunteer directors and employees, on

their contribution and tremendous effort they put into their program.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995-96, this government contributed $200,000

towards the School Milk Program, and I am very glad to announce that this same

level of commitment continues in the 1996-97 school year. This government is

very pleased to make a contribution of this significance to such a worthwhile

program.

Mr. Speaker, this contribution was recently complemented by

another initiative announced by my colleagues, the hon. Joan Marie Aylward,

representing the Department of Social Services, the Minister of Education and

the Minister of Health. Last week, on National Child Day, this government

announced a contribution of $125,000 to help establish a child food program in

the schools. This program is coordinated with the School Children's Food

Foundation, much like the school milk program. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

emphasize the extent of government's commitment to assist and foster these

initiatives to address nutrition for our school-aged children by making it

possible for each and every child to access at least one nutritious meal and

affordable milk, each and every school day.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits of this program to our school-aged

children, in terms of health and nutrition and, as recent research confirms, the

children's academic performance are countless. I am pleased that this government

is able to contribute to the program in a meaningful way.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

providing me with a copy of this ministerial statement before the House opened.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side, would join with the minister in

complimenting and passing our congratulations out to the participants, namely

the dairy farmers of this Province and the two milk processors, Central Dairies

and the Brookfield Dairy Group, and also, Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and

Labrador School Milk Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, it seems passing strange that those three

particular groups of people would come forward and recognize a need in our

schools and bring forward $1 million when the government of the day sees fit to

put in $200,000. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that at least the government should

match dollar for dollar the money that is coming in from the three participants

of this group.

The minister in his statement, Mr. Speaker, says: Therefore

despite declining enrolments, milk consumption continues to rise. That should

not be any surprise to any of us here. The reason why milk consumption continues

to rise is because poverty continues to rise in this Province. We are living in

a Province where just about one-half of all our school children will

underachieve because of poverty, Mr. Speaker. One in every four people going to

school in this Province today is going to school without getting the proper

nutritious meals in their stomachs.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at what the government is

supplying to this particular program, it is only a little more than twice the

amount they have already taken away. Just last year, this government put

$135,000 into a School Lunch Program, only to have 46 per cent, just about 50

per cent, Mr. Speaker, taken away in a budgetary process. Now they come back and

say, because we are putting $125,000 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - back in that we should be commended.

So I ask the government to match the dollars being put

forward -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - by the participants here, and then they

will have something to get up and stick their chests out about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move to questions, I

just want to tell the Opposition that the Premier is out doing some work that is

very significant to this Province, signing some contracts, announcements and

things, and he will probably be about twenty or twenty-five minutes late. He has

asked me to inform the Leader of the Opposition that, if he is in the mood to

ask him questions after last week, he will be available when he comes back this

afternoon.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question Period only lasts thirty minutes, I say to the

Government House Leader.

My questions today will be to the Minister of Health.

Having had several days to catch up on what is happening in

his department, does the minister now know if the administrator of the

peninsula's health care board is on vacation or forced leave?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I answered that question in the House last week and the

answer remains unchanged. He is on two weeks vacation.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say the Minister of Health is the person who was on

vacation here and he is still on vacation. I wonder why the minister does not

know. I am sure the minister has a copy of correspondence as I do. Numerous

other people know the reason why, and the minister has not been informed. That

disturbs me, Mr. Speaker. That really concerns me.

I ask the Minister of Health: Does he know why hundreds of

pieces of equipment in these hospitals were not serviced, including twenty-four

pieces in the operating rooms of one hospital alone? And who is responsible?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me start with the final part of the hon. member's

question. The responsibility for running our total health care system at the

operational level throughout the Province is the responsibility of the eight

regional health boards and the four community health care boards that we have in

place.

In terms of the institutional side, the hospitals of course,

the institutional boards, have responsibilities; so to that extent the

administration of the hospital, as is responsible to the board, has the

responsibility to ensure that all operational matters are taken care of in a

timely and appropriate manner.

I indicated to the hon. member last week that I became aware

that some equipment at one specific site was not serviced, apparently, in as

timely a fashion as it could, and with that concern came a couple of other

concerns of a contractual nature that were brought forward. Immediately as I

became aware of that, within twenty-four hours, as a matter of fact, we put in

place a process, a committee as being represented by officials from the health

care board on the peninsula, the Department of Health, the medical staff who

raised some of these concerns, and some independent doctors who agreed to

participate in that committee, to look at the issues that were raised at that

point. That work commenced over the weekend. I anticipate having a full report

by not later than Thursday or Friday of this week, and all of the issues that

have come to my attention, plus other issues that may arise out of the work of

that committee, will be addressed and reported to the board and to me before the

end of the week.

So, to the issue of whether or not there is more than one

piece or pieces of equipment that were not serviced, that will become abundantly

clear to me in a factual manner as opposed to a rumoured manner, which at this

point I have been operating on. I have not seen anything that says there is any

more than one or two pieces of equipment in one site that was not serviced

properly, but if there are more than that, it is an additional concern and we

are addressing it through the committee in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am amazed that the minister is so far removed from what is

happening with health care in this area. There are 250 pieces of equipment in

the Burin hospital alone whose contracts to service were not renewed, of which

twenty-four were in the two operating rooms, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the minister, is he aware that

at the Bonavista hospital, ambulance operators frequently have to assist

physicians in the operating room because of a lack of nurses and other staff -

the same hospital that was left just a little while ago without even one doctor

because there was a dispute between the medical people and the administrator. Is

the minister aware of that?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To my knowledge, in every aspect of every part of the

operation of every hospital, the appropriate professional or support personnel

is carrying out a function that is appropriate for him or her to carry out. We

are not using, as far as I am aware, anybody in our health care system to

perform any duty, chore, task of any nature that would be inappropriate to the

training that they have received. If there is one incident, again I ask the hon.

member to give me the facts and I will address it. I should say to the hon.

member that I have a meeting scheduled, I think it is tomorrow morning, with

some people from the Bonavista Peninsula, to deal with some health care issues.

That is not one of the issues that I have seen on the agenda, but if it is a

concern, I am sure it will be addressed. I have no knowledge that it is at the

moment.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister prepared today to assign an administrator on

an emergency basis to the peninsula's health care board?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The peninsula's health care board has a CEO

who is on a couple of weeks vacation. There is a person who is acting

administrator. The name of that person is Ms Pat Coish, and she is carrying out

the duties in an appropriate manner, as would be normal in any situation where

anybody is absent, be it for vacation or for any other type of leave.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware - and I am, up to an hour ago - that

contracts for hundreds of pieces of equipment have still not been renewed, some,

life-saving equipment that is in operating rooms, I ask the minister? Now, what

do you say to the spouse of a man who was brought to the Burin hospital and was

transferred to Clarenville where he died that night? What do you say to the

daughter of a man who was waiting for surgery in that hospital and it had to be

delayed because of equipment not functioning? To a person who waited the same

day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - for a gall bladder operation -

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

I ask the hon. member to

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: what does he say to the

families of these people, dozens of people, many who called me since last

Thursday, in situations where life-and-death was at stake in some instances

here, because equipment wasn't functioning. The administrator or somebody failed

to do it, and the minister ignores those problems in the system when there are

today hundreds of pieces of equipment not serviced in the hospitals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I reported to the House last week in response to questions,

that equipment reported as being unserviced, outside of the time frame that it

should have been serviced, had been addressed. The equipment in question has

been serviced; that is at the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre. If there are

other pieces of equipment that have not been serviced in a timely fashion, I am

not specifically aware of them but I can assure you that they will be if they

have not already. My knowledge is that there are none.

The committee that is in place reviewing the equipment and

other issues will be reporting to me, in the meantime, by the end of the week

and all of these things will be taken care of. I say again that if the hon.

member is making an allegation that there is a -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. member would be quiet - if the

hon. member is making an allegation that there is a connection in any of our

facilities between equipment failure that was not appropriate and the either

inappropriate treatment of a patient or the non-treatment of a patient or even

the death of a patient, I would ask the hon. member, in fairness to the families

involved that he alleges has made these representations, to bring the

information forward to the department, to the minister, and I will, in the most

timely and expeditious manner ensure that the thing is reviewed and addressed. I

think the fact that we have put a committee in place to address the issues that

were brought forward last Sunday, the committee being put in place on Monday,

reporting by Wednesday, tells me that we are operating and running the health

care system efficiently, effectively, on balance and that we are addressing

concerns that come forward of any nature in a timely fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his place.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I offered here last day to give you names and I asked the

minister.

Now, will the minister take it upon himself today to restore

confidence in the system? I had numerous calls from the Burin Peninsula that

people are concerned to use the services because of faulty equipment. I made a

call one hour ago to see was the equipment serviced. I talked to several people

and I was informed that only a fraction of the 250 pieces that were not working

there are functioning. There is about 80 per cent to 90 per cent still not

working. I ask the minister, will he take it upon himself today to do something

about it immediately?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member, if he is aware of one piece of

equipment, not 250, if he is aware of one piece of equipment that is

specifically malfunctioning, not functioning today because of not being

serviced, or for any other reason, I would ask him to bring the information

forward to me. I have no such information and we operate, on this side of the

House, on the basis of facts. We do not operate on this side of the House on the

basis of fiction, supposition, allegation, innuendo or any such type of

contrived or concocted proposition that cannot be substantiated. Bring the

information forward and the minister, this government and the officials will

address the concerns that you raise. Otherwise, I have no basis on which to

respond to that type of a suggestion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: I will bring his attention to the 1996

Economy book which shows the economic indicators. Gross domestic product is

down; personal income for people in the Province is down; retail trade is down;

capital investment, which is directly related to the EDGE program, is down

significantly; the labour force is down; employment is down and the unemployment

rate is up significantly, not to mention the out-migration of people from the

Province. With government's own economic forecast showing a struggling economy,

an unemployment rate of almost 20 per cent, which would be even higher if not

for the vast out-migration, will the minister confirm that even before the

changes to the HST, the EDGE program was not doing what it was designed to do?

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, just with reference to the hon.

member's use of figures, he is being very selective. He does not say that the IT

sector has grown by 8.5 per cent this year, last year the last three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: He has not told the House that the

manufacturing sector has grown by 6.5 per cent last year, the best in the

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, he also has not said that there

are forty-one corporations that have accessed EDGE. They have created 368

full-time jobs, and invested $28 million into the economy this year. He has not

told us that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it also has the potential, if

these business plans reach fruition, to reach some 1,350 full-time jobs with an

investment of $171 million. So when he deals with statistics, he is being quite

selective, and he is choosing them to paint a negative picture. We on this side

want to be positive. We see the economy growing. We have highlighted three

sectors: aquaculture, information technologies, and adventure tourism, and we

think we are on the right path.

With respect to revamping, I think he asked me what is

happening with respect to the EDGE legislation, vis--vis the HST and

harmonization. The board of the EDGE corporation is currently looking at new and

innovative ideas. Job training will probably be part of it, and market

development funds to get our products out onto the world stage. So, Mr. Speaker,

I would ask the hon. member to be a little more positive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Atlantic region's economic performance has been positive,

much stronger than that of Newfoundland. New Brunswick has been performing

exceptionally well. They have the third best credit rating in Canada. From 1992

through to 1995 inclusive they have experienced a decline in the unemployment

rate as well as a growing population. They have a strong economy. Their tourism

is up; ours is down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary; he

should get to his question.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister is confident that he has been performing

well, his department has been performing well, and the EDGE program has been

performing well, he must be telling us that the government has been failing

miserably. I ask the minister: Who deserves the failing grade, himself, or the

Liberal Government of which he is a minister?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is being

very selective. He is choosing statistics to paint a negative picture. What he

does not say is that there was not a collapse of the groundfish fishery in New

Brunswick, there was not a collapse of the groundfish fishery in Prince Edward

Island, and Nova Scotia was hit in a very minor way. Which government controlled

and had total jurisdiction of the groundfish fishery in 1992? It was his

political cousins in Ottawa who collapsed and shut down the entire fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we have been operating under

tremendous and almost insurmountable odds to rebuild the economy. We have taken

a positive attitude, we have taken a three-pronged approach. The Premier this

morning was at Hotel Newfoundland announcing $10 million for operation on line,

which could lead to 1,000 jobs over the next three years, to implement a plan

that has been put in place not by the government but by the private sector.

Those people involved in the IT sector developed this plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier also announced that

$36 million would be targeted to the information technology sector. We ought to

be proud of tele-medicine and Distance Education. We are world leaders, and we

are going to start exporting it all around the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The space program, the STEAR initiative - the

Premier just came from announcing another joint initiative which will help along

those lines.

There are some positive things happening. We cannot be

running around hanging our heads and being negative all the time, and

despondent, and saying, `Life is no good, the economy is no good'. There are a

lot of good things happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We ought to be proud of the Liberal Government, too, but we

are not. The negative numbers that I am painting are the ones that your

government painted. These figures are down since last year. If the only thing

the minister can boast about is the fact that he probably has more airline

points than any other minister in Canada, and he has created 364

full-and-part-time jobs through the EDGE program, he should be ashamed.

I ask the minister: What is he going to do to make sure that

the EDGE program works and that it does what it was designed to do in the first

place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, because I know that the hon.

member is a new member to the House, and because I know he wants to do a good

job and an effective job of representing the concerns of his constituents, I

want to tell the hon. member that it is because of the effective and hard work

and, on many occasions, the visionary work of the minister who has just

responded to a number of his questions that the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador is poised to see substantial economic growth because of good planning

and because of hard work.

We are about to see built in this Province the largest nickel

smelter refinery complex anywhere in the world, being built in Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is the fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that while the

President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada want, as an

objective, to have schools in Canada and the U.S. on the Internet by the year

2000, two years ago every school in this Province already was on the Internet

because of the work of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the

officials of his department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we just came from a press

conference where three Newfoundland companies have been given a contract by the

Canadian space agency to develop technology applicable to the space program. We

are leading edge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the member

opposite to reflect less upon the size of our problem and to acknowledge the

size of our potential and our ability to succeed, and to give thanks to this

minister who has done a good job for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask: Is it the potential we have and the hard work on

behalf of the Liberal Government that have driven 7,000 people out of our

Province so far this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to tell you

what has driven people out of this Province this year and last year and the year

before. It is the collapse of the groundfishery. The groundfishery collapsed

because the member opposite belongs to a party that said - when foreign trawlers

were overfishing, were indiscriminately raping the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks, he belonged to a party that said: It could not be stopped, we couldn't go

beyond the 200-mile limit!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: He belongs to a party whose Leader says we

cannot do anything about the Churchill Falls contract!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: He belongs to a party that believes that

Newfoundland and Labrador is defined only by its problems and not by its

potential, and thank goodness, he does not belong to this party, which believes

the opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

During the February election, the local Mount Pearl Liberal

candidates both acknowledged that Southlands had been wrongly taken from Mount

Pearl on January 1 1992, and that if elected they would ensure their best and

immediate efforts to return to Mount Pearl all of Southlands. The Premier, in a

speech on February 20 to the Mount Pearl Chamber of Commerce, just two days

before the election, gave a similar commitment to revisit the Southlands issue.

When, Madam Minister, can the people of Mount Pearl expect the return of

Southlands to its rightful municipal jurisdiction?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Let me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the loop.

MR. A. REID: Well, apparently I must be back in the loop,

so give me a.... Let me tell my hon. colleague across the way, when the Premier

looks over and says: `You answer the question,' that means you are back in the

loop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Let us be fair here, Mr. Speaker. I want to

try to be as fair as I possibly can. At the present time, Southlands sits in the

boundaries of the City of St. John's. The hon. member representing Mount Pearl

and the Premier have had numerous meetings discussing the possibility and I

guess, not only the question of Southlands, but the whole question of where

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing will be in the program review, what we will

actually be doing with Southlands at the end of the day and whether we will be

privatizing it as far as Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is concerned, where

it will go, what we are going to do with Southlands; and not only Southlands. We

have a serious problem in Kilbride that all of you know about as it relates to

water and sewer services. So the whole question and the whole area is being

discussed, we are looking at it through the program review, and I can assure the

people of Mount Pearl and the Member for Mount Pearl, that the hon. Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, is working on a daily basis -

AN HON. MEMBER: You were right the first time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. REID: There are times, Mr. Speaker, that I wish

she was. She is working with the Premier, she is working with me, she is working

with the Cabinet Committee on program review and hopefully, some time in the

very near future - how near I don't know - we will be able to give the people of

Mount Pearl and St. John's an answer on what is going to ultimately happen to

the area that we refer to as Southlands.

We apologize to the hon. minister for getting her title

wrong.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

In the July 28 edition of The Evening Telegram , the

minister indicated and I quote: The die has been cast and Southlands will stay

part of St. John's. His colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation said: No, no. That is not right, he doesn't know what he is

talking about. There are discussions ongoing but he is just not part of them. I

am pleased to know that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is now

in the loop, he is part of the discussions and I want to know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: - Mr. Minister, when will you involve the

City Council in Mount Pearl in those discussions? When will they get in the

loop?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I have no intention of asking the Council at

Mount Pearl or the City Council of St. John's to get involved in these

discussions. You know what these discussions entail.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have been there.

MR. A. REID: Yes, you have been there, and I tell you

quite honestly that we are going through a process right now of program review.

That is part of the program review and the whole issue of Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing is part of the program review. I do not think we are ready at

this particular point in time and I guess the Premier, ultimately, will have to

decide whom he calls in under the program review and when he calls in, other

people other than Cabinet and government officials.

So I am not in any position to say to Mount Pearl City

Council: yes, you can come in and discuss this question. The answer is no. But I

will make this comment to you. You quoted me from an

article in The Evening

Telegram. Let me say categorically to the member and to this House, Mr.

Speaker, I did not make that comment.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, he is not allowed to be quoting

newspapers. He knows that or he should know that.

MR. H. HODDER: I did not quote the newspaper, I

summarized the article, paraphrased it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, shortly after the election,

the good Mayor of St. John's, a known Liberal, wrote the Premier and he talked

about the whole issue of Southlands. He drew into question the sincerity of the

Premier's commitment. He said and I quote: We realize that you had to indicate

to them that you would review the argument put forward by Mount Pearl. I ask the

Premier: Were you serious about this review or were you just simply giving a

pledge when you spoke to the Chamber of Commerce two days before the election,

so that you could give your candidates in Mount Pearl the best possible

advantage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member really wants

to be careful when he is quoting from letters that have been written to people.

Was that a public letter? Because you know, I have received many letters over

the years from individuals, even some from the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, I can't say, Mr. Speaker, I can't

say, but I do recall receiving a letter years ago from the member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, expressing an interest in the public

process, the political process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the

record so that we don't have any misperceptions. There are no letters on record.

Maybe from other Hodders but not from this Hodder.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier, I will give him a few seconds to finish

up.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs has spoken so well on the subject, so

eloquently and so clearly, that I am confused as to why the member would even

ask another question on the subject.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I would like to ask the minister if he consulted with the stakeholders, and I

think about the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador which

represents fish processors in this Province, as it relates to the amendment of

Bill 21 which he brought forward in this House on Thursday. If so, what was

their suggestion and what was the advice they passed back to the minister?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that is right. The fact is

that the minister did not consult with the fishing industry on which this bill

will so greatly impact. His lack of consultation is an omen of things to come.

If this act goes through and he gets the new powers to circumvent, not only the

House of Assembly, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and there ought to be

no

preamble, so I ask him to get to his question.

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

can justify asking the House to give him great new undisclosed discretionary

powers to act behind closed doors making crucial decisions which will affect the

jobs in hundreds of communities and thousands of people around this Province

today?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the hon. member just said in this House is a misleading

statement to the House. What I just did to the amendments to the Fisheries

Inspection Act was on the advice of the Department of Justice because of court

proceedings there just recently that did not give the minister of the department

or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the authority to put conditions on license

other than quality. It was just a clarification of the act. In other words, give

the minister authority so that the conditions would be more than in quality,

would be in processing and economic and social conditions within the fisheries

responsibility.

There was no misunderstanding and there was no consultation

needed. FANL is clearly aware of that, FFAW is clearly aware of it. It was on

the advice of the Department of Justice and it was simply to give the minister

authority to do what he or she have always been able to do. It is just to

clarify a recent court decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: I would not raise it while we were in Question

Period because I did not want to take up the time of Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Opposition House Leader to

Section 31(4) in his question to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs: "Oral questions must not be prefaced by the reading of letters,

telegrams, newspaper extracts or

preambles of any kind." Certainly if he didn't

quote directly, but I believe that he did, he certainly read from an

article in

The Evening Telegram . I have to remind him again, as His Honour has done

on several occasions, that that is not appropriate in this Legislature.

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

point of order.

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

I remind the hon. House Leader that the whole

article is

quite extensive. I paraphrased some of the intent of the language here. I did

not read from it because I would have been a long time. Given how slow I talk,

we would have been here for an extensive length of time. I didn't quote from it,

but I did certainly give the substance of the article.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point raised by the hon. Government House Leader, the

hon. minister makes a valid point. Question period is again, as I said before,

for members to call the government to account. In doing so, questions of an

urgent nature should be asked, not frivolous questions at any time, and the

members should not have long

preambles. I guess in the initial question they are

permitted a

preamble, but beyond that point, for supplementaries there ought to

be no

preamble. In any event, quotations from papers and extracts from articles

in the newspaper should not be used.

I again ask hon. members to bear this in mind when they are

preparing their questions, and likewise answers, of course. The longer the

question, the longer the

preamble, that tends to elicit a longer response, and

we tend to get into debate. So again I ask hon. members, please, for question

period, to follow the Standing Orders that we have, and to keep these in mind

when preparing for question period.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present the

report of the exceptions to the Public Tender Act for the months of June, July,

August and September.

Petitions

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

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

Today I am pleased to rise in my place and present a petition

from a number of people from Bauline, Pouch Cove, Foxtrap and other areas. The

wording of the petition - I will read this for the Minister of Education because

he usually questions the wording:

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

Newfoundland in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents

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

accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned inshore fisherpeople of this Province,

feel we have been discriminated against in meeting the CORE criteria.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the decline in fish stocks

was a major factor in determining the income for fisherpeople in Newfoundland.

As it stands now, only Skippers qualify as CORE fishers and the rest of us are

classed as `Level II Professional,' which means nothing. Therefore we, the

undersigned Level II Professionals, feel that we should also qualify as CORE

fishers and be treated fairly.

Mr. Speaker, the people who signed this petition have genuine

concerns with respect to their qualifying for the CORE fishery. As they said,

there are a number of them. Many people have not qualified, and they have

appealed their classification. There are a number of appeals ongoing at the

present time, I believe. Actually I made presentation to the appeal board for a

number of these people. As I said, they are genuinely concerned that in the

future the people who are classified as the core fishers will, in due course, be

the only people who will have licenses. We all know that the fishery is in a

state of flux in the Province.

The Minister of Fisheries has been on his feet a number of

times in this House talking about the future of the fishery and I do not believe

that anyone in the Province really knows what is coming down the tubes with

respect to the future fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

These people, Mr. Speaker, have worked in the fishery for

many, many years and many of them have qualified for TAGS and are now not

qualifying for the CORE. From my perspective, I think that basically anyone who

has qualified for TAGS should qualify for the CORE and everyone basically should

be treated the same. Now granted, the people who are qualifying for CORE, which

are the head of the enterprises and have been over the years, Mr. Speaker, may

not have that view and so be it. The problem that many of these people have is

that if they are now a crew member, and have been in the past and they fished

for ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years or whatever the case may be, and they

fished with someone, if the skipper or the person who has been classified as a

CORE fisherperson, in the future decides to sell his or her licence or decides

to get out of the fishery, the crew members with that person may, in fact, in

the future be left out in the cold, Mr. Speaker, and may not be able to earn a

decent living from the sea as they have in the past.

Another point that was made to me during these appeals, and I

have to agree with it, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the years that are being

used to qualify people for the fishery - and you had to have had a certain

amount of income, depending on the size of the boat -in those years the fishery

was down. We had a collapse in the fishery and that is why the moratorium was

brought on in 1992. Therefore, to use those years to have people qualify - in

fact, some of the people who fished their lifetime may have had to go outside

the fishery on occasion, during those years, to earn a living. These people who

had the initiative and wanted to supply food, heat and light or whatever the

case may be, for the needs of their families, Mr. Speaker, went outside the

fishery. Often times these people seem to be discriminated against because they

did go outside the fishery to earn a living, when in fact they were forced to go

outside the fishery because of the collapse in the ground fishery.

Now as I said before, the appeals - I have to say this, some

of the people who spoke to me, who went on appeals, and I went on their behalf,

felt that they were begging for their future, Mr. Speaker, and that the

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture had put regulations in place, basically,

to disqualify certain amounts of people. We all know that there were too many

people in the fishery in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We know that these

qualifications or the criteria that was put in place was certainly to eliminate

a certain number of people in the fishery, and the appeals seem to be doing

that.

There for a while, Mr. Speaker, the appeals that were heard,

we were told that they would be responded to in thirty days. Of course, a number

of people did not get their responses back and they were fearful that they were

just going to hold all the responses, all the decisions until all the appeals

were done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would just

like to say I support the petition of these fisherpeople in the Province, and

maybe the Government House Leader should support it also.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the petition as put forward by my

colleague.

When this CORE designation was first brought about, Mr.

Speaker, it was a situation where it was a follow up to the SEC designation, if

I recall. When the moratorium was brought in there was x number of dollars put

forward when the TAGS program was introduced whereby the government of the day

had expected to take so many people - I forget what the number is but I think it

was something like 2,500 people - out of the fishery, that would take

part in

licensed retirement. Mr. Speaker, in actual fact the number of people that took

part in licensed retirement was something like less than 500 people, whereby the

program fell short by over 2,000 people.

Then, all of a sudden, when the dollars were taken away from

this particular program, the buy-out program, and they justified it by saying

they were going to put the dollars back into the fishermen's and fish plant

workers' pockets, where it should have been right from the very beginning, they

came out and said, now we will bring in another new designation and we will call

it CORE, and this will be a way where we will eventually force people - because

that is what it is, it is forcing people to probably relieve themselves from the

fishery, if you would. Because in essence what is going to happen is, if you are

not designated as a CORE eligible fisherman, you may not be entitled to licenses

in the future, you may not be entitled to a quota in the future, you may not

even be entitled to fish the quota as we know it today and as those people have

been probably given in order to carry out and exercise their right in this

particular industry.

Mr. Speaker, government continually comes forward and says,

do not worry about the CORE designation, do not worry about that because it will

not effect you. You will be alright because you already have your license. Well,

I say to the government opposite that the CORE designation has already affected

a lot of people, and we only have to think back and refer to the designation of

a crab, a queen crab, the snow crab quota that we have seen these last two

years. Part of that particular criteria was that in order to qualify for a

permit you had to be eligible for CORE, you had to meet the rules and

regulations which government had put forward in order to qualify as a CORE

fisher.

Then we bring in professionalization, a good piece of

legislation, a good board has been put in place, and I compliment the government

for doing that, but they should take it a step further and give this CORE

designation the flick. They should take it one step further and -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's federal, boy.

MR. FITZGERALD: Talk to your cousins up in Ottawa, I say

to the member. Take it one step further and allow those people who are

designated as professionalized fishermen, and professionalized fisher people to

be eligible to go and apply for licenses, apply for quotas, upgrade their boats

and be able to carry on with an occupation that they have grown up in and

provided for their families over this past number of years.

I have one particular fisherman in my district who owns

outright a forty-two foot longliner. He has, I guess, well in excess of $100,000

worth of fishing gear, has taken

part in the fishery all his adult life, and

because he had the initiative to take a season off back in 1991 when there was

pretty well no fishery in the district because of the depletion of stocks,

because he saw fit to go to work at the Come by Chance oil refinery in that

particular year and not go to the Department of Social Services to get a hand

out he has been ineligible to quality for the CORE program. He does not quality

because he had the initiative to go to work.

Now, are those the kinds of rules and regulations that we are

going to expect the minister of the day to support? Are those the kinds of rules

and regulations we are going to put forward to decide who is eligible to be a

fisher of the future and who is not? Those types of people should not have to go

and appeal the process. They should not even have to apply. It should be shown

by their past performances, it should be shown by their history of fish sales,

it should be shown by their past activity in this particular industry, that they

are designated fishers and they are professionalized fishermen. I think it is

about time that we threw out some of these foolish rules and regulations that we

have in existence today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

Before I recognize the hon. member I would like to take the

opportunity to welcome to the House today a delegation from the Town Council of

Roddickton, Mayor Ross Decker, Councillor Ray Norman, and Town Manager, Art

Locke. They are from the district of the Straits, White Bay North.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a

petition of 4000 names from not only my district but from the Burin and

Bonavista Peninsulas. It may not be in order with the way petitions are

structured in order to be brought forward to the House, but the spirit of the

petition is certainly there, and the wording is quite clear. It says:

We, the citizens of rural Newfoundland, who do not live in a

city, are being charged for automobile insurance at the same rate as drivers in

the cities of Mount Pearl and St. John's. The undersigned petition the

government and the insurance companies to reclassify rural Newfoundland from

Zone 1 to Zone 2.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is not new to the House of

Assembly. It was brought forward by myself on previous occasions. It is a

situation whereby somebody in their wisdom, quite some time ago - nobody seems

to remember when, and nobody seems to remember who did it - divided Newfoundland

and Labrador into three territories as it relates to automobile insurance. They

have taken from St. John's, from the Avalon Peninsula, all points west to Port

Blandford, and they said: We are going to call this Territory 1. The rest of

Newfoundland has been designated as Territory 2. Labrador has been designated as

Territory 3.

When you go to buy automobile insurance today, this is one of

the factors built into deciding what you pay when you go to insure your vehicle.

Part of insuring your vehicle is a reflection of your driving activity, how far

you drive your car or truck to and from work, what your driving experience is,

what your claims are as far as collections through the insurance industry is

concerned, and the fourth one is where you live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

And there is a vast difference in what people pay. There is a vast difference in

what they pay, and it is a shame that the people on the Bonavista and Burin

Peninsulas have to pay the same rate as the people living in the urban areas.

I am not convinced that somebody driving from Bonavista to

Port Union, or from Port Union to Clarenville, is at any greater risk than

somebody getting into their vehicle in Glovertown and driving as far as

Traytown, or driving as far as Salvage. What they have to pay is a vast

difference as it relates to auto insurance.

I have taken the initiative just to check out a couple of

rating guides that have been provided to me by a particular insurance company,

just to tell you why people are unhappy. Let us look at a seventeen-year-old

male driver, driving a 1988 Tempo, which is by no means a classy sports car. If

he went to buy insurance today, and if he purchased $500,000 in public liability

- in

section D, and

section 44 - all we are talking about is the compulsory

insurance that this young driver would need to purchase, that would give him the

right to drive his car on the highways of Newfoundland and Labrador. If he lived

in Territory 1, it would cost him $3,735 plus tax; if he lived in Territory 2,

it would cost him $2,079 plus tax, a difference of $1,854.72. That is a vast

difference, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I can fully understand why the people in St.

John's and the people in Mount Pearl are put in Territory 1. I get up every

morning, when the House is open especially, and drive my vehicle to and from

work in bumper-to-bumper traffic all the way when you come in, say, between 7:45

a.m. and 9:15 a.m. I have also driven to and from work from my hometown in

Musgrave Town, and to places like Charleston and Clarenville many, many times,

and if you meet half-a-dozen cars that is all you meet, and that is all you will

see going to and from work. I fail to see the rationale of having those two

peninsulas in particular lumped in with urban areas.

I think if you talk to insurance companies you will also find

out that the claims as well in those particular areas are reflective of the

risk, when I talk about Territory 1 in the urban areas. The claims that have

been brought forward by the rural areas, which are the Bonavista and Burin

Peninsulas that I am referring to, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the claims

are certainly not indicative of the amount of money that they are paying for

their insurance premiums.

Mr. Speaker, this is a concern that is building and needs to

be addressed immediately. I suppose the reason it has come to light and it is

only the last couple of years that people are really seeing, you know, that this

is unfair and it is about time that we upgrade our territories and look at doing

something that makes sense. It is a situation whereby some of the insurance

companies themselves, saw the unfairness and started to charge people the

Territory 2 rating rather than the Territory 1.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, some of the insurance

companies saw the injustice that was being done here and they said, well what we

will do is, we will start charging those people Territory 2 rates. That was

unfair to the other insurance companies that were out there involved in the same

business because the rules and regulations said they must be classed in

Territory 1. So then the big uproar started where people started calling the

Superintendent of Insurance, the utility board and then the proclamation was

issued that if you live in an area from St. John's West to Port Blandford you

must be classed in Territory 1.

Well, I just gave you one simple illustration of what the

unfairness is. Mr. Speaker, I have many more listed here which I will get into

later because there are other petitions being brought forward, I understand, and

I will put forward 4,000 today, Mr. Speaker, and I call on the House to chat

with the Superintendent of insurance, chat with the Public Utilities Board and

whatever department of government that is responsible for bringing about this

change, to get it done and get on and serve those people in a way that they

should be served as it relates to insurance today.

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

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

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

my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is self-explanatory.

Many people in rural Newfoundland today, particularly those on the Bonavista

Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula, feel that they are being unfairly treated.

They look at the rates that have been charged in Zone 1 and compare them to Zone

2, and they ask the question, why? When we had discussions a few days ago, with

a representative of the insurance industry, that person also brought this matter

- or we brought it to his attention, and I do not believe we got a very

satisfactory answer. Surely, you could talk about the accident rate and that

kind of thing; however, you have to look at some other factors.

When you are talking about a difference of $1,800 for a

seventeen-year-old to insure his or her car - in this case his car - in

Bonavista as compared to some other part of the Province -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Just to speak briefly to the Government

House Leader, I do believe it will be and I will get to that in a second. That

is why, Mr. Speaker, these people feel a great deal of distress. And while all

of these people welcome the initiative that has been put forward by the

government, and I refer to the Select Committee of the House on Insurance, we

know that it will be 1998 before that report comes back, in all probability.

There will not be much that will occur before the year 2000 in terms of actual

change; therefore, between now and then, there is a substantial number of months

and even years, so these people are saying we should have some changes now.

What is happening out there is that we have large numbers of

young people who are not buying any insurance at all. In fact, we were told the

other day that 10 to 15 per cent of young people are driving without insurance

and when the rates are that high and the fees are that high, this is a real

cause for concern. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my hon. colleague. We have

knowledge that there will be further petitions coming like this and we refer

them to the committee on Insurance and ask them if they would consider them in

their discussions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the petition that the member has presented,

the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and also the Member for Grand Bank and

the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, had brought this to our attention

earlier in the year. We are taking a look at it by two means.

In the long term we will be dealing with it with the Select

Committee of the House being given added responsibilities to deal with these

issues. But in the short term, we are going to bring a Cabinet paper forward

with a temporary solution to this particular situation. I would remind the hon.

House that we have been dealing with this for a period of time on the request of

the two members I have mentioned.

I think the further thing to that is that the temporary

solution will be brought forward in a very short period of time and that will be

only to respond immediately to it. The longer term solution will come when the

report of the Select Committee of the House is brought forward, probably in the

Fall session.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: This has to go through Cabinet as a Cabinet

paper, and at that particular time it will be brought to the House for a

solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

another petition.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again to present yet another petition to voice

opposition to the changes to the City of St. John's Act. I will read the prayer

of the petition:

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.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I have plenty of these, I say to the

Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I am sure you have. There are three or four

names on each one of them!

MR. OSBORNE: That is enough, that is quite valid. I hope

that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will take note that these

petitions are coming in and we will have plenty more.

MR. TULK: Huge numbers of names on each one of them.

MR. OSBORNE: Huge numbers of names on the ones to follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) important.

MR. OSBORNE: Everybody is important. We are quite

concerned, while it is only $10,000 cut to Bowring Park, it is a regional park.

It is a park that is used by all regions of the Avalon Peninsula, and indeed the

tourism trade and other areas of the Province. It is an area of concern that the

government is cutting this funding. But what is most alarming is the amount of

money that the Provincial Government has cut to the municipalities over the last

three or four years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition of my colleague with

respect to -

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. TULK: I don't wish to take - as a matter of fact, the

amount of time that I take I will give leave to the hon. gentleman to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read

Section 92 of our Standing

Orders and get His Honour's ruling. It says: "Every Member offering a petition

to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties

from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material

allegations it contains."

There are a number of petitions being presented in this

House, and I suspect that they have three and four names on them and they are

being rotated. I would point out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on the one I just presented.

MR. TULK: You said yours. I am not referring to yours.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for St. John's South, and I think other members

of this House should be asked in future - and it was a custom in this House. I

can remember, and the Member for Bonavista South did it quite well, that when

you stood in your place, you also announced the number of signatures that were

attached to a petition. Now, we only require three to make it legal, but I think

it is also part of our Standing Orders that when you stand in your place you are

to confine yourself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the

number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it contains.

So I would like for Your Honour perhaps, if not today, to

maybe make a ruling on where he sees that petition going in regard to that:

whether indeed we have, as members of this House when we stand, to say how many

names are attached to the petition or not.

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

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

In reading

section 91, I find the minimum requirement is

three signatures "...must appear on the page containing the prayer of the

translation." You must confine yourself to the statement of the parties from

whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it. Nothing says, however,

that you have to state the number of signatures attached, as long as the minimum

number is reached. It could be three, it could be thirty-three, it could be

4,000. If we have to read the names then we will go back and my colleague from

Bonavista South will read his 4,000.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to say that we have to state

the number of names, or we have to do anything of that sort. We should confine

ourselves to the prayer of the petition and to the plea of it. What we are doing

now, what the hon. Government House Leader wants, is not contained within the

rules.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, further to that point of order.

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

MR. TULK: That is a neat twist of tongue that the hon.

gentleman just used in regard to the Member for Bonavista South. Nowhere in the

Standing Orders does it say that you have to read out the names, I say to the

hon. gentleman. For him to stand and say that the Member for Bonavista South

will stand and read out the names, and that is what I am asking, is just pure,

utter nonsense.

The truth of the matter is, I am saying to him - we all know

that you have to have at least three; I said that when I opened, but for him to

stand there and say that because you have to - I repeat Standing Order 92: Every

member shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes,

the number of names attached to the petition - not read off the 4,000 names, but

if there are 4,000 names on it to say there are 4,000 names.

I am asking Your Honour if he would give us a ruling on that,

whether indeed, as members of the House, we should state when we rise to present

petitions, that there are a certain number of names on a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the Chair is ready to rule. We are engaging in a

debate now. I will hear from the Member for Cape St. Francis. He may have some

new information to add, but I think I have heard from both House Leaders.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

What it says in

section 92 is, "Every member offering a

petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the

parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the

material allegations..." Confine himself to it; it does not say he `has' to say

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair is ready to rule.

Petitions to the House have to be in the right format, and

they have to contain at least three signatures, one of which must be that of the

member presenting the petition.

My

interpretation of

section 92 is: It does say, "...the

statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached

to it..." In other words, if there are 4,000 or 5,000 signatures, the person

presenting the petition will say: Attached, too, are the signatures of 4,000

people, as the Member for Bonavista South just did.

Also, the rules on petitions in this House have been sort of

very liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

Normally in presenting a petition you are supposed to confine

yourself only to the material content of the petition. I have seen cases in this

House where we have gotten into debate on petitions, and that is not acceptable.

The Government House Leader is right, you should read the

statement of the petition, the number of signatures that are on the petition and

the petition should be cleared with the Clerk of the House before it is

presented.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is agreed that your five minutes

will start from now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the

Government House Leader, it is my understanding that in the second last petition

there were some 4,000 names and the present petition some four names. So, Mr.

Speaker, we have an average of the last two petitions being presented by this

side of the House of 2,002 names for a petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. TULK: I think you are (inaudible) on two different

topics.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for St. John's East that we are just

getting into the kind of debate that has sort of been customary in this House.

You are starting to engage in debate on the petitions. I ask you to confine

yourself to the material content of the petition which I think is about Bowring

Park.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I will confine my few

comments to the subject matter of the petition which, as a member of this House

for a constituency within the city of St. John's, is an issue which is of some

importance and some concern.

Mr. Speaker, the thrust of the petition, which was presented

by my colleague the Member for St. John's South, is with respect to government's

intention to repeal

Section 284 of the city act which requires the Province to

pay certain grants. The amount that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, in the

scheme of things, may not appear to be terribly significant but when we look at

the specific purpose for which this grant is designed it is indeed very

significant. We are talking about a $10,000 grant which has paid for Bowring

Park, services the needs of the people who frequent the park and also deals with

maintenance costs, upkeep costs and so on.

What we have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that although

this park is physically and geographically situated within the boundaries of the

city of St. John's, it offers a service and it is a place of recreation for

people throughout the whole region. People from various regions of the Avalon

Peninsula, whether it be Conception Bay South, the east extern area of St.

John's, the Southern Shore area or indeed the whole Province, many people who

visit our city, Mr. Speaker, take advantage of the freedom, the fresh air, the

amenities and what Bowring Park has to offer. It is a special place and it is

visited, Mr. Speaker, by literally thousands of people who come to our city

above and beyond the residents of the city of St. John's who take advantage of

the park on a regular basis.

I would submit also, Mr. Speaker, that the park offers a

place of refuge, not only to people from this Province but indeed as well for

tourists to our Province, who come to this city and indeed are intrigued and

fascinated by the natural beauty of Bowring Park. Again, Mr. Speaker, $10,000 in

the scheme of things may not appear to be a significant amount of money, however

it shows a trend, an unfortunate trend, in that what this government appears to

be doing is now once again to reduce this municipal operating grant, although

albeit only $10,000, but in the scheme of things, Mr. Speaker, and with respect

to this particular facility, an important amount.

What this petition attempts to do, Mr. Speaker, is try to nip

this in the bud. This must stop. The citizens of St. John's demand more, the

citizens of this region demand more, tourists who come to this Province, Mr.

Speaker, demand more and they want to see the natural beauty and the amenities

of this park preserved by a long time to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Introduction and First Readings:

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce the following bills, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act". (Bill

No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Assessment Act And The St.

John's Assessment Act". (Bill No. 36)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Municipal Elections

Act". (Bill No. 37)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act". (Bill No.

42)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act". (Bill

No.41)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act". (Bill

No. 40)

A bill, "An Act To Provide Firefighters With Protection From

Personal Liability". (Bill No. 43)

On motion, Bill Nos. 25, 36, 37, 42, 41, 40 and 43 read a

first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow, by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2.

MR. SPEAKER: It is adjourned debate on second reading of

the bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". (Bill No. 21)

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I believe on the last day we began debate, I had about

fourteen minutes into it, and I will take the remainder of my time to speak

about Bill 21.

Essential what Bill 21, The Fish Inspection Act, deals with

is the quality of fish that is being exported, the ability of government to

license persons, to license establishments, to license vehicles that are charged

or maybe involved with the transportation of our fish or fish products, to

cancel or suspend licenses, and the present act deals also with charging a fee

for certain licenses.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing in this piece of legislation,

or the amendments that are being called for, are broad discretionary powers

being given to the minister that are subject to conditions that the minister may

or may not see fit, and that really and essentially go against what we as a

Province should be talking about in the fishery of the future.

The bill essentially has two amendments, Mr. Speaker. The

first one deals with

Section 4 (

f) giving Cabinet a new power to make

regulations on three essential areas. One, the regional distribution of

processing licenses. Therefore, what we are talking about is that the minister

will have discretionary power to decide what regions of the province may receive

a license and what communities, in essence, will remain alive to the extent they

are now if there is a processing capability or a plant in their area. The second

aspect of this regulation deals with the development of the fishing industry of

the Province and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality.

Mr. Speaker, essentially, as I see it, these amendments

really have nothing to do with the inspection or "An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act", but have more to do with enshrining power to the minister that

does not exist. It is clear in reading the legislation that this is exactly what

will be the case. Essentially it is open-ended. The legislation is open-ended to

the extent that I read it, that the minister may issue licenses in this Province

under this act subject to the condition that the minister, not the House of

Assembly, not the forty-eight members in it, not Cabinet, not in consultation

with the industry, whether it be the FFAW or the Fisheries Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador, but what the minister considers to be appropriate,

including conditions which relate to the matter set out in

Section 4.

So, the minister now has complete control. He is not subject

to debate in the House, he is not subject to make regulations in the House, he

is not subject per se for members whose districts or many parts of their

districts, or certain parts of their districts, depend entirely and almost

completely upon a vibrant fishing industry, or depend completely upon a plant in

operation for the remainder of the fishing season that may employ several

hundred to a couple of thousand people. The minister now has discretion, as he

sees fit, to impose conditions, upon his will or what he sees fit to impose

those conditions.

Mr. Speaker, frankly, what government is looking for in this

Fish Inspection Act is a blank cheque. Where are the questions that have to

answered? They were asked by my colleague for Bonavista South today, when he

asked the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture during Question Period: Did he

consult with anybody in the industry? Did he consult with the FFAW on this

issue? Did he consult with the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador, which effectively represents processors? He stood up in his place and

boldly and proudly, it looked like to me, said: No, I did not.

Where is the accountability, I ask government, in terms of

when we enter into a debate about the fishery of the future? We all know there

is overcapacity in the industry, in the Province. If nothing else, certainly the

last twenty years in the fishing industry has taught us that we have to be more

conservative in our approaches in dealing with the industry, and more realistic

in how we do it.

At the same time, that doesn't mean that when we downscale

our capacity in this industry that there should not be accountability in what we

do as elected officials. There is essentially no transparency, that the

minister, outside of the Cabinet, outside of the process of the House, can make

decisions that not only he sees fit, but any other minister in the future. It

could be five years from now, it could be five days from now, it could be

fifteen years from now. Whatever minister sits in the Ministry of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, as it now exists, will have that power enshrined if we pass this

piece of legislation.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is this: Where is the open

discussion about the fishery of the future? What is sadly lacking is, where is

the public consultation on this very important piece of legislation?

MR. TULK: That is done.

MR. E. BYRNE: The consultation has been done.

MR. TULK: Yes. Look, I have heard more consultation on

licensing and that kind of thing in the Province than you can shake a stick at.

MR. J. BYRNE: Shake a fish at?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). John Efford is the best minister

that this Province has ever had and will ever have. (Inaudible).

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

Leader that he may be right, that John Efford, or the minister, may be - I can't

refer to him - but the present minister may be the best fishery minister ever.

He may be right that there has been a lot of consultation on renewal boards, et

cetera, but the issue that we are talking about here is different, I say to the

Government House Leader. You ask any fisherman or person involved in the fishery

today this question: Would you want to see one man or one person control your

industry? Would you want to see one man or one person decide where a plant will

go or will not go? Will you want to see one man or one person decide what

communities will live or die? They will say to you Mr. Minister, no they do not.

What they want, minister, to know from government is where the accountability

is. Will the plant remain open at Harbour Breton or will it not? Will the plant

remain open at Bonavista or will it not? Will people who are involved in the

fishing industry, who should get licences, will they get them, or will it be the

political friends of the government? That is what this legislation will

enshrine. That is what people want to know.

Let me repeat, I do not believe there is anybody - and we

talk about consultation, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about consultation. The type of

consultation that the Government House Leader is referring to is when they

brought in HST, they signed the agreement on it, and when asked about

consultation the Minister of Finance said: The people of the Province can

consult and let us know what they are feeling about it during the next budgetary

discussions. Simply like saying that the executioner comes to the House today

and says: I hung three people yesterday, and now I'm going out around the

Province to discuss if my decision was right or wrong.

That is not the way to do it, Mr. Speaker. Consultation does

not involve making a decision first and then consulting after. That isn't

consultation, that is dictatorship, and people in this industry want something a

little bit better than that.

Do you, or do members in this House, fundamentally believe

that we should enshrine in one person such an important issue as the fishery of

the future, our processing capability, our processing capacity, on where that

processing capacity will take place, and as a result, on what communities will

be involved in that decision making? The reality is that we are not.

Mr. Speaker, what is lacking in this initiative is exactly

what the minister said today, that he consulted with neither the organization or

group that represents processors, or those people who are represented by the

associated union.

There is no reference, for example, that this piece of

legislation should have gone to the Legislation Review Committee dealing with

resources; not such a big thing. I do not think, if we sent this piece of

legislation before the Resource Committee, that it would develop and begin an

open and frank discussion on the fishery of the future and where it will exist

and, more importantly to some people, where it will not exist, and what areas of

the Province or the fishery will be opened up shortly. That is something that

has been sadly lacking.

MR. TULK: Three Tories got hung in the House today.

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right?

MR. TULK: Yes, (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What Tories got hung in the House today?

MR. TULK: The Leader -

MR. E. BYRNE: We will see, I say to the Government House

Leader, who got hung and who did not get hung.

The reality is, when we talk about the capacity of the

fishing industry, I do not believe that any of us truly want to see one person

have so much broad sweeping power, so much discretionary power, without talking

with anybody, or consulting with anybody on what regions of the Province will

have a plant or not have a plant; because that is essentially what you are

asking. The minister solely and exclusively -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It says right here, I say to the Government

House Leader.

Section 2 reads, "Section 5 of the act is amended by renumbering

the

section as subsection 5(1) and by adding the following immediately after

that subsection:

"

(2) The minister may issue licences under this Act subject

to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate..." - not even

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but that the minister considers appropriate

- "...including conditions which relate to the matter set out in

section 4."

Section 4 of the act deals specifically with the inspection,

which deals with (

a) to license people; (

b) to license establishments; (

c) to

license vehicles; (

d) to cancel or suspend licences; and (

e) to charge fees for

licences.

MR. TULK: You have read it wrong. Spend the night home

now and I will tell you where you read it wrong tomorrow when you come back.

MR. E. BYRNE: Tell me now and we can forego all of this

debate. If I am wrong on this issue -

MR. TULK: You are being led astray again.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to give the

Government House Leader just a few moments to let me know where I am wrong. If I

am wrong, I will sit down and I will not debate this piece of legislation any

further.

MR. TULK: How many more times do I have to tell you that

you are wrong?

MR. E. BYRNE: As I said, if I am, I will give you leave

right now to tell me where.

MR. TULK: I will tell you tomorrow.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that what we

are talking about in terms of consultation, the lack of consultation on this

issue, is quickly becoming a reality and the hallmark of government.

We started debate on this issue back on Thursday, I believe.

The Minister of Fisheries was in his place, introduced the bill, did not say

very much. But he gave more information today in Question Period when asked a

question about it, that he felt that Justice felt there was a hole in the

legislation in the present act, and that the minister needed to be given more

authority, or his authority needed to be confirmed, that indeed he is the

Minister of Fisheries. That is essentially what he said, that his authority

needed to be confirmed and that this is just a standard housekeeping piece of

legislation. I disagree.

There is other legislation here that I wholly support, but

the reality is that no stakeholders were involved in this discussion, unlike,

say, the Registered Nurses Act, for example. The stakeholders in the industry

support it, from what I understand. As a result, we see that it is a good piece

of legislation and we will not hold up time. We will see.

The reality is that on this piece of legislation FANL, and

the organization again which I say represents processors, was not consulted. The

minister confirmed, when asked in the House today, `Would they be consulted?'

No. Did he feel a need to consult them? Obviously not. Will he consult them in

the future? What degree of assurance or level of assurance do they have that

that will take place? They do not have one. They have no degree of assurance

that that will take place at all, because if it were going to, it would have

already taken place before that bill was presented here in the House, and it was

not.

MR. TULK: I let you get away with asking questions

(inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. TULK: I will let you get away with asking question on

it for today.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was wondering if you were going to stand

up on a point of order or not, but you did not.

MR. TULK: Oh, I (inaudible) stop it.

MR. E. BYRNE: You didn't.

MR. TULK: No, I was (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is too nice as a House Leader; we have

to bring back Roberts.

MR. E. BYRNE: Bring back Ed.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, no, I would have to say (inaudible),

although Roberts would have (inaudible) better.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not so sure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Roberts' rules of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you got them all mixed up.

MR. J. BYRNE: He got them mixed up.

MR. LUSH: Give up this charade.

MR. E. BYRNE: We have heard from the dean of the House

that we have to give up this charade. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, I will not

belabour the point too much longer. What does the Government House Leader have

there that he wants me to read?

MR. TULK: I wanted you to read about when your

(inaudible) when it gets to your question I will let you go for today but if you

are told today (inaudible) on Question Period. You got away with it today for

the last time.

MR. E. BYRNE: So you are going to bring down the

legislative hammer are you, I say to the Government House Leader? The

legislative hammer is going to come down, the voice of the people will be

stymied. That is what he is saying. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Speaker, it

does not surprise me because what the Government House Leader says he is going

to do from here on in is exactly what this piece of legislation is going to say.

I mean, why even have the House open at all? Why even bother to open the House?

Why even bother to open the House if we cannot sit down and have a clear and

concise debate about legislation?

MR. TULK: You can have all the debate you want.

MR. E. BYRNE: Why can't we?

MR. TULK: Oh no problem. You are just not going to be

asking questions about (inaudible) because the Speaker said you cannot do it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, people in the Province,

especially in those regions of the Province that depend upon the fishing

industry primarily for the economic activity that exists in their region, are

worried about this piece of legislation. And as time goes on, as this week goes

on, people become more aware of what government's initiative on Bill 21 is going

to do and what discretionary powers it is going to give to the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture. They are going to be more aware and they will become

more concerned because people of this Province, especially in regions which

depend primarily upon the capacity or depend upon an operation -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) somebody over there ask me

(inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Forester Creek is out today, back in

Wednesday.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why don't you write your questions and send

them over?

MR. E. BYRNE: That is a good idea, `Jack'. Write up the

questions you want to ask and we will see - pardon me?

MR. TULK: I often did that because (inaudible)

seventy-five bucks a shot if you want to take me up on it.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is when the incredible Tulk was

threatened, would he be part of Caucus or would he not be part of Caucus? He was

not sure, Mr. Speaker. That is when the Government House Leader was in the back

bench wondering, threatening and bullying the former administration, would he be

in Caucus or would he not be in Caucus? Mr. Liberal himself, noted Mr. Liberal

of the Province from one end to the other - rolled the dice and won. He won, Mr.

Speaker. He won, no doubt about it, and if there is any evidence that he won, it

is because he went from the furthest seat back to the seat next to the power,

the Government House Leader. If that is not winning, I don't know what is, Mr.

Speaker, but he did it. He did it and he did it well, behind the scenes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes today to talk about the

same bill that my colleague just spoke about and on Thursday the rest of my

colleagues spoke about.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will carry on and

every once in awhile I will give the Government House Leader a chance to throw

in a few words but I would like to take some time today to discuss this bill.

Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, if we ask positive questions we should expect

positive answers. In this government's case there are no answers. But I guess

today, Mr. Speaker, there are several concerns about sections of this bill which

we wish to change. It bothers me that we are going to give one man, one person,

the complete authority to decide on our fishery of the future, whether that be

Liberal, Conservative or NDP really does not matter. I do not think that anybody

should have that much power. There should be nobody on either side of this House

have that much power, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that even the Government House

Leader would agree with that, especially if he took the time to go through the

legislation that has been presented here over the last day or so and listened to

the comments. I hope he takes them well under advisement.

Mr. Speaker, a while ago we had education reform, we still

have education reform and we are probably going to have education reform for

quite some time to come. At least in that particular incidence, Mr. Speaker, we

took the time to go around this Province to listen to some of the stakeholders

in education to see exactly where they were, what they were doing, what comments

these people would like to make. In this instance here we seem to have consulted

with nobody. We have really consulted with nobody.

I guess the bill has two amendments. One adds subsection

4(1)(

f) giving Cabinet the new power to make regulations. Then it goes on to say

for the "regional distribution of processing licences, the development of the

fishing industry of the province and other matters that are not directly related

to fish quality."

That seems to me to be extremely broad. It is a new kind of

power to regulate under

section 4(1). That is different from the other powers

laid out in the act in this section. The other powers are to make regulations.

It says -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let him alone now, he just got up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three minutes.

MR. FRENCH: Oh no, my goodness, Mr. Minister, no, I am up

for a while yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I will, if you sit down and listen. I might

be saying something. I hope you would sit and listen. You might learn.

The other powers are to make regulations to licence persons,

to licence establishments, to licence vehicles, Mr. Speaker. To cancel or

suspend licences, or to charge fees for licences. Again, this is different.

Cabinet can make regulations without bringing the matter back to the House of

Assembly for approval. Could these regulations say where plants can go, where

they can't go? How many plants can go in a given area?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor

or does the Government House Leader have the floor? Because he has been -if he

wants it I will sit down. I will give him leave to get up and he can go on for

half an hour or whatever he wants. If not then I will just carry on.

Could these regulations say where plants can go, can't go?

How many plants can go in a given area? What kinds of plants can go? Where they

can go? Where their licence can transfer, and so forth? Who knows? It is so

open-ended it is a blank cheque.

Should they do this in Cabinet behind closed doors rather

than in the House? I guess that is a question that has to be raised. Where is

the accountability? Where is the voice of the people or the vote of the people's

representatives on these matters? I guess they aren't present, and they won't be

present. Where is the open discussion on the fishery of the future? Not around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Which? Mr. Speaker, I see we are getting the

member for Labrador now chiming in. That is good. Because we realize that in any

debate he isn't allowed to speak. He must sit in the back bench and toe the

party line, and that is fine. I accept that he is not allowed to speak. That is

quite alright, I can accept that, that is grand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: The Government House Leader is still going,

Mr. Speaker. Somebody has wound him up today. He is like the jukebox. One time

you would get three tunes for a quarter. This afternoon somebody must be after

putting about $5 in him because he is still going. Anyway, I might as well keep

going. He is in a good mood today, I say, the Government House Leader.

The fishery of the future, where is open discussion? There is

no open discussion. There has not been any open discussion. The people we have

met with say there has been no discussion on any part of this bill with them.

Again, I think that is totally wrong.

How can we be sure that the minister here will not regulate

the industry to death, or draft bad regulations? If we are going to give him

this authority, he has a free hand to do whatever he likes. Where is the fish

processing sector task force involved in all this? Is it involved, is it not

involved?

The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, adds subsection 5(2)

giving the minister new powers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Cabinet.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, well I have gone through Cabinet, yes,

and I mean I certainly cannot agree there.

Now we are going to give the minister new powers to make a

lot of these regulations totally on his own, without consulting with anybody. I

have to say, Mr. Speaker, that is scary, very scary.

It says, "The minister may issue licences under this Act

subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate,

including conditions which relate to a matter set out in

section 4." The

minister will have the power to determine whether

section 4 should be applied,

Mr. Speaker. The term `appropriate' is left undefined. The phrase, `subject to

the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate', is left

undefined. What tremendous discretionary powers, Mr. Speaker, for one man! For

one man, Mr. Speaker! I think it is a shame that one man would even want this

much power, without bringing it back here to this House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where did the bill come from? Why is it

here today, Mr. Speaker? There was no reference of this bill to the Legislation

Review Committee, none whatsoever. Why, I wonder? There was no consultation with

the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, nor other stakeholders

in the fishing industry; no, consultation, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an unwillingness to

consult. Yet, earlier this year, the hon. Minister of Education went around the

Province, took some time.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a farce.

MR. FRENCH: Whether good or bad, at least he did it. At

least he took the time to go and do it, to consult with some of the stakeholders

in education in this Province. In this case, Mr. Speaker, we see absolutely none

of this.

Now, with the health care restructuring, Mr. Speaker, there

has been no public consultation. There are major changes affecting the Grace,

The Janeway and the Children's Rehab., nursing home access or fees, personal

care home funding, et cetera; unwillingness to consult.

Dispensing fees, Mr. Speaker, I should certainly know about

dispensing fees. The pharmacies were not consulted prior to the cut in the

dispensing fee. I have a letter that I received this morning that I am sure has

gone to the Minister of Health, and I know it has gone to several other

ministers, as well as to myself, talking about how he and his business in his

part of Newfoundland and Labrador has had to layoff a twenty-year employee.

Another person who has been with him for seven years has to be laid off. The

scholarship that was given every year to a high school in the area has now been

cancelled because, Mr. Speaker, of what has happened to the pharmacies in this

Province. They were not consulted prior to the cut in the dispensing fees which

has driven many of them out of business and forced others essentially to

subsidize the government's social assistance program. Of course, when we phone

the government, when we phone the department, we are told to go to

multi-nationals, Mr. Speaker.

Social Services, Mr. Speaker, the government did not consult

before eliminating regulation 8 in assistance. Education Reform, the former

administration failed to consult. I must say my colleague this time, at least,

did change some of that. So, you know, we seem to go in areas where maybe it

suits us sometimes and other areas where it really does not.

The Public Exams, Mr. Speaker, no consultation. Tax

harmonization, absolutely no consultation whatsoever on tax harmonization, and

we are going to find out. The minister likes to tell us that if we buy a new

car, if we buy a new house, if we buy a new fridge or if we buy a new stove it

is going to be cheaper. Well, he is probably right, but how often do we buy a

new car, do we buy a new house, do we buy a new stove, and do we buy a new

washer?

MR. MATTHEWS: All of the above.

MR. FRENCH: Oh, the hon. gentleman does. He probably buys

one every so often. In this case, Mr. Speaker, what about clothes, what about

our light bill, what about our phone bill, because these bills we pay every

single month, every single month?

So, when we talk about things being cheaper we will see over

the next months as this thing unfolds, and as we get more and more into the new

year, exactly what tax harmonization is going to do for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: I must say he looks good there in the front

row, does he not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, he looks a lot better than some of

the other

MR. FRENCH: Now, Mr. Speaker, The Mining And Mineral

Rights Tax Act which the previous government failed to consult about before

making any changes in 1994, and then, of course, before proposing amendments in

1995. Of course, these amendments they later let die on the Order Paper. This

particular government is set on doing nothing in the next while as it is not

consulting with anyone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) before when nobody consulted

what happened (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Well, we are going to pay it again now.

The Crown lands and the cabins, Mr. Speaker; now, here is a

good one. Government consulted with nobody, the cabin owners or anybody else,

before changing this policy. Now, they were not going to raise taxes, and we

were not going to do anything to get more revenue.

MR. TULK: Look what you said about the road across

Labrador.

MR. FRENCH: What did I say? Check Hansard, I say to the

Government House Leader. Your problem is you are not listening. You should be

listening. The Premier should not be flying because it has affected his hearing.

He is not listening. This Opposition over here fully supports the highways in

Labrador, and fully supports the hospitals in Labrador. Yet your Premier, not

ours, yours, comes and out and says -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. TULK: You cannot mislead this House. In a reply to

the ministerial statement made by the Minister of Government Services and Lands,

the Member for Conception Bay South said, I see that back around February 22,

somebody campaigned for a better tomorrow but we have not seen it yet and we

certainly do not see it in what has been presented here this afternoon. In other

words, the road across Labrador was not a promise for a better tomorrow. You did

not want to see it. Mr.Speaker, that is terrible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

South wish to address the point of order?

MR. FRENCH: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader took advantage of the

opportunity for clarification.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My grandfather, God rest his soul, he is dead and gone now,

on my mother's side of the family, used to cut his own wood. I am sure the hon.

gentleman will enjoy this. He used to cut his own wood, him and his poor old

jackass and his cart, and he lived to be up into his eighties. When he got up

around seventy-nine years old the family kind of got after him and said: Pop,

you should give up going in the woods by yourself, and he did. I know for a

fact, Mr. Speaker, that he cut up his old cart and burned it for firewood, and

until this afternoon I never did find out what he did with the jackass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, he can sit there and quote all

he likes, the hon. gentleman for Labrador knows well what I said, but again he

is government, you see. As I talk about consultation, the only thing I can say

here is if the shoe fits, wear it. This government does not listen, has not

listened on this bill and has not listened on other bills. My friend for

Labrador has not listened on other bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at this, boy, look. (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Looks good, looks wonderful.

My friend for Labrador certainly knows what I said, certainly

knows I support the highway. He can twist it however he would like, but the

bottom line is that I support it. I meant what I said then, and I mean what I

say today. I fully support that, and fully support the hospital as well, Mr.

Speaker.

I will carry on now, Mr. Speaker. Concentrating powers in the

ministry: Other legislation in this session has given powers to ministers. The

Expropriation Act amendment for one, which we are going to get into hopefully

down the road, and of course, the Kodak bill that gave the government the power

to override the Public Tender Act.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think we have made a very clear case that

no minister, regardless of what side of the House he or she should sit on, no

one minister should certainly be given this approval. No one minister should be

given this amount of power. I think my colleague for Bonavista South put it

quite eloquently the other day when he was speaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: Never knows what he is talking about.

MR. FRENCH: I think on this one, Mr. Minister, he does.

He spoke quite eloquently on this particular act, spoke quite well on this act

of what we should have here. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, down the road there will

certainly be amendments to this particular bill, there will be changes to this

particular bill, so that when we get into this bill, hopefully people on the

government side will realize what we are saying and they will vote accordingly.

We have seen all these changes and they have not been good.

They certainly have not been what the people of this Province voted for, and I

don't think in the future -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe in the changes?

MR. FRENCH: No, not all of them. I don't believe in the

cut to dispensing fees, I don't believe in taking away the $61, I don't believe

in taking away the sanitary gloves and sanitary napkins from the people who

certainly need it. I don't agree with any of that. No, I certainly don't, Mr.

Minister. I certainly don't agree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: He asked me a question, Mr. Speaker, I

answered him.

Mr. Speaker, today I can't support this bill. I have three

fish plants in my own riding which may be adversely affected by this. When you

give one man this much power, he shouldn't be there, he shouldn't have that

power, and I don't care if it is on their side or our side. No one minister

deserves that much power, no one minister should be trusted to have that much

power. I guess when we have heard some of the comments coming out of the

minister, that if you aren't of a certain political persuasion then you aren't

covered, or you shouldn't get the right to a hearing, or anything else, when

that happens, that is wrong.

So, I guess he scares me. He scares me, Mr. Speaker, in that

regard. We should never give the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that much

power. I'm sure that when the gentleman opposite was sitting in the back benches

he would have been dancing a jig to see this. This would never have passed if he

had been sitting in the back benches. If he wasn't in the front row today this

would never have passed.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your time this afternoon.

Unfortunately, I cannot support this particular piece of legislation.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Labrador West, just as I

stood on my feet, said, "Hear, hear!" I really don't want to get going on the

Member for Labrador West because we are starting to nickname him over here now

as the preacher. He preaches the Gospel. I won't tell you the story on that,

unless he wants me to later on.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand in my place and

speak to this bill, Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". The

first thing I am going to refer to, of course, is the Explanatory Notes. "Clause

1 of this bill would broaden the scope of the Fish Inspection Act to enable the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations for non-quality related

purposes."

Mr. Speaker, that seems all well and good, and you would

think it would make sense to do that.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: You want a question? Here is the ideal

question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, boy, throw it over. What is it?

MR. TULK: Will you pay for it?

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You said $75. The Government House Leader

wants to send a question over to me to ask the government tomorrow, and he wants

me to pay him $75. Is that what you are saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, send it over and I will give you

seventy-five cents, because I am sure that is all it is worth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis and asks that he get on with debating the particular bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker, but

I would have to say that the person interrupting me is the one who should be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't want it, not at this point in

time.

Mr. Speaker, if it was just the first clause that was the

full intent of the bill maybe it would not be a big problem, but there would be

some concerns. The big problem with this is clause 2 of the bill. "Clause 2 of

the bill would confirm the minister's authority to impose conditions on licences

issued under the act."

"Confirm the minister's authority..." Basically, from what I

can see of

section 2, "Section 5 of the act is amended by renumbering the

section as subsection 5(1) and by adding the following immediately after that

subsection:

"

(2) The minister may issue licences under this act subject

to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, including

conditions which relate to a matter set out in

section 4."

Mr. Speaker, this to me is all encompassing. It gives the

minister too much authority, by any stretch of the imagination. The minister can

basically now overrule the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, Cabinet in other

words, and the people of the Province now are subject to the opinion, the views

and the whims, basically, of one person, one individual.

At the present time the Minister of Fisheries may be full of

good intentions, and he may be able to implement these good intentions, but the

question remains: What about the next minister, or the minister after, whoever

he or she may be? Of course, we can always bring in legislation, Mr. Speaker, to

amend this amendment and go on to further amendments, but then why don't we do

it right in the first place and not permit the Minister of Fisheries at this

point in time, or any Minister of Fisheries, to rule with an iron hand if he so

desires?

The present Minister of Fisheries has been on his feet many

times in this House, and he is all the time trying to promote his views, and

often times I have to agree that the Minister of Fisheries makes sense every now

and then - not too often, but once in awhile. One issue that he has stood on in

this House, with respect to the fishery, I suppose, is the seal fishery. I have

to agree with him on that, with respect to what we should be doing with respect

to the seal fishery. He has stated in the past, I think, and I stand to be

corrected on this figure, but I believe he said there are approximately 10

million seals out there - those are from his figures - and if 10 million seals

eat one pound of codfish a day, that is 10 million pounds of fish a day. Now, if

they eat one pound obviously they are destroying how many fish, if they just

take a big bite out of the fish, the gut of the fish, and go on? That fish dies,

and then they go on and take a bite out of another one, or what have you. So we

are looking at millions of pounds of fish being destroyed daily.

I wanted to bring this up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you see that on the news last night?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is exactly why I was bringing it up. I

turned on the television last night on CBC and I think it was Patrick Conlon and

Patrick Watson was on with him and Earl McCurdy - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, I cannot comment on that because I

only saw about the last fifteen minutes of the show. I hope he made a lot of

statements prior to the last fifteen minutes of the show. But Patrick Watson was

on there and, of course, previous to him there was the Green Peace, and they

destroyed the seal fishery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the history of the seal fishery in

Newfoundland, we all know that. A lot of people died because of the seal fishery

in this Province. We have a book written by Cassie Brown, a very good book,

Death on the Ice . I remember reading that book, Mr. Speaker, and you can

almost picture yourself being there with these people. Our heritage, our

traditions of Newfoundland and Labrador have a close link with the seal fishery.

Back in the 60s and 70s, Green Peace -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: See that is what you get. When the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture is walking in the House and you are paying him a

compliment, you are telling him that he finally said something that you agree

with, and he tries to interject and be smart, what that goes to show is just the

reverse. It does not show how smart he is, it is showing just the reverse of

that. Maybe I should not pay the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture any

compliments any more and we would get along much better.

MR. EFFORD: I don't want any compliments from Tories.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, you don't get that many, let me tell

you. I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, you don't get too many

compliments from Tories and you don't get too many compliments from anybody in

the Province. I may as well push it out and say it, Mr. Speaker.

Green Peace, people like that and Patrick Watson - oh, he got

more credit when he was in the Opposition; oh, by far, going around through the

grass with his flashlight. He made a name for himself down around, I think it

was, the White Hills with the boys' home? That is where he made his name. What

has he done since he became Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in the

meantime, really? Sit back and think about it.

This government has been in power over six years now, and all

we heard from them is talk, talk, talk. Two or three years ago we brought it up

in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen to the fishery

of the future in Newfoundland and Labrador? What is going to happen to all the

fish plants in this Province? The minister himself was on his feet Thursday, I

believe it was, saying that there were something like 220 fish plants in this

Province. I will take him at his word. Say there are 220 fish plants, how many

fish plants are going to be there in the future, in the fishery of the future?

Now, I want to put this on record because I think the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will agree - and I think you may get a

copy of it in Hansard somewhere - that he made a statement the other day that

the main criteria for the fish plants to remain operating in the future of this

Province, the main criteria is a big `L', meaning of course a Liberal. They have

to be in a Liberal district if it is going to remain. He is shaking his head in

agreement right now, Mr. Speaker, that in the future fishery of this Province,

for any fish plant the main criteria would be a Liberal district. He is making a

sign over there now, `L'. So that is in Hansard, on record and the minister is

shaking his head in agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, this will probably have to be

sent out to a few people in his district, even though it is a Liberal district.

They will probably get a plant or two to remain open.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. The fishery of

tomorrow is a very serious issue. We want criteria put in place, and the people

of this Province want criteria put in place, that makes sense. To put that in

the hands of one individual, who is now the present Minister of Fisheries, to be

all powerful in anything that relates to the fishery - the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture will now have the power to decide what will and will not happen

in the future.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that during the last provincial

election, back in February, the media had the Premier built up. He was not

Premier at the time but they had him built up to the point, I suppose, where

most people actually thought he would not have to fly into Newfoundland, he

would be able to just walk across the Straits. Now we have a second individual

in the Province, a minister who is elevating himself, with this legislation, to

the point where he thinks he can walk on water, and that is not correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now I say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, take it easy. Sit back, take it easy and relax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the politics of it.

MR. J. BYRNE: The politics of it. (Inaudible).

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect -

MR. EFFORD: If you were the Minister of Fisheries and a

Liberal came to your office, would you talk to him?

MR. J. BYRNE: Most definitely. I treat everybody in my

district the same. Mr. Speaker, from my district I have people coming to my

office who campaigned full-time against me in the last election; Liberals, of

course. They have been in my office and, yes, I helped them as much as I helped

the person who worked on my campaign. I cannot say that is the same thing for

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He wouldn't. The Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture has publicly stated in this House: If you are a Tory,

forget it, don't even bother to talk to me.

MR. TULK: That is only joking.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is only joking, yes, I know. The

Government House Leader says that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is

only joking. I say to the Government House Leader, is he joking about this

legislation? He is quite serious about this legislation, I bet you. I tell you,

we are right back to the point again, where he is elevating himself to the point

where he probably thinks he can walk on water, Mr. Speaker.

Back to Patrick Watson last night. That man was trying to

point -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Good minister? The Member for Labrador West

says that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is a good minister. With

respect to that, the Member for Bonavista South was up the other day, I believe

it was, saying that all the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture ever wanted to

be when he grew up was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. He didn't want

a fire truck, he didn't want to be a fireman, he didn't want to be a policeman,

he wanted to be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

He didn't go all the way. He really wanted to be premier of

the Province, but he called a news conference to announce that he never had the

guts to run against the present Premier. He really wanted to be the premier of

the Province, but really ended up as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

He hasn't reached his - what, over-achievers and under-achievers? There is an

overachiever right there, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a big time

overachiever.

MR. TULK: I suppose now you are looking for a sawmill

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I wouldn't say anything negative to you

until I get my sawmill licence, I say to the Government House Leader and the

Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

Mr. Speaker, Patrick Watson last night was trying to push the

fact that - and he got on this thing about seal penises again. I mean, it is

utterly disgusting what this man is trying to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you hear that man say last night that

there are 8 million seals off this coast (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is the point I was going to get

to. Eight million - that is right, really shocking.

The thing that amazed me, and I noticed this too, that there

were people phoning in, and the people who were being interviewed really didn't

understand the issue. So we shall have to say now that that begs this question.

Because when you are talking about the fishery, and this is an amendment to the

fishery, it all impacts upon the fishery; the number of pounds of fish that the

seals eat. Obviously we aren't doing a good job of getting the