December 7, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 47

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to

the Speaker's gallery today, on behalf of all members, the President and

Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and

Firefighters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each year at this time, it is traditional for the Newfoundland and Labrador

Association of Fire Chiefs and Firefighters to present its annual brief to the

Social Policy Committee of government. This is a comprehensive and

professionally prepared document and it serves to outline the Association's

views and suggestions in the important areas of fire education, prevention and

protection.

The Association's brief was presented earlier today and, on this occasion,

I would like to take the opportunity on behalf of all hon. members to

acknowledge the tremendous contribution firefighters make in terms of protecting

the lives and protecting the property of all of us as citizens throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

In its letter accompanying the brief, the Association stated that it is most

pleased with the support shown by the Chair and members of the Social Policy

Committee of government. The Association's letter states, and I quot, The

support shown by this Committee to our concerns will go a long way in providing

a visible symbol of your government's support to the many men and women who

give so much of their time as members of our fire departments.

Mr. Speaker, the Association works closely with the Fire Commissioner's

Office and it plays an instrumental role in many fire-related activities

including, amongst others, the Learn Not To Burn Program.

This is a life-safety skills program for children and it stresses the

teaching of positive and practical fire prevention behaviours. As a direct

result of the input of the Association, this program is now part of the

curriculum in 56 per cent of our schools.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply not possible to place a dollar value on the

contributions that our 6,503 paid and volunteer firefighters make to our

Province. It is a contribution beyond price.

Today we have 306 fire departments in the Province. They are professional,

first-class firefighting units that are comparable to any that can be found in

this country.

Firefighters are indeed special people. They devote their time, energy, and

skills at considerable sacrifice. This is especially true when you consider that

most firefighters are engaged full-time in other occupations from which they

have to earn a living and support their families. As well, they are often called

upon to put their own safety on the line in times of life-threatening fires. The

men and women who operate our fire departments are deserving of our utmost

respect and admiration.

As a government, we commend the leadership role of the fire service

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As minister responsible for fire

protection, I want to assure the Association of our intention to do everything

possible within our financial and administrative means to allow them to

effectively fulfil their important mandate.

One important statistic shared over lunch with the Social Policy Committee of

Cabinet was that, as a result of their substantial involvement as an

organization in the Now You're Cooking Campaign a couple of years ago - about

three years, going back, as a result of that campaign, substantially - prior to

it, for twenty-one consecutive years there has been at least one and on many

occasions multiple fire deaths in the Province, every year for twenty-one years,

as a result of fat fires in the Province. Fo r the last

three years there has not been a single fat fire fatality in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I thought it important to share that by way of information

statistic with the House today, with the people of the Province, in recognition

of the leadership, support and effort that the 6,503 - volunteer, mostly -

firefighters in the Province contribute to us as a society.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We on this side of the House, too, would like to acknowledge the presence of

the representatives of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs

and Firefighters here in the House of Assembly today.

This side of the House would also like to acknowledge the tremendous

contributions of firefighters in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It

would probably do government well to pay attention and heed the recommendations

and views of these people in the Province. Really, it took too long - it was

only this past, last year, I believe, that government decided to put a

compensation package in place for the volunteer men and women of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and an insurance also, if there was someone killed on

the job.

Mr. Speaker, just to look at the situation that these firefighters put

themselves in, it was only this past weekend we all saw the news on television

where six firefighters died in the line of duty in the U.S. That can happen here

at any time in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have family members

and a lot of friends in the fire department, and I know what these people -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There you go. The Premier says that his father was a

fireman for thirty years, so he knows full well the situation that these people

put themselves in at their own risk and what have you.

All I can say is that I certainly, for one, appreciate their efforts, and I

think the people of the Province do appreciate their efforts.

In conclusion, the government says and the minister says they would: ...

assure the Association of our intention to do everything possible within the

financial and administrative means to allow them to effectively fulfil their

important mandate.

Just as an example, the Town of Logy Bay/Middle Cove/Outer Cove just

recently, in the past few years, started their own volunteer fire department - I

live in the town and am the former mayor - $600,000 of their own money, in a

little town of 2,000 people, and not one red cent from government. So, I will be

looking to the minister for a few dollars.

Thank you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We rise in recognition of the firefighters of the Province as well. If we

look around our communities in this Province, we find volunteers are evident

through all walks of our community life; but nowhere are volunteers required, as

firefighters are from time to time, to put their own lives on the line to save

others.

Firefighters are also involved in many other aspects of their communities. A

lot of the firefighters I know in rural Newfoundland and Labrador are also

members of the ambulance service and other areas providing community support.

I think the statement by the minister is quite correct, that we could never

pay - not even below minimum wage - for the services that are provided by the

people who volunteer their efforts in the firefighting units around this

Province.

Most kids, when they are young and looking around, always want to be a

fireman or a fire woman, and I think that says a lot for your organization in

terms of the respect you have in the communities you operate in. I think it is

important that we continue to support firefighters in this Province in any way

that we can.

Just as an afterthought, the Premier said his father was a firefighter for

thirty years. I wonder if he put out as many fires as the Premier is after

having to put out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased today to update members of the Legislature on the success of information

sessions held throughout Newfoundland and Labrador in support of development of

the Province's manufacturing industry.

These sessions, held in October and November, were organized by the

Manufacturing Forum, an initiative of government and the Alliance of

Manufacturers and Explorers.

The workshops provided an opportunity for stakeholders to be introduced to

the best manufacturing practices detailed in the Strategy for Small Scale

Manufacturing in Newfoundland and Labrador. This strategy, announced five months

ago, is one that was developed in partnership with the Manufacturers Alliance.

The workshops focused on introducing practices that best encourage manufacturing

and identified the supports available from the Manufacturers Alliance,

educational institutions, and government to help firms adopt these best

practices.

Over the past two months, information workshops were held in Grand

Falls-Windsor, Plum Point, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, St. John's, Clarenville,

Marystown and Corner Brook.

I am pleased to report that these sessions attracted upwards of 270

participants, with excellent representation from the private sector, education

and economic development agencies. Response to the workshops from the

participants has also been excellent.

Government will continue as a champion for the further development of the

manufacturing sector, and so we should. Permit me to share some statistics about

the sector with you.

Since 1996, manufacturing shipments have increased 20 per cent to more than

$1.8 billion in exports. Since 1996, full-time equivalent employment has

increased to more than 17,500, a growth of almost 20 per cent. Since 1996

exports have increased 25 per cent. In 1999 alone, from January to August, the

value of all manufacturing shipments increased 10.5 per cent over the record

pace achieved in 1998. Employment for the same period increased by 5.3 per cent.

In the area of small scale manufacturing - which includes everything outside

traditional resource sectors such as the fishery - there are more than 7,000

people employed, an increase of 40 per cent since 1996. That is 7,000 people

employed full-time in more than 400 companies in both rural and urban areas.

The information workshops were the first steps in helping firms implement

global best practices in manufacturing. With government's continued

initiatives to develop the industry, small scale manufacturers in Newfoundland

and Labrador will be able to thrive in an environment that enhances their

efforts individually and collectively.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no doubt that we all like to hear good news. Contrary to what the

government thinks, we do like to hear it. We do talk to these people in small

business and manufacturing in this Province on a constant basis, as we always

do. It is always encouraging when you get these people together to share their

ideas because they know it best. Many small business people in this Province

continue to say the same thing: Roll out the red carpet and not the red tape.

Many of them struggle with the red ta pe

every day in trying to develop small businesses in this Province, which can be

the backbone of this Province's economy.

When the minister talks about statistics and so on he also should remember

that, although we talked about increases here, there are many people in this

Province who are still needing that job, needing those few weeks even to this

date that we talk about.

The reality is this. The minister did say back some time ago that the proof

is in the pudding. The proof was not in the pudding with the hearings

themselves; the proof is in the pudding afterwards to see if it develops into

actual jobs in this Province. That is when people will look at the minister and

say: Yes, the pudding is worth eating, I say to the minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm tempted to suggest that we change the name from ministerial statements

to selective statistics.

The minister talks about growth in the manufacturing sector, yet Statistics

Canada tells us that manufacturing is down in the Province by 14 per cent this

year. The minister does not talk about the 25 per cent of our young people who

are still unemployed. Nevertheless, we have to recognize the efforts continuing

to be made by the small manufacturers in the Province. Particularly I want to

commend the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters for their activity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and they continue to produce good products, like the coat

that was delivered to my office yesterday, Mr. Speaker, made right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Minister of Finance today. On May 26, 1998 I asked

questions to the minister directly when he announced, just a month previous,

about the construction of condominiums at the base of Marble Mountain, some $3

million of public money put into that expansion. I asked him directly at that

point this question: Given that it seems to be the public policy of

government to discontinue to be involved in the private housing business or

private housing matters, what are the public policy reasons for becoming

involved...? The minister said that for any number of reasons. I would like

to ask him today, remembering his enthusiasm back in April and May 1998 about

the selling of those condominiums, could he update us today on actually how many

condominiums have been sold?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unlike the Opposition we are very supportive of Marble Mountain and we are

very enthused about its prospects. All we need in a given year is for the snow

to cooperate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) snow.

MR. DICKS: Exactly. The hon. members opposite seem to question the wisdom

of it, and they seem to be the only people in the Province who do not see that

there is a great tourism benefit to the Province in having this. Mr. Speaker, as

of yet, we have not sold any condominiums but we are pursuing some opportunities

at the present time.

Thank you.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker,

what is at stake here is this. There have been $3 million of public money put

into construction. I believe it was on April 8, 1998 that the minister himself

at a press conference in Steady Brook said: In addition, this development will

enhance opportunities for the region's hospitality operators. More people

visiting the area means a greater need for accommodations, restaurants, service

stations and the list goes on.

The release that he had at the time also said that the firm they had put in

place - I think it was the firm of Pratt Henley Blackwood Architects Inc., which

were the prime consultants, and Thornes Royal LePage Realty - it said: I am

delighted with the decision to proceed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Further, it said: Based upon the response we had two years ago, we will feel

we have no difficulties in selling these properties. I would like to ask the

minister again the question: How many of the thirty-one condominiums have

actually been sold?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have already answered that question. Let met say to the hon. member that

what I said at the time is borne out. There has been a tremendous increase in

tourism. A lot of it has been due to government initiatives. First of all, we

had the 1997 year. We had the Canada Winter Games. We have the 50 anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So what I said at the time was accurate. There has been a 30 per cent

increase in tourism over the last three years and it has been mainly due, and I

say to the hon. members, and the public well knows, to government's efforts in

these areas. It is due to direct government infusion of money into events, be

they sporting or commemorative events, and it is also due to government

initiatives such as the snowmobile trails and so on. So the difference between

our government and the position of the Oppositi on is that

they stand and criticize and we act and do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Seeing that the Minister of Finance will not answer, I will

answer it for him. There have been no condominiums sold, Mr. Speaker, none

whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Unless, Mr. Speaker, he has purchased one himself in the

last couple of hours. I would like to ask him if he could answer this question.

I am in possession of a letter from Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador which

have written you outlining that they have heard and they are concerned with the

position that government are now considering, renting the units on a daily

basis.

The minister himself and government have retained the services for some time

of Martek Morgan Finch Incorporated , which is a rental property management

firm. I would like to ask him: In view of the concerns that we have raised, in

view of the concerns that Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador have raised, can

he assure people today that the condominium complex, the Alpine Chalets built by

this government at the base of Marble Mountain, in this Province that government

is now not getting back into the hospitality or hotel industry? Can he assure

people and confirm that government will not rent these properties on a daily

basis?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon member he should listen. When he comes to the House with a

prepared set of questions, when they get answered he should accept the answer

and then ask a new question, instead of reading the question he already had

prepared. I answered his question when he first asked, that no, there were none

sold. Then he got up and asked the question again and said that I had not

answered it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: If the hon. member is going to ask intelligent questions in

the House - and it would be a novelty - he should at least listen to see when

they get asked if they are answered.

Let me say to the hon. member that he should understand a little bit about

the history of the Province. The Province, over the years, has always had to

lead the private sectors in many cases in making investments. You can go back to

look at the Holiday Inns. They were built in1966 when no one else, either in the

Province or outside, was prepared to invest. The Province built them, and before

that there were no credible accommodations around the Province. We recently

privatized them in 1996 to some profit to government.

Mr. Speaker, the same thing was true in Marble Mountain. The previous group

that had been in charge had devised a plan to build condominiums there. The

private sector was not forthcoming in building those. The government took the

lead and built them. We have every confidence that they will be sold.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The hon.

member understands the history of the Province quite well: how much money this

government wasted on Trans City, how much money has been paid out for failed

lawsuits, how much money this government has wasted in this complex. Mr.

Speaker, the minister's enthusiasm in April 1998 that every one of these

condominium units would be sold has flatlined. People in the industry are now

very concerned. I spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in Corner Brook and Rotary

four weeks ago. The big question tha t was asked of me was:

Do you believe that government should be in the business of hotel operating in

competition with our own tax dollars, using our tax dollars to compete against

us?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question to the minister is this again: Are you, or is

government, considering at all renting these properties on a daily basis which

would be in direct competition with the existing private sector?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the difference between this government and that

group when they were in power is this. In 1997-1998, we spent $3 million to

build condos at Marble Mountain. The condos are there. They will be occupied.

They will be sold. The colleagues opposite, when they were in government, spent

$23 million on a cucumber palace which now is a vacant lot in Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

That was a body blow. I do not even know how I can get to my feet to respond

to the minister.

In May 1998 I asked the Minister of Finance a question - because this is an

example and should be looked at in a larger context - on the merit of pursuing

building condominiums in competition with the private sector. He said: Marble

Mountain is the single largest tourist draw to the Province. The question is

this, minister. Maybe you are not the right person to ask. Somebody can stand up

and answer it. Why is the single biggest draw in the tourism industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador operating u nder the Department

of Finance and not under the Department of Tourism?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason that the Province of

Newfoundland is governed by the Liberal Party and not by the Conservatives.

Just let me say that government has an obligation across a broad spectrum of

matters in this Province. We can adopt the hon. members' attitude that the

only money that should be spent should be spent in St. John's, or we can look

around the Province and see opportunities to enhance economic prosperity in

other regions. We happen to believe that the government has an obligation to all

parts of the Province, and that for many areas the greater potential lies in the

tourism area, the fishery and others. We are prepared to

stand by our investments because we believe they are in the long range interest

of the Province. When we make money we are prepared to take the long range view

and we are not prepared to abandon them merely because you get some adverse

comment every now and then.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: A question was asked and was not answered, as usual, which

is becoming a hallmark of the government, not answering questions put forward by

the Opposition at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will ask it again. Why is it that the single biggest plum

in the tourism industry, according to the government ministers, is being

operated by the Department of Finance and not by the Department of Tourism,

which it has traditionally been? Could he answer that question?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The decision as to who should run which government corporations is a

reflection of the portfolios and also the members at the time. As it happens, I

happen to represent the Corner Brook area. Marble Mountain is of vital interest

to the Corner Brook area. I had a particular interest, and the Premier was kind

enough to assign that responsibility to me. There are other examples around

government where one could easily argue that another agency should report

elsewhere. Maybe the Liquor Corporation should report to the Minister of

Tourism. I do not know. The hon. member can make whatever arguments he likes.

The issue is not to whom they report but how well they are managed.

I say frankly to the hon. member that in Finance, when we had the pleasure

and to some extent the responsibility and burden of running Marble Mountain, we

turned around about a $600,000 cash loss in one year on a $300,000 drop in

revenues from $1.5 million to $1.3 million, or $1.2 million rather. All I can

say about it is that the evidence speaks for itself. Marble Mountain is in good

hands, it is well managed, and hopefully we will have snow this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I

am not sure the Minister of Tourism would share the assessment of the Minister

of Finance, let me tell you that right now. I will ask him this question. A year

and a half ago the minister made a public commitment to private hospitality

operators, hotel operators and cabin owners in the western region of the

Province that government's undertaking to build condominiums would at no point

interfere or compete with them directly. Will he stand today and make the same

commitment to those sa me hotel operators, cabin owners and

hospitality owners in the Corner Brook region?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I am glad that the

members opposite have something to cheer about today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked why the

Minister of Finance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was given the courtesy of asking the

question. I ask the hon. members to my right to extend the same courtesy to the

Premier.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members opposite for

their courtesy and their attention.

The member opposite asked why the Minister of Finance is the minister

responsible for the operation of an important tourism asset, an important

economic generator in Western Newfoundland. I think that is a good question and

a serious question and it deserves a serious answer. The reason that

responsibility has been assigned to the Minister of Finance is that this is the

same Minister of Finance who has presided over a fiscal policy that has

generated the fastest growing economy in Canada for the second year in a row!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, last year the great economic engine of

Canada, Ontario, performed exceedingly well, coming in second to the performance

of the Minister of Finance. Last year the country as a whole grew at 3.1 per

cent, exactly half the blistering pace set by the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, last year this Minister of Finance presided

over a three year plan that saw our deficit go from nearly $300 million to a $30

million surplus!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I did not hear. I thought the Premier said that this is the

same Minister of Finance who could not sell one condominium in eighteen months!

Is that what the Premier said? I will ask the question again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one!

MR. E. BYRNE: Not one!

Mr. Speaker, the question was asked and it was not answered. I will ask it

again. The commitment that the Minister of Finance made to the private sector

operators of hotels, hospitality homes, cabin owners, et cetera, was that the

government's expansion into the condominiums and building them would not in

any way, at any time, ever compete with their industry. Can he stand and make

the same commitment today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is true that government should not be

competing in a gratuitous way at all with the private sector. We certainly share

that concern and would share that view held by Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador. There are extraordinary circumstances on occasion when the inn is full

everywhere else where you have to make a room available. For example, like we

did last February in the same condominium to the Leader of the Opposition when

he came to the Canada Winter Games.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: By the way, Mr. Speaker, as we did for the Prime Minister

of Canada - the Leader of the Opposition was in good company - and as we did

indeed for the Premier of the Province. Beyond those kinds of circumstances, I

would expect that it is the private sector which will always have first

opportunity to rent these rooms, but if the Leader of the Opposition is asking

us to stand and say that if every single room is full and we have rooms at

Marble Mountain that are available, would government sit on them when they could

produce revenue, I think we would have to take a very close look, if every room

was full, before we would say we would not make those rooms available to the

Leader of the Opposition, or for that matter to anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, government still claims that it does not have a proposal from Inco, and

after months of talks at the officials level and several weekends of

negotiations involving both the minister and the Premier we have not been able

to negotiate even a proposal from Inco. We did find out yesterday one useful

detail, and that is the Province has made its own proposal to Inco which will be

considered by Inco's Board of Directors. Surely the people of the Province,

this government's own board of directo rs or shareholders

have a right to know what offer was made to the Inco board of directors, and I

say to the Premier: What did you propose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Province has not made a

proposal to Inco and, of course, the member who just spoke knows that. What I

did say yesterday - and I think the record will show very clearly - is that the

Province is asking for and expects to receive certainty, clarity, with respect

to the issue of processing in the Province.

What we have said, what I and the Minister of Mines and Energy have

communicated to Inco, is that even if a proposal is put forward which on the

surface meets our requirements, beyond meeting our requirements on the surface,

we need to be assured and satisfied; we need to have made certain the notion

that any mine and mine/mill to be developed will also have with it full

processing of concentrate in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can report today that I have indeed heard back from Mr. Scott Hand, the

President of Inco, about two hours ago, who called to indicate that the matter

had been taken up by the Inco board yesterday and that I should expect a

response from Mr. Sopko, the chairman of that board, some time over the next

number of days that Inco is committed, as indicated, they recommit themselves to

processing within the Province. I thanked them for that information. I have

indicated to them that we appreciate their declaration, but we require something

more substantive and that is something by way of an agreement, and a binding

agreement, that processing will occur in the Province. We will have to wait and

see how this develops over the days, weeks or months ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: A

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are mesmerized

with the terminology used on this ongoing debate. Sometimes talks are informal,

or formal, or casual, or final, or preliminary, or secondary, or serious.

Sometimes we have talks, conversations, proposals, discussions, negotiations. Is

it a framework agreement? Is it a Memorandum of Understanding? The people of

this Province are giddy in terms of where we are on this particular project. We

are mesmerized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the Premier: In view of your comments just made

a few minutes ago, when can you realistically be in a position to indicate to

the people of this Province where we are with respect to these talks and

negotiations on this very important matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Don't let him

advise you.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when the member is finished being -

AN HON. MEMBER: Coached.

PREMIER TOBIN: - advised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the question that is being asked by the

member who has just spoken is: When will the government be able to fully advise

the people of the Province and indeed members of this House as to the details of

these negotiations? When? When we have something that we believe is worth

putting before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today we are engaged in a negotiation. The Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has said repeatedly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, I am very well aware of the word I just used.

We have said, we will not enter into a formal negotiation until such time as

a framework is agreed which has permanence, which has certainty for the Province

in the area of processing. We don't accomplish that in this House by being

pressured by members of this House, or being pressured by Inco, or being

pressured by anybody to make a quick deal. We only look after the interests of

Newfoundland and Labrador when we make the right deal, and if that takes another

week, another month, another year, anoth er decade, so be

it. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are prepared to wait as long as it

takes to get the right deal, and so is this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final

supplementary, the hon. the Member of St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Isn't it

true - and this is an indication, when we look at what has been said in the past

on this issue - that one concession Inco wants from you is to allow some of the

concentrate to be shipped out of the Province for final processing? Have you

made any concession on that issue, I say to the Premier? Have you given Inco any

indication that you may allow some of the ore to be shipped out the Province for

processing to a finished nickel metal product?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Are you finished?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: The Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador requires certainty on the issue of processing, and we are looking - we

have said many times - to see all of the product from the Labrador deposit

processed within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Inco understands

very well our position. We believe that the board, the senior players, the

chairman, the president and other senior officers, are today attempting to

satisfy the bottom line of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can tell the member opposite - and, by the way, I take no joy at all in

saying this - that in the absence of being able to satisfy the bottom line

demands, not just of the government but of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, there is not going to be a deal. I hope that is not the case. I hope

there is a deal. I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see a

development that is fair to the Province and fair to the company.

This is not a game that we are playing here. This is a major resource

development and we have to proceed carefully. If it takes a little more time to

get it right, or a lot more time to get it right, we will take the time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the minister of Health and Community Services.

There is a severe nursing crisis in our Province, but none more severe than in

Labrador. Over the past two years, Minister, there has been 105 per cent

turnover in nurses in Coastal Labrador, an 83 per cent turnover in the Melville

Hospital, and 114 per cent turnover in long-term care.

Health Labrador Corporation has paid put over 15,000 hours of overtime to

nurses working in Coastal Labrador and in the Melville Hospital in a four-month

period from April to August. These hours do not even reflect the overtime paid

to management. Health Labrador Corporation spends between $1 million and $1.5

million in orientation and nursing turnover each year.

Minister, you received a strongly-worded letter on October 14 from the Chair

of the Health Labrador Corporation - your own appointed board - asking

government to coordinate three initiatives that are necessary to avoid the

possibility of morale problems, of job action, and more resignations. I ask you,

Minister: What have you done to address this crisis in Labrador?

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

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

I am sure the member opposite knows that issues around Coastal Labrador have

been ongoing for years. There have always been issues around recruitment,

particularly in Coastal Labrador, and 100 per cent turnover is not an unusual

turnover for Coastal Labrador. As I said, a few facts are always important

before I get to the answer.

With respect to the proposal that was put forward - the member may or may not

know, but government has been in the process of negotiating, through Treasury

Board, a Labrador Benefits Agreement. That particular group went through and

looked at a number of issues and initiatives around all of the groups in

Labrador with respect to that specific component. The Labrador Benefits

Agreement Committee acknowledged that a sub-committee would be established to

look at the special issues around nursing particularly.

From my understanding, Treasury Board has asked in writing and I understand

are waiting for an answer to hear back from the leadership of the nurses'

union if they are going to, in fact, put someone there to begin that negotiating

process.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

She must be fully processed by now, I would say. What we need now are

results, not process.

On September 4, an ad hoc committee consisting of municipal, provincial and

federal representatives submitted a recruitment and retention proposal to

Treasury Board, accompanied by a request to meet with the Social Policy

Committee of Cabinet. They were unsuccessful in getting that meeting. They were

also unsuccessful, I might add, in requesting on December 1, to the President of

Treasury Board, an urgent meeting. On December 3, a response indicated an

unsatisfactory -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: What are you doing, and why are you

ignoring the plight of nurses and the health care needs of the people of

Labrador?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr.

Speaker, the official bargaining agent for the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses'

Union is the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. It is not the ad hoc

committee.

We recognize the issues put forward. In fact, that proposal would certainly

form the basis for any negotiation; but, to the best of my knowledge, Treasury

Board has written a letter to the executive to the nurses' union asking to

submit the names of their negotiators so they can begin the process.

Mr. Speaker, they are waiting for a response to that letter, just as I am

waiting for a response from them as well to allow us to hire every single

graduate of the class of 2000 for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Labrador are so frustrated with government inaction that

yesterday they wrote the Premier - yes, and I have a copy of that letter -

urging him to put forth his voice and support in expediting a meeting with

Treasury Board, Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, Health Labrador

Corporation, and the ad hoc committee, who have the full endorsement of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union in this process. They have said they

have not been told the truth on whether it is a collective b argaining

issue, Minister, and stated it in that letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: This letter states - the letter to the Premier - they are

going from crisis to crisis and they want an answer in seventy-two hours. Why,

Minister, do Labradorians have to resort to this last-ditch effort in order for

you to give them access to the health care that they need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume that the member opposite

is telling us to arbitrarily deal with an issue without the official bargaining

agent. I think that is important for the record.

If there are issues around the process of negotiation, my colleague, the

President of Treasury Board, will tell you that the official bargaining agent

needs to be at the table. You don't bargain with ad hoc committees about a

specific union's issues. That union has to identify its negotiating committee,

and I hope when they do that they will give us the permission to hire every

graduating nurse in the class of 2000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, is she aware - and they have led us to believe it was a

collective bargaining issue. I ask the minister if she is aware that it has been

confirmed by officials of the Newfoundland and Labrador nursing union, who have

made it very clear to Treasury Board that they are very happy for Treasury Board

to proceed and have discussed it with this committee and get the issue resolved

in Labrador. Are you aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform this hon. House that my

colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, works very closely

with the President of Treasury Board and is completely aware and involved in

every issue that is happening throughout Treasury Board.

I would like to also say that we are very concerned about the situation as it

exists in Labrador. As my colleague just mentioned, one of the items that came

out of the Labrador Benefits Agreement was a commitment to form a committee to

work specifically on the issue of nurses in Labrador. In fact, I have to say to

this hon. House that when I was in Goose Bay on the Jobs and Growth

consultations with the committee, we met with nurses in Goose Bay. We met with

nurses in Goose Bay after the committee held its hearings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, we

did meet with nurses at that time and we came back with a commitment to nurses

that we would work on their issues. Since then we have, in fact, written a

letter to the ad hoc committee dated December 1. I don't know if the member

opposite has a copy of that letter, seeing he has a copy of everything else.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS THISTLE: As of December 1, we did write the ad hoc committee and we

are now awaiting a formal response so we can begin -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude quickly.

Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

bills, entitled,

An Act To Amend The Family Law Act, and

An Act To

Amend The Judicature Act.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Medical Act.

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I

give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I

give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Works, Services and Transportation Act, Bill 48.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I

give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities

Act.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to give a partial answer to the Member for Cape St. Francis who asked

a question yesterday concerning legal fees. It is going to take a little while

to get all of the information. He asked in the House yesterday why the amount

for legal fees had gone from $2 million last year to $7.8 million, and would we

go over this year with the budget at $3 million.

I wanted to point out that I did not have the Estimates but he was referring

to the wrong category. 2.1.01.09, Allowances and Assistance, is actually the

amount that government pays out in any given year to people who sue government.

That amount is a nominal amount because we have no way of knowing in advance

what the liability would be. I refer him to the same

section of the Estimates,

2.1.01.05, which is Professional Services. That would show that last year we

budgeted $930,000 and we actually spent $1,490,000. This year we are budgeting

about $1,675,000. I just wanted to point out to him that that is the relevant

section.

I have asked the department to prepare the answers that he wanted. I believe

it was for the last fiscal year. Notwithstanding that, I will provide him with

the information as to which law firms were paid which amounts of money. It will

just take me a little while to pick it up because it is done manually. It is not

on computer as such. I should have that by early next week.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Motions 4 and 5, that is the

first reading, so hon. members can have a chance to read them. They will be

distributed later on.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you can

certainly have leave. I also wanted to add this. Can we have leave for my

colleague for St. John's West to read in a notice too? She missed it when we

moved through it quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure, when they are done.

MR. SPEAKER: It is agreed that we revert to Notices of Motion?

Notices of Motion.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS some non-custodial parents in Newfoundland and Labrador neglect to

honor their obligations to make child support payments and in so doing undermine

the quality of life and opportunities for their children; and

WHEREAS in some instances the provincial treasury must provide financial

assistance through its social assistance program to help children neglected by

deadbeat parents, thereby transferring the burden of care from the parent to

whom it belongs to the taxpayers of the Province; and

WHEREAS it is intolerable that deadbeat parents often can continue to enjoy

their full privileges as members of society as if they have done nothing wrong

despite their decision to snub their noses at the laws of the land and their

social obligations as parents;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to enact legislation to both revoke and deny renewal

of the driver's licences of non-custodial parents who, without legitimate

defense, neglect to meet their obligations to make child support payments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We will now deal with Motions 4 and 5.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Education to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Schools Act, 1997, carried. (Bill 43)

On motion, Bill 43 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

Motion, the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill,

An Act Respecting Adoptions, carried. (Bill 45)

On motion, Bill 45 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker,

second reading on a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act,

Bill 34. I think the Minister of Finance has stepped out there for awhile. Here

he comes.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial

Administration Act. (Bill 34)

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an amendment to the Financial Administration Act and it has to do

with our sinking funds. As you know, the general provision with respect to bonds

or securities that the government issues is that each year when we make payments

we set up a part of that as a sinking fund, so that when the issue matures after

twenty or thirty years there is sufficient monies there to pay the face value of

the bond. What this does is this. Each year when we pay the interest payments a

small portion of that, initially, is really payment toward capital, the same as

you would with a mortgage. What happens with that little additional amount of

money each year is it is invested, and of course over time this amount of money

has a return. At the end of the bond term, be it thirty, twenty-five, twenty,

fifteen years, whatever the term of the bond is, there is sufficient money in

there to pay off the original amount.

What sometimes happens is that when the bond is set up we get better returns

than anticipated, so that, for example - and it is not hard to imagine - at the

time when interest rates were 10 per cent, the amount of money set aside

reflects probably a return something in the vicinity of current interest rates,

5 per cent or 10 percent. When you go through a period like the early 1980s or

you go through a period where you have higher yields on either bonds or

securities, the amount in the sinking fund can be greater than required to

retire the original face amount of the debenture or the debt. For example, in

any year where you have monies maturing, you might find that your obligations on

these bond issues where you have sinking funds set up, you might in fact have

more money than is required to pay off the securities when they mature, which is

a term we use for when the debt becomes due and owing.

What this does is allow the monies that are not required to redeem the debt

to be paid in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. For example, it is like having a

mortgage account. If you put a certain amount in there every month and you find

that at the end of the year you have overpaid by $200 or $300, let's say, then

you would put that money into your checking account, for example. What this does

is it permits the government, where the sinking funds are in excess of the

amount required to reduce the securi ty, or to pay off

security, to put it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I suppose one could argue that you should do any number of things with this.

I suppose you could say that it should go to retire additional debt or whatever,

but we believe the proper and right use of the money, seeing that it came out of

the Consolidated Revenue Fund initially - this is where all the tax monies comes

in; it is where all the expenses of the Province are paid. If, for some reason,

we have overpaid and set aside more money than necessary out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund, out of total government monies, to pay debt obligations which are

generally far into the future, that the money be returned to the Consolidated

Revenue Fund. That is the reason for that.

The second part would allow the Minister of Finance, by agreement, to issue

replacement securities for the purpose of postponing the maturity of securities

or their refinancing.

This is a consequential amendment because what happens each year, each time

we go to market, we have to sign documentation and so on like that. In any given

year we refinance a certain amount of it, of course, and not all of these issues

have sinking funds. Some of these were set up at a time when no sinking funds

were available. In some cases, as with the loans that we took out from the

Canada Pension Plan - that we did yesterday - we decided to roll those over

because we have that option. Instead of having to go to market we decided that,

having the option to do it, we would then roll it over.

What this would do is give the Minister of Finance the opportunity to

negotiate with the same people who have lent money to the Province, another

agreement to repay it over a longer term.

In essence, what happens is that where the Province has built up a rather

substantial debt as a consequence of running deficits really since our history,

with the exception of the last four years or so, there are - quite a bit in the

seventies, as the hon. member opposite suggests.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the sixties.

MR. DICKS: Oh, I thought you said the eighties.

In any event, there is an accumulated debt there that is impossible for the

Province to pay off in any given year, so it is going to be our obligation as

years go by, hopefully, to be able to retire this debt; but certainly in the

near future what we will be doing is renewing this debt, and this just gives to

the Minister of Finance of the day the right to do this and just to refinance

and so on.

Where it is of some instance as well is with European issues - and we do have

some Swiss and German issues, but Swiss issues in particular generally have a

maturity date of - you cannot borrow on the Swiss market for more than ten or

fifteen years. Recently it is even shorter than that. We have issues that come

due that we take out for fifteen years, but there is a right or obligation of us

- there is a right of the borrower to require the repayment of the money. So,

for example, in year ten we will have to set up a new interest rate and people

can choose whether to leave the money with us for the remaining five years or to

have it redeemed at the accumulated coupon rate at the end of ten years.

This is really, for the most part, just a matter of housekeeping and really

would allow us to facilitate our financing by dealing directly with our lenders

rather than by going through our fiscal agents and so on, and should result in

some cost savings to the Province I expect. It essentially will eliminate the

placement fees on security issues that you either pay the banks or to the normal

- if you deal with Wood Gundys and the RBSs and so on of the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank my colleagues from St. John's East and Cape St. Francis for that

endorsement.

We, on this side of the House, recognize the nature of this particular piece

of legislation. We recognize it as housekeeping. I was expecting the minister to

indicate, however, approximately how much money we were talking about here. I

notice in the Estimates for 1999 that we are looking here at about $35,964,000.

That is the amount I assume we are talking about in that particular part for

this fiscal year.

Really, what the minister has said is that this is the amount of money that

they have that would be in excess of what is required to service the debt in

this particular year and results from, shall we say, having extra money put into

the sinking funds that are not required to pay off the debts that they pertain

to.

What that means, of course, is that the Province in essence merely transfers

back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund the $36 million approximately that has

been put into the sinking fund and just transfer it back from whence it came. It

came from the taxpayers and it was not required. You are merely putting it back

into the general revenue, and government then has an opportunity to use it for

whatever purposes it deems necessary to use. I understand that this amount of

money was reflected in the budget ary

amounts and that it is not extra money to the budget, that it has already been

accounted for. All we are doing here is really ratifying the process which has

already occurred. I don't know whether the minister wanted to verify that. We

can exchange it back and forth or we can wait until at the end of the commentary

that will be made by all of my colleagues here.

We on this side want to say to the government, we understand what is being

done. It makes good common sense. We would, of course, have liked to be in a

position where we could take that amount of money and just channel it directly

into debt retirement. That would be the optimum choice; however, because of the

fiscal position we are in - and the minister has indicated that there is an

expected deficit of $30 million, thereabouts. He indicated that back last spring

in the budget statements and he has restated

that in the November update, that we still will be expecting to be a little bit,

shall we say - our expenditures will be a little more than our revenues in

total. However, I had expected him to have something to say in recent days about

his meetings that he is going to tomorrow. I had anticipated a Ministerial

Statement today indicating that he is up to see my good friend, Paul Martin. We

know that the Minister of Finance is partial to Paul Martin's candidacy for

the federal Liberal leadersh ip, so we expected him to be

telling us about what he is going to be talking to Paul Marin about in the next

several days.

I notice this time he is only going as far as Ottawa, so he will only be gone

for several days we assume. It is a long way to British Columbia, and it takes

you a long time to get there, but we had expected a Ministerial Statement. Maybe

we had anticipated that the minister would be standing in his place today and

telling us that he was on his way to Ottawa - in particular because the Premier

of Quebec has been in the public record making statements about what his

expectations are from the Ministers of Finance as they meet on tomorrow, and I

think it is on Thursday as well, and how he wanted to - the Minister of Finance

in Quebec and the Premier of Quebec have been looking across the provinces and

saying: Can we get support? Can we go to Ottawa with a united front? Can we see

more money coming by way of equalization, by the health and social transfers?

Can we get more money coming to the provinces from that federal budget that is

in a huge surplus?

We had expected -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think the Member for Bell Island might be going

with him? (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, that

member certainly will probably be off to Ottawa with the Minister of Finance

because they are good buddies. They are separated in the House by some seven or

eight seats, but we know that they are bosom buddies.

I say to the Minister of Finance, I had anticipated as well that he would be

telling us something about the autumn updates on equalization. Now, does that

mean that there are no monies coming to this Province? We know that there was

$219 million. I say to the Minister of Finance, there is $219 million extra

coming to the provinces.

I want to say to the Minister of Finance that when you had your last meeting,

when you all gathered around this big table and you all said: The economy of

Ontario is so good, it is so buoyant, it is such a great thing that is happening

in Ontario, they are leading the country. Because of their tremendous growth,

there is a huge amount of extra money coming into the provinces by way of

equalization.

We expected the minister to come back from that meeting - because we had done

the research on it - to tell us in Newfoundland and Labrador how much we were

getting from that extra $219 million that would be shared among the seven

have-not provinces. However, we have not had any updates. That can only mean one

of two things. It can only mean the Minister of Finance did not get as much

money by way of equalization as he thought he was going to get, or that the

Minister of Finance is waiting to play the role of old Saint Nicholas or Santa

Claus, or he is going to wait until after we have gone, so the House is closed,

and then he can make the grand announcement to say that of that $219 million

that was agreed upon a few weeks ago, Newfoundland gets X number of dollars.

We have not had an update from the Minister of Finance. We know that there

was $219 million. We know, for example, in our research that New Brunswick got

$69 million extra. Yet, the Minister of Finance in this Province does not share

with the House how much extra money we got from the autumn adjustments that have

occurred. Therefore, if the Minister of Finance in New Brunswick is able to tell

his province that they got $69 million more, then I wonder why can't we do

that in Newfoundland. I suspect that the Minister of

Finance is waiting to play Santa Claus. He is waiting for the Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island to tell him how much extra money we

received from the autumn update on equalization.

I want to just clarify with the Minister of Finance that last year when all

the provincial, territorial and federal ministers of finance and their officials

met in Ottawa - I think it was Ottawa; it may have been in some other city -

that it was at that meeting they confirmed they were going to change the method

of calculation to a per capita basis for equalization and the CHST.

We remember when the federal budget came down last year. My colleague the

Member for Ferryland remembers this quite well, because when the budget came

down last year the Minister of Finance acted as if he were surprised. He said:

The federal people have done us bad. In fact, I remember the Minister of Health

and Community Services saying she was shocked by the federal government. She

said: Paul Martin's budget would introduce a two-tier health care system in

Canada. She was in the media that night on television and she was telling us all

about this big threat to health care from Paul Martin's federal budget.

I had the comments of the Minister of Finance there - I looked it up just a

few hours ago - so let me read you what our Minister of Finance said last year

on, I think it was, February 17. He called the federal Minister of Finance's

budget a laughable document. He said it was a silly document. The minister says:

When it is all said and done, the province gets a net gain of just $9 million

for health care. The minister says: It is an insensitive document. Health

Minister Joan Marie Aylward says: The Province is going to

take a very hard hit. She says the federal budget has created a two-tier health

care system and that is not good enough.

I bring all this up because the minister is off tomorrow to meet all the

other ministers of finance, and of course he is undoubtedly going to be

accompanied by the good Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, who is

there as his advisor, close friend and supporter. We have a team of two people

off to Ottawa tomorrow and we want to make sure that Paul Martin this year gets

the message. Last year, Paul Martin may not have been listening attentively.

Last year, the Minister of Finance of this Province said that they changed it to

a per capita calculation and that was not fully understood by the Minister of

Finance. Of course, after that we had the Premier coming out and saying how

shocked he was. Then certainly we know what happened after that.

After a while the Prime Minister had to come down to Newfoundland last

February. In fact, he stayed free of charge at Marble Mountain. In fact, all of

the big entourage were accommodated at Marble Mountain free of cost, with the

hospitality of the government. That same Prime Minister took the Premier aside -

MR. FITZGERALD: Trudeau was supposed to buy the condo there, the big

condominium. That was supposed to set the trend.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, a big announcement that Pierre Elliot Trudeau was

going to buy a condominium. I think that did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Finance that we want to make sure that

when he goes off to Ottawa this year that he delivers the right message, that he

makes sure that Paul Martin understands Newfoundland's situation. Maybe when

he comes back we will then not have to wait until after Christmas or sometime in

January to have this big announcement that we have all this extra money. Because

we know that last year, if it had not been for the federal government, we would

have been in a terrible deficit situation, but because of the growth in Ontario's

economy, last year we were able to bring in somewhere around $169 million to

$175 million extra to this Province from federal equalization and transfer

arrangements. That rescued the government and they were able to have a balanced

budget.

We want to know how much extra money can be anticipate receiving by way of

equalization from the federal government. We on this side of the House had

expected the minister to be standing up and telling us because we know that

announcements have been made in the other provinces, but no announcement has

been made in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are wondering why that is. Is it that

we are going to get nothing extra? Is that why the minister has not stood in his

place? Is it that we are going to get zero? I do not think that is the case,

because obviously the criteria that govern this would be met by Newfoundland and

Labrador. We are still a have-not province in comparison to British Columbia,

Ontario and Alberta. Therefore, if the people in New Brunswick know they are

going to get an extra $69 million, then why are we today, I say to the minister,

still waiting to get some idea as to how much extra money we are going to be

receiving?

We on this side - if I could just return to the bill that we are discussing,

the Financial Administration Act - do not find anything amiss with this

particular piece of legislation. Again, it is a housekeeping matter. I suspect

that if we were on that side and we had to face the same issue as contained in

Bill 34, we would probably take the $35 million that we are talking about - $36

million just about - and we would allocate that money for current account

expenditures rather than doing anything else with it, because it obviously was

paid by the taxpayers and paid for the delivery of goods and services.

We support Bill 34 but we are hoping that the minister, in his concluding

statement - in spite of the yawns of howls that are made by the Minister of

Fisheries and his consistent interruptions in the debate - we are hoping that

the Minister of Finance will address some of the issues I have raised on the

equalization problems and what we can expect by way of autumn updates.

I understand that throughout the year there are probably as many as twelve or

fifteen updates that occur. In fact, they are occurring on a continuous basis.

We understand that. The federal government has made some statements, other

provinces have made statements, and I think the Minister of Finance owes it to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, before he rushes off tomorrow to attend

the federal meeting, to give an update -

AN HON. MEMBER: What? He is going again?

MR. H. HODDER: He is gone

tomorrow. He is up there as Newfoundland's champion in Ottawa tomorrow, our

fiscal champion. He is up there to do his best to look after -

AN HON. MEMBER: New Brunswick got sixty-nine. How much are we getting?

MR. H. HODDER: That is right, I say to the Minister of Finance, New

Brunswick got sixty-nine. There is $219 million altogether, and we are hoping

that the Minister of Finance will take advantage of this opportunity to be able

to give us an update as to how much money we can expect.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I am not sure whether or not my

colleagues will be adding anything to the debate. If they are then I will yield

to them, but I am looking forward to the minister's comments.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few brief comments. My definition of brief is different than some

other people's definition of brief.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) say who.

MR. SULLIVAN: I won't

point any fingers.

Yes, I agree with it. Why keep it in a sinking fund? Put it into consolidated

revenue. That is where it should be. I was wondering why it wasn't there all

along, why they were not following that procedure. We do not have a problem with

that.

I was just wondering, though, and curious; we do have $450 million out there

in Swiss francs and they are at 1.08, I think, this year, the exchange. When we

purchased those, when we went to the market back in 1985, 1991 and 1997

respectively, I am just wondering if the minister knows offhand: What were the

rates at the time? We don't do any hedging on our borrowing, I don't think,

the government, or do we now? I don't think there is any hedging. I know, from

my business background, when we dealt wit h US dollars and

we dealt with the British pound, and particularly with the pound, we would

certainly buy up so much in advance and really hedge against any fluctuations

over a period of several months, sometimes it being volatile. I am just curious

now. I know I can go back and research it, but the minister might know offhand,

what it was, for instance, in 1985 or 1990. I am pretty familiar with the US

dollar all along, and where we have been there, and a little more current with

the pound, but have not dealt with

any Swiss francs. We don't have that luxury. We don't have that kind of

money - I know I don't; I don't know if the Minister of Finance does or

doesn't - to start shopping around, an occasional Swiss bank account or two. I

just wanted to ask that question, where we might be. I know the US is pretty

well - we know where we are with that.

One of the biggest concerns, I suppose, in going to a foreign market is that

there is a tendency for tremendous fluctuations in a market. We have seen -

fairly wide - that it could cost us a helluva lot more than the low interest

rates that we pick up on those markets. The borrowing has been lower on those

markets as opposed to borrowing from a Canada Pension Plan or borrowing

basically within Canada.

Those are just a few queries there. Maybe the minister might be able to put

me at rest, that we do not have $450 million out there dangling with big

currency fluctuations that might cost us a bundle and wipe out that $100 million

or so that he is coming to come back with next week when we get those last

equalization figures finalized.

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

If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will respond to some of the comments opposite. It might be helpful.

First of all, I thank the members opposite for their support on the bill. I

should say that it is a happy amended in some ways, because until recent years

there was no such thing as a surplus in the sinking fund so no one foresaw the

need to have this in the Financial Administration Act. We did find in 1995 that

there was a surplus, and that was in part due to the increase in stock market

and interest rates during that period of time. I know funds were taken out at

that point and again this year. I don't

think it will necessarily be a recurring item because you can do a more

realistic evaluation from time to time but when surpluses accumulate you have to

decide (inaudible), and I am glad hon. members support putting it back in the

Consolidated Revenue Fund, for obvious reasons.

The hon. member said I was partial to Paul Martin. I thought he said pine

marten so I was inclined to agree with him, but I will say that I have always

been partial to Mr. Martin's name. Martin is a name which has always appealed

to me. I would not dare contradict him on that but, having said that, I did take

a trip to Vancouver to meet with the Ministers of Justice last week. If you have

ever gone to Vancouver, you realize that trip certainly contradicts the saying

that travel is about the journey and not the destination,

because it is quite an arduous one. He said that I am off again tomorrow. I

would say that probably going away would be the more accurate term, because I

rarely get off on going to the mainland.

May I say that he raised a couple of things as to what we might have - as the

Ministers of Finance this week. We did have a recent meeting in Toronto of the

provincial Finance Ministers. I can say that there are two items really on the

agenda that have a national consensus, a difficult one to forge at times.

The first is restoration of the CHST back to the $18 billion. The unfortunate

part of that is because the federal government has changed the distribution

formula from its former experience rate, if you will, 50/50 and now it has gone

per capita. The older formulation really benefitted us because it reflected

needs more so than the current formulation does. A concern that we share with a

number of other provinces - PEI, Pat Mella articulated it very well; New

Brunswick and some of the other provinces - that even if we are restored in

terms of the amount to $18 billion, our Province will receive less because per

capita we receive less under that distribution than we did in 1993. So being

restored to full funding does not actually put that much more money in our

pockets.

A little thing that happened last year in the federal budget that did not get

a lot of attention was that the federal government capped the equalization at

$10 billion. The problem with that for us is that equalization is distributed -

right now it is $9.8 billion. So there is only $200 million room left for us to

get to the ceiling.

Now in past years - last year when they changed the CHST per capital

distribution we were aided because we got an increase in equalization, a

substantial one. I forget the amount; it was over $200 million. The problem with

capping equalization is that no matter how strong the federal economy gets, the

Ontario economy in particular, and how weak ours get, we can only get an

additional share; and our share of that is probably in the vicinity of $20

million of that $200 million worth of room, because we have about 11 per cent of

the equalization pot across the country, or least of the incremental amount.

What we have forged as a consensus - and, believe me, it was a difficult one;

Ontario was not entirely happy - but what we have decided to do as Finance

Ministers, as a statement representing our joint position, and territorial

ministers, is that we are asking Ottawa to do two things. One is to restore the

CHST funding and also to lift the equalization ceiling.

From our point of view, we would probably benefit more from having the

equalization ceiling lifted, but around those two issues we believe that part of

the surplus should be dedicated to that.

I think those are most of the issues covered.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I haven't

followed what Quebec said, but I do know that they share some of our concerns.

Last year they stood to lose up to $1 billion. It was $900-some million on the

equalization issue, but they made quite a bit up on - I am sorry, on CHST. They

made quite a bit up on equalization so the losses were not as severe.

As you know, CHST funding is certain; equalization is not. So, between the

two, I would prefer to see the CHST funding being there because we would have

greater certainty.

The hon. member asked about equalization estimates. We don't give them out,

and there are fifteen revisions or more in the run of a year. The problem with

it is that you might find personal income tax is up, equalization is down,

corporate income tax is about the same; so, if you try to give a month to month

report on these as you receive them - really there are only about two or three

major revisions in the year - I think you give people the wrong message because

it can vary substantially.

A lot of times, it has been the experience in the past, you could be up $30

million or $40 million at mid-year and you could be down $70 million at year end

and vice versa. While you watch them, if the tendency is that they are up, you

would hope that they will be up by year end, but it is not always the

experience.

I think the most you can is that unless there is a drastic, alarming change

in either direction, I do not believe that it is necessarily in the interest of

the Province to report it; but, having said that, I will consider the hon.

member's suggestion. Maybe there is something productive we can share with

hon. members. I think what is happening in our personal and income tax base, for

example, is of interest because that shows and reflects our own economic

performance and the value of our own economy a s opposed to

some of the other transfers such as equalization which are less certain.

(Inaudible) that information could be useful without distorting the financial

picture at the present time.

All I can say to the hon. member, the fairest thing, I think, to say is that

our economic performance is pretty much where we expect it to be. We could be up

several tens of millions or in that vicinity but we are pretty much on budget.

The hon. Opposition House Leader asked about exchange rates. I do not know

what they were in 1995. My recollection is that the Swiss franc was about 92

Canadian cents, or thereabout, somewhere in that vicinity, but it varies upward

and downward. Interestingly enough, I have done an analysis as to whether or not

it would be worthwhile for us to buy futures. The problem is that it is not.

When you go into a foreign market, derivatives are very hard to calculate and

you generally find that people who are making money on it are the banks that

actually do the derivative calculations; and, looking out into the far future,

they will give themselves a very generous bonus in order to carry that

liability.

There is something that we have done, though. Three or four years ago we

borrowed from the Bayerische Landesbank, which is a bank that is owned half by

the Bavarian government. What we did was, we did not hedge the money but we did

what we call a swap. So, rather than borrow in a foreign market -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I am talking about money. Rather than borrowing in a foreign

market and repaying in that currency, we had the foreign bank borrow for us

because it had AAA rating. They exchanged the money for Canadian dollars, so our

obligation to repay is in Canadian dollars; so that is fixed. What we followed

as a deliberate policy is that where foreign issues have come due, unless it

looked very, very attractive to keep it in that market, we have paid them off by

borrowing in our domestic market.

MR. SULLIVAN: How much money was borrowed under that?

MR. DICKS: I think about 250, and what they did - they have a AAA rating,

so what they could do is they could borrow and do a swap and they would make

about four or five bases points on it, and it was still cheaper for us to

borrow.

For example, I think it was around 6-and-some per cent so they themselves

could borrow say at 6.04 per cent, they could re-lend to us at 6.10 per cent and

we would have had to borrow in the market at around 6.14 per cent. A lot of

times you can use other devices to get around this, and we have been looking

carefully at our foreign borrowing.

I should say that Newfoundland generally, in the Province, has a fairly

substantial exposure in foreign markets. We are still below Nova Scotia which is

40 per cent, I think, in American currency. You will notice, if you go back

through our accumulated provincial debt, over time we have gradually -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: You are probably right. They borrow a lot more in the American

market. You have to be careful because you can be damaged by currency

fluctuations.

A few years ago we paid off a Swiss issue. I looked at it at the time, and

even though the exchange rates had varied on that issue we saved ourselves about

$62 million because the interest rate was so preferential that there was

substantial amount of room to absorb currency exchange losses.

That is essentially it, Mr. Speaker. I know these are tangents but they are

reasonable questions and I trust that I have answered them to the extent

possible in a forum like this. That being said, I move second reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act,

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

19,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act. (Bill 33)

I am going to pass over Order 18. If the Minister of Forestry is not here

when we are ready to do it, then some of us will find the ways and means of

getting it passed, but I want to do Order 19 first.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health

And Safety Act. (Bill 33)

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, one of the priorities of the Department of Environment and Labour

is to make sure that the workforce in this particular Province, the workers and

the employers, provide for maximum protection when it comes to employers at work

in the workplace, employing occupational health and safety in the workplace.

We took the lead in the department in organizing the Occupational Health and

Safety Branch of the department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I hope you guys (inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, I am looking for your protection from the people in front of me

here.

We started the reorganization within the department itself. When I went

there, one of the things I wanted to do was to reorganize the occupational

health and safety. The person we put in charge of the occupational health and

safety reorganization within the department was Joe O'Neill, who was the

assistant deputy minister on the labour side, and we moved him over into

occupational health and safety.

When we appointed the person to look after occupational health and safety,

one of the first things that Mr. O'Neill and I did was to put all the people

together in Grand Falls where we talked to them about what they saw we need to

do within the department to really, in a sense, beef up and make more effective

the occupational health and safety in the workplace in this Province.

As a result of that, we hired five new inspectors in the department, plus an

hygienist. We have given these people a lot of training to make sure that when

they do the inspections within the workplace, whatever that particular workplace

might be, that they would feel very comfortable going in and working with the

people in the workplace.

In this particular bill that is before the House, there are a number of

changes that we want to put into the act to also improve the occupational health

and safety regulations within the workplace of the Province; bearing in mind

what I said a few moments ago, that we had to start with the department really

in a sense to make sure that our house was in order, and that really was a

priority with us, and we did that.

There are a number of changes. We can look at these when we go down

clause-by-clause in Committee stage. I want to say to the House, one of the big

things that we did was a deterrent to businesses that would violate the

occupational health and safety of the worker in the workplace by increasing the

fines. Our fines were among the lowest in the country. I think it was about

$20,000 per offence. Now, $250,000 is the maximum offence. In addition to that

offence - it might seem high for some businesses, who see that we are penalizing

them with this amount, but - in addition to that we have also made it more

stringent, and probably the most stringent in Atlantic Canada, and probably

among the most stringent in the country, where we have given the courts the

leeway as well not only to fine but to make improvements within that particular

workplace to make sure that the same type of accidents do not reoccur. I think

that is very important.

Another piece of information in this particular act, of course, now the act

says that any workplace that has more than ten workers in the business may have

a health and safety committee within that particular department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I am being so distracted here, Tom, I cannot hear myself

speak.

This new legislation makes it mandatory that any workplace that has ten or

more people in it must have this proviso in the legislation.

There is also a change in the definition as well, when we talk to the medical

officer. These changes are required as a result to provide the department will

greater flexibility in obtaining the services of a medical practitioner with

expertise in occupational medicine. We have consulted with the stakeholders on

this. I think it is a very progressive and forward moving piece of legislation.

As I said, I look forward to when we do the clause-by-clause analysis of that to

address it even more.

Again, I think it is progressive. We have talked to the stakeholders, and I

think it enhances occupational health and safety within the workplace. I will

say this, that for every worker and employer within the workplace, the onus in

on the individual and the company to make sure that any worker that is on their

premises operates within the safety regulations and confines of that particular

workplace.

I remember only recently there was a person here in the Province that had a

major accident in a oil refinery down in the States, and had first-degree burns

in a number of instances. He made one particular statement which was: When you

leave your family in the morning, you owe it to them to come back to them that

particular night as well. Basically, in his sentence he is saying the onus is on

the individual. We recognize that. When we work together as workers and as

employers to enhance occupational health and safety within the workplace, then I

think it is the right thing that we have to do, and to make sure to operate from

the premise that every action is preventable.

I would stop there, Mr. Speaker, hopefully to do more later on.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

I have read through the legislation and we will have some discussion during

third reading on this particular bill. It is a legitimate piece of legislation,

and whatever we can do to protect workers in the workplace is a progressive

step. We need to do more to protect people in the workplace, but we need to go

further than that.

One of the areas that I see is lacking in the legislation is that once a

worker becomes injured a lot needs to be done to improve the system in that

regard. As well, there is a lot that needs to be done to help the injured

worker, the person who is off on compensation. We hear oftentimes of areas

within the workers' compensation commission where workers who have been

injured run into a great deal of resistence. We are going to certainly be

looking for improvements in that regard as well. I have seen ,

in looking through the occupational health and safety legislation, it asking for

a committee within the workplace of ten or more workers, and I think that is a

progressive step; and heavier fines for employers who breach the legislation.

There are ways and means within the legislation to add extra protection for the

workers to prevent them from becoming injured.

Again, we are going to go more into detail on this in the clause-by-clause.

We look forward to the clause-by-clause

section of this legislation where we can

present some of our ideas and (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Can you hear me, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

We look forward to the clause-by-clause on this legislation where we will

present some ideas ourselves and some commentary on the legislation in areas

where we feel it can be improved. We do not often see amendments or suggestions

accepted by government, but I am sure we will have some to make on this. While

it is a progressive piece of legislation and a very worthwhile piece of

legislation, we will have further debate in third reading.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) made the rule to exclude us yet.

MR. SULLIVAN: They haven't?

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Opposition House Leader says that we do not have enough people to be

recognized as a party, but I would just say we haven't made the rule to

exclude us yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a point of order. You were excluded until a rule is

made for inclusion, I would add, basically, in that. That point, I would agree,

is in the process.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the court of public opinion -

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot really expect to be a recognized party when

you have not even got enough people to call Division in the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: He is talking about public opinion now (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: In the court of public opinion, Mr. Speaker, where it counts,

we are certainly recognized as a party and recognized -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Recognized well for our interest and concern with the issues

that affect people in this Province. One of those very important issues is

before us for debate this afternoon in the form of

an Act To Amend The

Occupational Health And Safety Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are few things that this Legislature does in terms of

passing legislation that are as important as what we do to ensure that the

working men and women of this Province are protected from injury and death in

their place of employment.

We have had a history of reasonably good legislation in this Province in the

last number of years. Where we fall down in many respects is in enforcement of

that legislation. We can have very good laws, but if they are not enforced or if

in certain circumstances we do not have the capability of enforcing them then

they are not very much good expect on paper.

One of the areas where we cannot enforce this law or other occupational

health and safety rules is in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador, at the

Hibernia platform, in offshore exploration, offshore drilling, offshore

production, in Terra Nova or whatever other fields may be developed - White

Rose, Hebron - and whatever will come to be in our offshore. We have no

jurisdiction to enforce occupational health and safety. The reason we don't is

because of something called the Atlantic Accord and th e

provisions in the Atlantic Accord which take away the jurisdictions of this

Province to enforce occupational health and safety regulations. The same

authority that has taken away the ability to enforce occupational health and

safety regulations has not replaced them with any other enforceable regulations

in the offshore.

I do not think anybody here would disagree that the offshore environment in

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be undertaking for the prosecution of the

fishery which has taken place here for five centuries, or whether for the

prosecution of the exploration and production of oil and gas, is a very

dangerous environment indeed. We do not need to remind ourselves of the great

loss of life in the Ocean Ranger disaster, or the many other disasters

that have befallen Newfoundland and Labrador workers at sea over the last number

of centuries. How we protect ourselves, and how we protect our citizens from the

potential of death and injury in all of our occupations, in all of our work, is

very important.

What we see now is a government that falls back on the fact that in the end

they have the right to withdraw a license to operate, close down a business,

remove a license to operate for an operator in the offshore. As has been said by

the Minister of Mines and Energy the other day, that at the end of the day they

had the power to take away the right of an employer to operate in our offshore.

The practice, unfortunately, in terms of regulating industries, has been

recognized by very competent authority to be problematic when the same group or

individual is both regulating the operation of the industry, licensing and

permitting an industry, and also regulating safety.

Mr. Justice Richard in the Westray Inquiry in Nova Scotia, for example,

stated in his report on the death of twenty-six miners in Westray that there was

a conflict of interest for the ministry of natural resources in Nova Scotia to

both be responsible for licensing and permitting the industry and also

responsible for safe mines.

That is the situation we have in our offshore today. The C-NOPB in this

Province and the C-NSOPB in Nova Scotia both operate under the same system that

operated in the pre-Westray era in Nova Scotia, where the regulation of the

industry and safety responsibility rests with the same body.

In fact, it has not gone unnoticed that last week when I raised questions

about the possibility of problems in our own offshore regulatory regime with

respect to safety, it was not the minister responsible for occupational health

and safety in the Province, the minister who just spoke, who responded; it was

the Minister of Mines and Energy. The Minister of Mines and Energy talked about

how safe our offshore is, not the minister responsible for occupational health

and safety.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was acting.

MR. HARRIS: He was not acting. The Minister of Environment and Labour,

responsible for occupational health and safety, was right here in this House of

Assembly.

What we have done in this Province is duplicated the situation pre-Westray in

Nova Scotia, where the department of government responsible for offshore

promotion, offshore regulation, offshore development, is also responsible,

through the C-NOPB, for liaising on issues of occupational health and safety.

What has been the result of that, Mr. Speaker?

Well, one of the results of it is that we have a set of draft regulations.

Now, if we had draft regulations that were about to be put into law, that would

be one thing, but these draft regulations are ten years old. They are draft

regulations which have not the force of law in the sense that anyone can be

prosecuted for violating them.

When we look through this bill before the House today, we see a very

important interest in enforcement. Clause 15 of the bill, the new

section 67,

repealed and substituted,

(1) A person who (

a) contravenes this Act or the

regulations; (

b) fails to comply with an order...; or (c)... a code of practice

adopted or established under....is guilty of an offence. A minimum fine of

$500 and a maximum fine of $250,000 or a term of imprisonment not to exceed

twelve months, or both a fine and imprisonment.

That is for any industry in this Province but not for the offshore, not for

offshore oil and gas industry, one of the most important and yet one of the most

dangerous industries that we have in our Province.

What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. We cannot have

an industry in this Province, or every industry in this Province except the

offshore oil and gas industry, subject to regulations to fines, potential

imprisonment for people violating occupational health and safety rules and

regulations designed to protect life and safety in every industry, subject to

conviction, fine, imprisonment, punishment for violating rules that put people's

lives at risk. Yet, in our offshore oil and g as industry,

we have none. We have no regulations, no penalties, no convictions for

violations of the penalties, and no possibility of the kinds of fines and other

penalties that go with that.

There is a very different approach that is taken by regulators who have a

rule book that has to be enforced and a job of enforcing the rules and making

sure that people who are supposed to abide by those rules also follow them and

will suffer the consequences if they do not.

What we have instead is a regime where there is a cooperative model. We are

goal setting and seeking to make improvements in regulations. Seeking to make

improvements in practices is the way and the preferred method of operating, and

not enforcement through occupational health and safety rules and regulations

through a system that involves penalties if people violate the rules and

regulations.

How does it work, and why is it - and no one has explained that so far - that

there is only one industry operating in this Province that has no rules and

regulations with the force - not only with the force of the Occupational Health

and Safety Act; it does not have the force of the Canada Labour Code which

provides for occupational health and safety as well.

Both the provincial and the federal governments, in this area, have let down

the people working in our offshore. They have let them down. They have exposed

them without their consent, without their involvement, and probably without

their knowledge up until recently, to a regime that has only draft regulations

in place.

The concerns were pointed out by Morgan Cooper in his report to this

government as a consultant a few years ago when he talked about the oil and gas

industry and the needs for a particular regime in the offshore. He talked about

offshore health and safety, he talked about a labour relations regime, and he

talked about other aspects of regulations that had to be modified in order to

ensure that there was proper control and development of our offshore oil and gas

industry.

We are in very early days in our industry. The time to set the standards and

set the pace is now. Here, more than any place in Canada, there ought to be a

particular sensitivity to the need for safety in the offshore.

As we saw in the Ocean Ranger

disaster, sometimes it doesn't take very much, when added together with other

malfunctions, with other conditions, with other realities, to cause the kind of

disaster that led to the loss of eighty-three lives in this Province in 1983.

We do know that this loss of life was caused by a series of - by themselves,

in and of themselves - very small and minor malfunctions and deficiencies but,

when added together, the cumulative effect of these small problems led to a

chain reaction which lead to the sinking of the Ocean Ranger . We do not

want to see anything near like that repeated in this Province. We do not want to

see a regime in our offshore that has any risk of failure to abide by the most

stringent occupational health and safety rules and regulations to cause any

injury or loss of life.

So far, we have not seen a proper response from the regulatory agencies as to

why they are still operating with draft regulations that are eight and ten years

old, as to why they see fit not to implement and actually pass regulations, give

them the force of law under federal and provincial jurisdiction, and deal with

the offshore industry just as we validly deal with all other industries

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen excuses, but we have not seen any

rationale or any reason or any result.

Questions were raised in the House of Commons on this issue last week. They

have been raised in Nova Scotia over what happened to a young Newfoundlander who

unfortunately was caught in a watertight door that was designed, in fact, as a

safety measure. The watertight door which trapped Shawn Hatcher was a safety

device that did not work properly.

Having investigated the matter, the Nova Scotia Department of Labour felt

that there were grounds to prosecute those responsible for the operation of that

vessel, those who were responsible for the training of staff people, training of

seamen on board that vessel. They wanted to prosecute because they felt there

were reasonable and probably grounds to do so.

Lo and behold, when the prosecution service of the Government of Nova Scotia

delved into the matter, they found that they did not have the authority and they

did not have the jurisdiction to conduct a prosecution for a violation of the

laws of the Province of Nova Scotia because that jurisdiction had been taken

away by the Canada/Nova Scotia elements of the Atlantic Accord.

Mr.Speaker, under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board they could

not prosecute either. In fact, they had a policy of not prosecuting. They had

regulations that were in draft form only, and they felt that working with

industry to improve safety standards was a better way to go. That is a

philosophy that can lead to disaster.

Until and unless we have a situation where people in industry - and I

recognize the minister as sincere when he talked about having the best

legislation that we could possibly have, and offer the maximum amount of

protection that we possibly can to workers in our industries. What can he tell

us about young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and people from other parts of

Canada and the world even, working in our offshore, in the offshore of

Newfoundland and Labrador, expecting to have a regime with the same standards of

safety and the same standards of enforcement as we have here in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? The standards that IOC must follow, the standards

that the Come By Chance oil refinery must follow, and if they do not they can be

subject to prosecution. We have seen recently a number of charges being laid

against the operators of the Come By Chance oil refinery, arising out of the

deaths of two Newfoundlanders in that enterprise. These prosecutions - and we

cannot obviously prejudge whether they will successful or not; that remains to

be seen. That is for a judge to determine on the facts put before the courts.

The fact that the company operating the oil refinery at Come By Chance has to

respond to charges that it failed to comply with occupational health and safety

requirements has a salutary effect on their behavior in the future. It will make

them re-double their efforts to ensure that all aspects of occupational health

and safety are followed.

What record is there if some inspector from the ministry of labour writes a

letter suggesting that someone improves their standards after an accident or

after an injury, or after something drastic has happened? What is the effect of

that? Where is the record of that? Where is the public response to avoidance and

failure to comply with health and safety regulations designed to protect the

people if there is no consequence to a company other than a letter from the

minister or a letter from someone in a regulatory agency saying: You should

improve your standards.

The fact is that under our legislation here in this Province, people are

required to comply because if they fail to comply they are guilty of an offence.

That is the way we control behavior. We have a criminal law system that seeks to

control by example, by consequences, and by, I guess, a form of retribution and

rehabilitation of offenders to reform the behavior of individuals and seek that

they conform to the law of the land in a criminal nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Humber East may find it boring to talk about

topics of occupational health and safety in this Province. I say to him and

other members opposite, this is very important legislation, and the fact that we

are in a position and we are seeking to pass legislation today to provide for,

on conviction, a fine of up to $250,000 or a term of imprisonment of up to

twelve months for someone violating an offence, and for a corporation to have a

fine of up to $250,000 with $25,000 per day for each day during which the

offence continues, that provides some deterrent to the violation of occupational

health and safety laws and regulations.

That is how important we think it is in this Province, in the Legislature, if

we are going to pass this legislation in principle today, and in detail in the

days to come. If we are going to pass this legislation, we have to ask ourselves

the question: Why is this regime that is available to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador working in the fishery, working in the mines, working in the

factories, working in the offices even, of this Province, but not available to

people working in our offshore, suffering the dangers associated with the

conduct of drilling, suffering the dangers associated with a production

platform, with volatile gases subject to fire, subject to explosion, subject to

any number of activities that could cause a serious injury and death to one

person or indeed to many persons at one time?

We have already had a number of incidents on the Hibernia platform alone

which required a concern about and evacuation of employees; potential explosions

and fires which could have caused further explosions and caused serious injury

and death.

We are in an environment where occupational health and safety is of the

utmost importance. I know the operators of the Hibernia platform, HMDC, will say

the same thing, that they too believe that safety in the offshore is a primary

concern for them and their company.

That is not the point. The point is that the regime that operates onshore,

with IOC in Labrador City, with North Atlantic Petroleum at Come By Chance, with

businesses in St. John's, with Abitibi in Grand Falls and Stephenville, with

heavy industry, light industry, construction and every other form of enterprise

in this Province, makes these subject to the penalties for contravention of the

act or regulations of occupational health and safety, subject to conviction and

fine and imprisonment for violating them. Why does that same regime not obtain

in the offshore of this Province? We had not heard the answer to that question.

I'm going to continue to ask that question until we do have the same

protection for our offshore oil and gas workers as we have for people in the

Province working in every other industry. They come neither under the Canada

Labour Code occupational health and safety rules nor under the Newfoundland and

Labrador Occupational Health and Safety Act, and that is wrong. They are an

industry like any other. They may have differences from other industries in some

respects, but like any other industry they ought to be subject to the

requirement of following occupational health and safety regulations and

legislation, or be subject to the penalties of law as are set out in this act.

We must recognize that is why we have these inquires, such as the Westray

inquiry. That is why we had the Ocean Ranger inquiry. We have these

inquiries in order to determine what it is we are doing wrong that we could

right, and what it is we are doing that we could improve to make possible

occupation health and safety regimes that are going to better protect workers.

When we read, specifically from Mr. Justice Richard in Nova Scotia at the

Westray Inquiry, that there is a conflict of interest between the same entity

regulating the industry and responsible for the safety of mines, in the case of

Westray, and the ministry of natural resources in Nova Scotia -

MR. TULK: Jack, (inaudible) leadership (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, that would be why we have inquiries. Why we have

inquiries is so hopefully we will learn something from them. When Justice

Richard in Nova Scotia in the Westray Inquiry says it is a conflict of interest,

he said the concerns that were raised ought to be fixed, and that they played a

contributing role in the Westray disaster that cost twenty-six lives, including

the life of a young Newfoundlander.

The lack of rules and regulations in the Nova Scotia offshore, which

contributed to the death of another young Newfoundlander, Shawn Hatcher of

Burgeo, ought not to be in vain. If, as a result of the issues being raised

surrounding these instances, that it can result in the change in our offshore

oil safety regime to the extent that is required, then they will not have died

in vain.

So I ask hon. members opposite, the minister in particular, and his

government to take up this issue, to seek to change the offshore oil regime in

this Province so that we do have enforceable occupational health and safety

regime rules and regulations which can be enforced, just as we can enforce these

rules and regulations onshore and offshore in other industries other than oil

and gas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Occupational

Health And Safety Act. We will have more debate as it goes through the next

procedure, but I just want to say a few words now because occupational health

and safety is one of most important pieces of legislation in this Province.

The right to refuse unsafe work in any workplace is really critical to the

Occupational Health And Safety Act. It is one piece of legislation that I've

certainly had some experience in during the last number of years. I can tell

this House that the right to refuse unsafe or unhealthy work came directly out

of a collective agreement, word for word pretty well, between the Iron Ore

Company of Canada and the Steel Workers' Union following three fatalities in

nine days, and following a two week wildcat st rike in

which we had members go to jail, we had members fired, all in the name of safety

and having a right to a safe work environment.

There are some things in this bill that I find are going to require a lot of

explaining. I would like for the minister to be able to explain to the House

section 26.1 in particular, where an officer will need a warrant to enter a

workplace upon a happening there that should not be occurring. I think it is

also going to be interesting to see the way that the proposed mining regulations

will form part of the occupational health and safety in administration and see

how that is planned to take place.

I can say that the rights of workers in this Province up until the act was

proclaimed - which I think was June1, 1979 - were very much compromised by

having to work in unsafe and unhealthy workplaces, and it is only since then it

has been different. You could have the best legislation for occupational health

and safety in the world. It does not have any real teeth to it unless we have

the enforcement part as well. The number of inspectors that are in this Province

certainly needs to be increased to do justice to the number of work sites that

are around this Province.

There was a time when workers being killed was a part of being employed. That

is no longer satisfactory today, and that is why when pieces of legislation like

the amendments to the Occupational Health And Safety Act come to this House, it

is worth taking the time to read through it. Because everybody who is a member

sitting in this House, while we are not exposed at most times to unhealthy or

dangerous situations, we all have friends, relatives, children and parents who

do work in workplaces around this Province. Having strong legislation, having

strong enforcement, can make the difference of them living or dying.

We talk about accidents. The other thing that is important are industrial

diseases that people have to be protected from and have the right to know about,

and have the right to refuse to work around unless they are guarded properly.

I must say, in all fairness, that our Occupational Health And Safety Act, in

comparison to other acts around this country, probably stands pretty close to

affording the best protection to workers in any jurisdiction. Like I say, that

did come at a price that workers paid many times with their lives. We do not

have to take a back seat to most jurisdictions in the legislation that we have

protecting workers in this Province. Again, it is the enforcement of the

legislation that is critical to making sure that the laws we have passed are

actually being enforced in the various work sites.

I think that I will conclude my remarks on that, but as it goes through

Committee and the articles by articles being debated, then we certainly will

have more to say. Because there are some - without getting into it now -

disturbing amendments being proposed in this act that certainly will be worthy

of debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to commend the people who have spoken. I just want, for the record,

in response to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to say that my colleague

the Minister of Mines and Energy this week in a news release reiterated again to

the people of this Province that the C-NOPB does have the power, on behalf of

the federal government, the Department of Environment and Labour and the

Department of Mines and Energy, to enforce the provincial and the federal

regulations in the offshore. I'm sure we wil l talk more

about it in clause-by-clause analysis.

At this time I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act,

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill 33)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I

think we should, first of all, correct the Order Paper. It reads:

An Act To

Amend

An Act To Amend, in Order 20, Bill 44, the Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act.

I move second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 44)

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago there was a pilot project that was initiated in the bill here

to the House that brought stability between the fishing industry and the

harvesters in this Province. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture played an

integral

part in that particular piece of legislation as well. What we are

asking for in this particular piece of legislation is to extend the deadline

from December 31, 1999 and substitute it with June 30, 2000.

We have had consultation with the stakeholders. Mr. Noseworthy did a report

on the two year pilot project for us. We have been talking with the people in

the industry and in the unions and they concur with that. Hopefully between now

and then we can work together with the stakeholders to put a permanent piece of

legislation in place. It is very straightforward and I think that at the end of

the day it will continue stability within the fishing industry in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Yes, we are only going to speak a moment. We understand

that the industry is in favour of this and there is nobody opposed to extending

it, from what I understand. Minister, I do not see any reason to belabor this

bill. I see nothing wrong with it. If industry is in favour of it and there is

nobody out there in the general public or within the industry opposed to it, we

should not belabor debating the bill in the House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very important piece of labour legislation. I do not intend to

belabor the point, but I do wish to say a few words on this very important

issue. It is an important issue because we are talking about a unique piece of

legislation in the country, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

There are a number of other provinces whose fishing communities - particularly

the fishers and fish harvesters - would be delighted to have the kind of

collective bargaining regime that we have here in the

Province and have had elements of since 1971. It is due to the work of the

Fishermen's Union and the leadership in our fishing communities around this

Province who have stuck together through thick and thin over the last number of

years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: I am just a little concerned that the Member for Bonavista

South will be after the minister again on the very same issue. So I will stay

away from that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista North.

MR. HARRIS: Bonavista North, sorry.

The importan