November

26, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 40

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this honourable House have

probably read a news story in today's Evening Telegram , and indeed an

earlier reference was made to it in some national papers yesterday, which

reports that Spain, "wants Canada to do away with legislation that enabled

Canadian patrol vessels to seize foreign vessels suspected of over-fishing."

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the news story is accurate and

indeed this is the position of Spain as part of its conditional approval of a

Canada-EU framework agreement. Spain, in fact, wants Canada to agree never again

to use, specifically, Bill C-29 to protect straddling stocks outside 200 miles.

The question for members in this House is: Why does Spain

want this? I believe the answer is very clear. Spain wants to lift the threat

that Canada will once again act unilaterally outside 200 miles to ensure good

conservation practices. While that threat remains, as it does today, there is a

deterrent against Spain, or for that matter, any other nation, returning to the

destructive pattern of overfishing that its vessels were guilty of from 1985 to

1995, over a ten-year period.

That pattern of destruction was ended by a series of steps

taken by the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrtien. The first step was for

the Prime Minister to indicate shortly after his government's election in the

Fall of 1993 that unilateral action would be taken, if necessary, to end foreign

overfishing.

This declaration by the Prime Minister was followed in May of

1994 with legislation, Bill C-29, that gave domestic authority for Canadian

vessels to take enforcement action outside of 200 miles, where necessary, to

protect straddling stocks. Mr. Speaker, that legislation was not a partisan

matter in this country. Indeed, it was approved unanimously by all parties in

the House of Commons and approved unanimously by the Canadian Senate. In fact,

the approval in both Chambers was given in a record two days. Shortly

thereafter, the Federal Government approved regulations against flag of

convenience vessels fishing for straddling stocks outside 200 miles. Within a

matter of a few days, the flag of convenience vessels, fifteen at the time, that

had been pillaging stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks had left the

area. Because of Bill C-29, these flag of convenience vessels which had been

fishing for years, have never returned.

C-29 to take unilateral action against Spanish vessels overfishing for turbot

outside 200 miles in March 1995. That led to a Canada-EU Fisheries Agreement

that in September of 1995 was adopted by all members of the Northwest Atlantic

Fisheries Organization. Those measures agreed by Canada and the EU and then

adopted by NAFO include 100 per cent observer coverage on every vessel beyond

the 200-mile limit. This is extremely important to ensure that all countries

fishing for straddling stocks do so in accordance with NAFO-designed and

approved conservation controls.

These controls are for measures against the use of small mesh

gear, controls against harvesting juvenile fish, controls against misreporting

of catches. Those controls continue to be enforced through 100 per cent observer

coverage and other measures agreed to by Canada and the EU in April of 1995.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise today because it is clear that these

measures are working and it is equally clear why Spain wants the withdrawal of

Bill C-29. In the year before the turbot dispute, EU vessels were cited for

fifty-eight major infractions of NAFO conservation rules. Many more perhaps went

undetected because there were no observers at that stage aboard EU vessels. In

the year after the turbot dispute, there was only one major citation -

fifty-eight in the year before, at a time when there was no observer coverage.

In the year after the new NAFO Agreement with 100 per cent observer coverage, so

that more incidents could be cited if in fact they were occurring, there was

only one major infraction. Mr. Speaker, fewer than half the number of Spanish

vessels have come to fish this year, in 1996, than fished in the same region in

But this whole matter of compliance with the NAFO rules is

not just a matter of goodwill. It is a matter of increased awareness on the part

of all countries, including the E.U., that we can no longer fish

indiscriminately the living species of the ocean beyond the 200-mile limit, but

the bottom line is the system works, the new pattern of compliance is in place,

because an effective deterrent, Bill C-29, remains in place. The bottom line is

that nations don't pillage and destroy the living resources of the ocean because

nations of the world remain convinced that if required again, Canada will again

take the action to go beyond 200 miles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I remain confident, and I

believe I speak for all members of this House, irrespective of party, that while

Spain may want Canada to abandon Bill C-29, I am convinced that the Government

of Canada, and indeed the leaders of all of the political parties of Canada,

will never agree to abandon Bill C-29. The Prime Minister and his government

have made a strong commitment to do what is necessary to protect straddling

stocks. They backed up that commitment in the past with actions, and I am

convinced they will do so again if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot allow its relationship with the

European Union to be dictated on the basis of a particular grievance by one

country, Spain, that wants Canada to abandon legislation, passed by a sovereign

House of Commons, necessary to protect our straddling stocks. One of the reasons

we in this Province suffer as we do today economically is because of the

destruction of straddling stocks that occurred in the past. Never again must the

fundamental interest of Atlantic Canada, or the fundamental interest of

Newfoundland and Labrador, be traded off for a diplomatic nicety. Bill C-29 must

remain. We say it must be so, and we expect the people of Canada, as they have

vigilant, to ensure that law stays on the books, and if necessary implemented in

the defence of our straddling stocks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our Opposition supports any measures that are going to get

control over our straddling stocks to ensure that it is harvested in a manner

that is sufficient to sustain ability of that stock, and we agree with whatever

measures that takes. We agree with controls on mesh size, against harvesting

juvenile fish, and we agree with observers. Let us not be mistaken; when we put

observers on domestic boats here the number of infractions went down

drastically, and they also did on foreign boats. It is the observer presence on

those boats that has reduced the amount of illegal fishing that is taking place

outside and inside a 200-mile limit here.

Mr. Speaker, our own people have been violators of the very

same regulation as that of foreign boats, but we had control over ours. We got

there before they did on straddling stocks, and now the same thing is happening

there. I certainly support any measures that are going to assist in this regard,

and we must send a message that is not ambiguous. When we enforce a

section of

our law we must not return cargoes, we must not give them back their fish and

their boats, and pick up all the costs for doing so. We must send a message that

is clear and concise to these people, that we are not going to tolerate any of

this, and put an end to foreigners coming in and devastating our stocks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to

inform my hon. colleagues that the provincial government has approved funding to

help establish a Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Safety Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: To this end, Mr. Speaker, the funding of

$300,000 per year for the next three years, plus $50,000 for start-up costs, has

been approved for this initiative.

The new safety association has a mandate to reduce workplace

injuries through the introduction of a Construction Safety Program that has two

components: first, the safety training of workers in the industry, and second,

Mr. Speaker, the provision of a Certificate of Recognition for construction

companies.

Under the program, only certified companies will be able to

bid on government-funded projects in this Province. Mr. Speaker, government will

introduce a policy effective January 1, 1998, that all firms bidding on

government-funded construction projects in excess of $100,000 will be required

to have a Certificate of Recognition. Similarly, effective January 1, 1999, all

firms bidding on any government contracts will be required to have a Certificate

of Recognition.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important step in standardizing the

bidding practices in the Atlantic Region. Currently, Nova Scotia has such a

program in place while PEI and New Brunswick have it under consideration. I

commend the construction industry, and also the workers of the Province in the

construction industry, for taking the initiative, on their own, to reduce the

number and seriousness of injuries that impact on the workers in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the value of this safety program is

that it will contribute to a reduction in workplace accidents throughout

construction sites in this Province, and we do need to see that happen, and we

want to see a reduction in the cost of workplace injury claims, and in the

process, produce a better trained workforce in the Province, who are much more

aware of occupational health and safety at the sites.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today as somebody whose former profession was with

respect to occupational health and safety, educational upgrading and specific

training programs in the construction industry, and I commend the initiative by

the minister today.

For the past number of years, many people, some employers,

but on the other side, many training and labour management groups, have been

advocating such an approach, because they believe, fundamentally, that if we are

going to be reducing workplace accidents, then the money that government should

be putting in should be upfront in initiatives like this.

There are some questions that need to be answered, and I

guess they will be flushed out and fleshed out over time. What will be the make

up of the new board that he talks about? Will it be a labour management make up?

What criteria? Will they be responsible solely and ultimately for determining

the criteria by which the recognition will be given to certain companies, or

will it ultimately be up to the minister.

On the whole, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House,

support the initiative. We believe it is money well spent and will produce

tremendous gains for the Province, and in effect, tremendous gains for the

people and the industry they represent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. I have

provided information to the minister today to verify statements I made in the

House yesterday about the impact of faulty equipment at the Burin Hospital on

patient care.

Will the minister confirm that since November 7, the day when

all surgeries were cancelled at the Burin Hospital, three outside technicians

have been working there every day to repair equipment, and that the work is

still ongoing.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do acknowledge receipt, about fifteen minutes before I came

to the House, of a letter from the hon. member, and I appreciate his taking me

up on the request to provide me with whatever information he might think is

appropriate, and that I might be able to follow up on. The information he has

provided me with indicates three specific names and instances, and I will

undertake to follow up on these.

The hon. member says, in his correspondence to me today: If

you would simply acknowledge the concerns of the individuals I have provided to

you, as well as listen to the medical staff at these facilities, this issue

would be resolved.' I am glad to tell the hon. member that I do acknowledge the

concerns, the receipt of them. I will do diligence to what he has put forward.

And to the second part of his solution, in terms of listening to the medical

staff, as he is aware, a process was started last Thursday to address all issues

that the medical staff brought forward. The medical staff are fully

participating in the discussion with the committee, they have representation on

the committee and to that part of it, their concerns will be addressed this

week, no later than the end of this week, when the board anticipates receipt of

the report of the review committee, and undoubtedly, I will be concurrently in

receipt of the same. So his solution, as he puts forward, is absolutely in

progress and I do acknowledge the concerns that he has given me. We will follow

up.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the minister, I did mention several,

three names and telephone numbers are provided. Other people had wished to

remain anonymous or I could not get in contact with. There are many instances,

Minister, and more besides.

I would like to inform the minister, too, that he did not

answer my question with reference to maintenance ongoing. I would inform the

minister that the company Biotron - in case the minister would like to know what

company is servicing this equipment - is currently in the process of doing that.

I am sure the minister has avenues to access that information.

Now, I have been given verbal confirmation, and I am asking

the minister to acknowledge, as well, that medical staff at the Burin hospital

made a commitment to his department that they would not make statements in

public about the concern at the hospital - concerns that I have raised - until a

review is complete and the report is released on Thursday. Now, will the

minister confirm, as well, that staff at the hospital are intimidated for fear

of reprisals if the administrator comes back?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that the

medical staff, be it one doctor or several doctors or any specific group of

doctors, made any such commitment to anybody with respect to the issues that

they raised. What the doctors did agree to, in a fair and reasonable fashion,

was to participate in a review of the issues that they brought forward through a

committee. They are doing that.

The only calls, quite honestly and quite factually, Mr.

Speaker, that my office has received from the doctors at the peninsula, for the

most part, are a couple of calls we got from a couple of doctors expressing

grave concern as to the level of rhetoric that is being verbalized in this

Chamber and outside by people who are elected and are expected to operate in a

responsible fashion. That type of concern has come to me from some of the

medical staff. The issues that have been raised will be dealt with. The

information I have - as of fifteen or twenty minutes ago - is that there may be

250 pieces of equipment in the board's jurisdiction. We know, the board knows,

of one piece of equipment that failed on one specific time. The other 249 pieces

of equipment, as far as I know today, are functioning and were functioning. If

there is something different to be expounded or clarified as a result of the

review process, let the hon. member do the decent thing, in the interest of the

people that we serve on the Burin Peninsula, let him wait until the review is

done on Thursday or Friday of this week. And let me assure him that this House

will be amongst the first to know the results of that review, as would be

appropriate in any event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you follow up, I say to the minister, on the names and

telephone numbers of those patients who could not have a medical service

provided because equipment was not working, as told to them by the physicians

and hospital personnel, you will find the true answers, I say to the minister,

it is in the information I gave you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Have you made one call to confirm it

yourself, personally? I ask him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister if he

will follow up on the information I provided to him today and I just referenced,

and find out why there was a serious failure in the system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only repeat what I said in the answer to the first

question, yes, I will follow up. Yes, I will undertake to do due diligence to

the concerns that you have brought forward. If there is one concern that comes

to me it is no less important than 100 concerns. Every individual incidence that

is alleged or in fact confirmed of inappropriate or under-service, as a result

of anything that happens in our health care system, is of utmost concern and

utmost priority to me, to this government. We will continue to take a position

of responsibility in dealing with these questions and issues in a responsible

fashion.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final supplementary. I say to the minister, if your

follow-up is not to your satisfaction, I extend an invitation to you and ask

will you come with me down to the Burin Peninsula, and I will let you speak with

these people personally who have been the subject of a lack of medical attention

because of non-functioning equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Province is indeed

fortunate to have a Minister of Health who takes more seriously the

responsibility to try to administer the health care budget of this Province in a

manner that is in the best interest of the people of the Province than we have a

Leader of the Opposition. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, when

questions are put that are serious, that raise serious concerns and serious

issues, members on this side, including the Minister of Health, will always

respond in a manner that is appropriate to the seriousness of the question that

is raised.

But I say to the Leader of the Opposition, it doesn't serve

the public of this Province, having raised the issue, having received an

absolute assurance that the matter is going to be thoroughly investigated,

thoroughly dealt with within days, for the Leader of the Opposition then to

pursue questions in a manner that can have no effect whatsoever other than to

needlessly alarm the people in the area receiving health care in this region. I

would say to the Leader of the Opposition, I assure him, and I ask him to take

the word of the minister and my word, that this matter will be thoroughly looked

into. But I ask him to stop this game of trying to score political points by

needlessly concerning people on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. Will the minister today table an analysis which shows the

relative cost of contracting out the air ambulance service to the private sector

compared with running the service in-house?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been decided on

and dealt with and is in the process of being put into the format where we will

have tender specifications designed which will go out to the public for a call

to the private sector to provide to government their assessment of how they can

deliver this particular service on government's behalf.

Through the course of developing the tender specifications,

as a government we will be consulting with the private sector to determine and

to look at all of the requirements that we need to build into the

specifications. We will be consulting with all of the hospital boards and the

Department of Health to determine those tender specifications. Through this

process we will receive detailed proposals which will identify all of the cost

analysis which will be involved. When those are received we will then analyze

completely the cost benefit of supplying this particular service through a

private sector involvement.

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Won't the minister confirm that the government has in its

possession information which indicates it is preferable not to privatize the air

ambulance service? I have Cabinet documents which clearly show that it is more

expensive to privatize. Won't she now confirm that she herself, just like her

predecessors, two previous ministers, has advised against the very course of

action she is now taking?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I can only presume that the

Cabinet documents the hon. member refers to are the same Cabinet documents that

were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in a television interview and

in contact with the media approximately three weeks ago, and at that time it was

confirmed by me and by the media that in fact they were not Cabinet documents,

that it was a draft paper that was the subject of the conversation. In fact it

was also noted at that time that that same paper, which again I reiterate is not

a Cabinet document, is simply a draft paper that was prepared well in advance of

any Cabinet submission on this, was released through The Evening Telegram

approximately two months ago.

So what I am saying in response to this is that there is not

a Cabinet document as I understand it, unless this is something different now

that the member is referring to, but the information that I have, that was being

referred to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: The only information that I can assume the

member is referring to here is the same information that was referred to in

The Evening Telegram two months ago, and on the television stations

approximately a month ago. It was a draft paper at that time; it is still a

draft paper. It refers to very dated information, referring back to studies that

were done in 1988. As I said then and I will repeat now: Circumstances have

changed substantially in the intervening time period, which cause us to go to

the move that we are now doing.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister really has her heart set on contracting out

this service, then will she at least write in the tender specification that a

Medivac air ambulance must be based in St. Anthony, adjacent to the areas on the

Northern Peninsula and in Southern Labrador which depend so much on the air

ambulance service, and which accounts for 55 per cent of the flights? Will she

recognize that by pursuing her own dream of having this service based in St.

John's, in the face of sound advice contrary to what she has been giving us, she

is in fact playing with the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing

a clear statement from the Opposition on their position on privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: We are hearing very conflicting messages when

we are talking about taking the position that this government should be looking

at privatizing certain services where it is the appropriate thing to do, and yet

on the other hand indicating that we should be dictating, in going to that

privatization, how that service should be delivered.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the air ambulance contract and the

specifications that we will design, and the tender that we will call for, we

will include in the specifications everything that is required in order to

ensure that we obtain the highest level of service at the most cost-efficient

price that this government can possibly receive from the private sector.

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

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

questions today are for the Premier.

Of course, the hot topic of the day in Newfoundland and

Labrador continues to be Voisey's Bay, and with all due respect to the Premier

and his Cabinet, of course, the questions over and over come forward. We have

tried in this House to ask some questions. We have asked the Premier, in the

media. There have been public meetings on Voisey's Bay, and the truth is that

there is not very much known about this whole project.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Premier again, our

record as politicians, on both sides of the House - of course, that famous clip

of Premier Smallwood standing with the white hat on, at Churchill Falls -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the

questions have not been answered; so we will start with a few more questions

today, and I ask the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will start to ask the

questions to the Premier again today, and we will have a long list of questions

for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, they seem to be a little

nervous about some questions, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, the first question to the Premier: Can the

Premier tell us today that the announcement on the smelter refinery is within

days? Can the Premier tell us today in the House that he knows, right now,

today, where the smelter refinery will go? And how long has he known where the

smelter refinery will go?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago we had the

Leader of the Opposition doing everything but chasing ambulances to try and

score some political points, and now we have another of his colleagues standing

up, and it is so transparent that everybody in the Province can see what he is

doing. He is trying to see whether there is any political mileage to be gained

in trying to divide one part of the Province against another part of the

Province. It is called the politics of pride, prejudice, and division, and we on

this side will have no part of it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: I rest my case, Mr. Speaker. The first

question, five minutes again with the Premier and still no answer on a simple,

straightforward question: Do you know where the smelter refinery is going, and

how long have you known? I asked the same question. So I will ask question

number two and we will see if you will skate around this question. Forget the

road show that he has had in this House for the last month or so.

Sixty per cent of Voisey's Bay nickel is sold to Asian

countries, Mr. Speaker. We always talk about the smelter refinery. Will the

Premier commit that every ounce of nickel that comes out of Voisey's Bay will be

refined at the refinery in this Province? That is a simple enough question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr.Speaker, to quote the former Member for

St. John's West, the hon. John Crosbie: That is the greatest performance I have

seen since King Kong climbed the Empire State Building.

Once again, the member wants to have it both ways. Here is

the same member who stood up in the House of Assembly a few weeks ago and

launched a blistering attack on the EDGE program. It was a shocking program, a

spendthrift program, a giveaway, but he had forgotten that he had written a

letter to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology asking for EDGE status

for a mine in his own riding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member of the following:

the Voisey's Bay development, as we said was the case during the last election

campaign, will only occur when there is maximum and full benefits for the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that means the construction of a smelter

refinery complex within the Province. And when it is constructed, just so the

member is not confused, it will be the biggest nickel smelter refinery complex

built anywhere in the world. Even the member will be able to find it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Those were two straight questions, Mr.

Speaker, and zero answers.

The third question, straight to the question - copper, a

magnificent amount of copper, 185 million pounds annually in Voisey's Bay - will

all of the copper, I ask the Premier, be refined in this Province? Can the

Premier answer at least one of three questions today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, everything that can be

viably, commercially, and economically smelted, refined, and processed in the

Province will be done in the Province, just like the mines on the Baie Verte

Peninsula, the gold mine which now has a milling operation because the

government provided for an EDGE grant to make that possible. Everything we can

do - a seal plant which was just given an EDGE status on the Baie Verte

Peninsula - everything we can do to create jobs, to keep jobs, to keep revenue,

we will do; but I will tell you what we will not do. We will not do what the

Leader of the Opposition asked us to do on Monday, which is to give a ten year

tax-free holiday to Inco. We say that Inco has to pay its full share, its full

way, and pay good revenues to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a number of employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard in

our galleries today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: My question is for the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology.

The workers of the Newfoundland Dockyard are tired of

politics and rhetoric, so this question is not designed to be a political

question.

I ask the minister, based on rumours that we received

yesterday that Irving - and I indicated this to the minister in a previous

telephone conversation - is now lobbying Ottawa, using a two- or three-year-old

document, explaining that there are too many shipyards in the Atlantic region,

to make sure that the Newfoundland Dockyard does not open. I ask the minister,

is he going to do everything in his power, and the provincial government do

everything in its power, to make sure that Ottawa does not close this viable

industry?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of a document

circulating in Ottawa by the Irvings. Does the hon. member have that evidence?

If he does, can he lay it on the Table and we will deal with it. But I certainly

have no evidence that there is a conspiracy by Irving to keep investors out of

this Province.

I know of two very substantial proposals that have been laid

proposals; they are sound companies. I, in fact, met with one of the companies

in its headquarters in Montevideo just last week. I can tell you it has

substantial interest. The particular company that I met with has seven

headquarters around the world. It trades on two international stock exchanges.

It has substantial revenues flowing through its corporation, and it is very

excited about the St. John's Dockyard. The other company is a Newfoundland

company. It has put a proposal forward as well.

The ball clearly is in the court of Marine Atlantic, and it

has just struck a committee - two from Transport Canada, two from Marine

Atlantic - to assess both proposals. That assessment is happening today and

tomorrow, and yesterday they invited the Province to sit in, in an observer

status, and we have a senior economist at the table this morning. But we don't

have any knowledge of somebody conspiring to keep investors away from the

Province. If the hon. member has evidence he should give it to me immediately.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology also on the Dockyard. The reality is

that the workers of the Dockyard have been waiting for two years for some word

on the Newfoundland Dockyard and its future. Today I spoke to management at the

Newfoundland Dockyard an hour before I came to this House, I spoke with

officials at Marine Atlantic about an hour before I came to this House, and I

have spoken with officials in the Department of Transport nationally who have

told me, I say to the minister, that Irvings are indeed lobbying strongly to

ensure that the Newfoundland Dockyard does not open its doors any more because

it would impact upon their businesses in the rest of Atlantic Canada. The

question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Totally irresponsible?

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the official; name them here and

now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question, I say, to the minister, is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question I have for the minister is:

You have indicated that you have a senior official who is at the meetings today.

Does the contract look good for the Dockyard? Does it look like its doors will

remain open? What commitment can the Province give to the people who work at the

Newfoundland Dockyard that a future will be there for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions

there. I think the first one, the hon. member says a senior official from

Transport Canada has told him -

MR. E. BYRNE: Officials from Transport Canada

(inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Officials from Transport Canada -

MR. E. BYRNE: Officials (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Just name one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, all of us have a responsibility,

as members, to act in a responsible manner in this Assembly. We cannot hide

under the cloak of immunity and say anything that we want, or lash out at

people.

MR. E. BYRNE: I agree with you.

MR. FUREY: Now, the hon. member has said that officials

from Transport Canada, people who work for the country, have said to him that

Irvings are lobbying and conspiring to keep investors away from this... You owe

it to the people of the Province to name that official.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I take quite seriously anything

the hon. member says because I know that he acts in good faith. He asks

responsible questions. He has been my critic for a number of years and has done

so responsibly. But to say that somebody is conspiring to keep investors away -

I can tell you with certainty, I can tell you and the House, the unions, and

management and the people of the Province with certainty that the company that I

met with - and I have not met with both companies, I was not invited by both

companies, I was invited by one company. They are excited about this place. They

see ship-building, a ship repair, they see offshore, they see Newfoundland as

the new North Sea, the place of the future! They want to come here! They want to

invest here! They want to put hundreds of people back to work in this Province!

That is what this company wants to do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) it is important today and it

needs the answers today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the answers privately, I will

tell you privately, if you can guarantee me that you will hold (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to conclude by

saying, we have all worked very hard. We have worked in concert with the unions

and with management. I have sought out investors personally. We have spent

considerable time, energy and money chasing investment, to bring it into this

Province. I do not want to chase it away by innuendo, smear tactics and causing

some kind of conspiracy. There are two substantial proposals on the table and I

say to the hon. member, because I know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to take his place.

MR. FUREY: I know, Mr. Speaker, he is earnest and he

wants a responsible answer. There are two serious proposals on the table. They

are being reviewed by senior executive of Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic,

a committee of four, today and tomorrow. Where that will lead, they will select

one. If it leads - it may well lead to another delay where they may have to seek

clarification of proposals and that is understandable but let us all be positive

and let us understand that there are two real investors who want to come in

here. They see this place as a good place to do business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to take his place.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Government

Services and Lands. Mr. Minister, in June you made promises you knew you could

not keep regarding the Crown land pricing policy. You strung people along in

June, July, August and September. The people were expecting changes to the

policy. The deadline for application was October 31, yet, you did not make an

announcement until October 10 that there would be no changes. Mr. Minister, was

this simply a move to give the public no time to organize? Will the minister now

admit that this was simply a tax grab and that you could not keep your promises

because the money was needed to balance the budget?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member,

the Crown lands pricing policy that we implemented in May - for the cottage lots

there were 4,055 cottage lots subject to this deadline of October 31. We have

received 3,850 applications, which is about 90 per cent, 95 per cent response

rate (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

The minister did not answer the question, he only confirmed

what I had stated earlier.

Mr. Minister, you stated that there would be revenues of

approximately $6.2 million. With the number of applications received by October

31, the revenues would be closer to $15 million. Based on your press release of

November 14 - which you just referred to, by the way - will the minister now

confirm revenues of closer to $15 million? Why did you tell the people of the

Province that it would be a $6.2 million figure when you knew, based on the

number of applications that you would receive, based on the number of cottage

leases, commercial leases and residential leases in the Province, that you knew

upfront there would be closer to $15 million to $20 million, and you told the

people $6.2 million? Why did you mislead the people of the Province?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question

again, I remind the hon. member that when we put the program out we anticipated

a response rate of about 40 per cent and we based our figures on that amount but

we were able to encourage people to take

part in the program because obviously

they saw it as a good program and a good way to get their land straightened up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Let me further suggest that not only did we

have a large take in the cottage leases, we also had a 35 per cent response rate

for residential which really was not involved in the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: We also had a 39 per cent response rate in

the commercial properties, and we had felt we would only get about 10 to 15 per

cent. I think that is a pretty good program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the House today the

present Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Commons, who is sitting in the

Speaker's gallery, Mr. Gus Cloutier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Judgement

Enforcements."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

tomorrow ask leave to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the

rightful owners of the Churchill Falls power resource; and

WHEREAS on average between 1976 and 1995 Hydro Quebec

received 96 per cent of the benefits while Newfoundland and Labrador only

received 4 per cent of the benefits, this has provided a daily revenue flow of

$1.7 million to Hydro Quebec while this Province receives a mere $61,000 per

day; and

WHEREAS over the course of the agreement Hydro Quebec will

gain fifty-six billions of dollars while CF(L)CO will face a cash short-fall of

$340 million; and

WHEREAS the people of this Province deserve a full and fair

share of the wealth of our resources;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this honourable House fully

endorse and support the government and its efforts to change this unconscionable

contract to maximize the financial benefits accruing from this Labrador resource

in the Labrador region of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present to the House of Assembly a petition signed

by the employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard. I will read the prayer of the

petition:

We, the employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard, wish to

petition the House of Assembly, to voice our concerns over the closure and the

lack of action on the closure of the Newfoundland Dockyard.

We are asking the Provincial Government to take an active

stand with the Federal Government and Marine Atlantic to re-open this vital

industry supplying hundreds of needed jobs to the Newfoundland economy.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present this

petition to the House of Assembly today but, on the other hand, it is with great

dismay that I see the Newfoundland Dockyard is still closed, that it has not

been re-opened and that, to date, there are no signs of any constructive

workings to re-open the dockyard, other than the fact that we have a Greek

company with interest and there is a Newfoundland company with interest. This is

a vital industry to Newfoundland and Labrador, supplying at times, up to 800

jobs as well as the spin-off business that it provides to several companies in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is a very, very, vital industry to Newfoundland and

Labrador as well, because of the out-migration of people from the Province. We

cannot afford to lose any more people, we cannot afford to lose any more

employment, we cannot afford to lose any more industry in this Province. So, Mr.

Speaker, as I have mentioned, it gives me great pleasure to present this

petition, and it is with anticipation that the Provincial Government will be

very, very aggressive in their fight against Ottawa and the closure of the

Newfoundland Dockyard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of

the petition that has just been tabled by the member opposite, and tell him that

I, and many members on this side of the House, indeed in particular, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have, for some time, a great deal of

time, been working on this problem. I think that many of the members of the

dockyard in St. John's know, going back more than a year ago, that I have had a

personal involvement, as had the Minister of Industry, back when I was in

another jurisdiction in the House of Commons at that time and as Newfoundland's

representative in the federal Cabinet, in ensuring a process was established to

look at the possibility of an employee takeover, in the first instance, but also

the time to develop alternate investment opportunities for the dockyard.

So, I want to assure the hon. member, and through the member

and through this House, I want to assure all of the employees, their families

and members of the community here in St. John's who support this dockyard, who

understand it is a natural for this city, that the government will do everything

in its power that it can to find new investment and to see that the dockyard is

reopened.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there have been comments lately, some

tongue-in-cheek, about the travel done, on all of our behalf, by the Minister of

Industry in South America. One of the purposes of that trip was to meet with the

principals of one of the companies interested in assuming ownership of the

dockyard. That was one of the purposes of the trip. I have met with both

representatives of the (inaudible) and representatives of the Newfoundland based

concern as well, both. I can tell the member and I say to the member and say to

the employees of the yard, that I have confidence that everything that can be

done is being done by the minister and by his officials, and I personally have

taken an interest and personally have been involved, when it is appropriate, in

this file.

Let me go further. I have confidence that everything that can

be done within the realm of responsibility assigned to this individual, and by

the Chairman of Marine Atlantic who resides in this Province, who has given good

leadership to Marine Atlantic, and who has given good leadership, good

sensitivity and understanding to the importance of the dockyard, everything that

could be done in that area is being done as well, by Moya Cahill.

I don't take the position, and I don't think any of us should

take the position, that somebody, a particular individual or group of people,

are the enemy here. It is unfortunate that the end of the string has been played

out with Marine Atlantic in terms of this dockyard, and the Federal Government

with respect to this dockyard. The mission now is not to repeat rumours and

repeat innuendo and cause mistrust and to cause suspicion, to cause division or

to cause people to shy away from investing.

Today we heard in the House - and Irving Oil is big enough to

look after itself. Irving is a big, big organization, no question about it, but

when you take the name of an organization that has a very substantial presence

in this Province, a substantial presence in Canada, and a substantial presence

around the world, and in a cavalier fashion call into question the ethics -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me finish, please. - the ethics of

that organization, then what you do is you tell other investors that are

considering coming in that the rules of the game here are, there are no rules,

and you could be maligned at the drop of a hat.

So, I would say, if I may speak to the member who raised the

petition, and I think raised it seriously - he has been doing it since he came

here, no question about that - if we pull together and work together, avoid

assigning blame, avoid trying to score political points, and try to draw in a

new investor, create an environment in which that investor can be successful, we

may be able to see, I am confident we can see, the continuation of the dockyard.

But if this important issue is reduced to either side, this side of the House or

that side, trying to score political points, we may cause the very result that

we say we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude - and I thank you for your

tolerance - by saying, the offshore oil and gas industry, as the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology has just pointed out, as the Minister of Mines

and Energy has worked so hard for, is beginning to take off, self-sustaining,

100 per cent private sector investment. We are strategically well located. The

workers know that. We have tremendous quality of workmanship in this Province,

the best available in the world. They need the tools to do the job and they need

an owner committed to the dockyard, and we are committed to working with them to

acquire one for St. John's, Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to speak today to a petition presented by the Member

for St. John's South. I am glad to see that the Premier does support the

petition, and hopefully the minister will be successful in getting a company to

take over and save, possibly, upwards of 800 jobs.

I will say to the Premier, the people who work at that yard -

and some are in the gallery today - I am sure, do not want to be patronized.

They want action.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the Premier was

basically patronizing the people in the gallery. The spin-off from the dockyard

over the past number of years was a great -

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I am not

attempting to patronize anybody, and I would suggest to the hon. member that to

subscribe that motive is doing exactly the kind of thing that I have said we

should avoid, which is to politicize the issue. Now, it so happens that at the

end of my remarks, and as well at the end of the remarks of the member opposite,

there was some sign of approval and applause in the gallery. Perhaps they want

us to work together and quit playing these games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Yes, no point of

order is correct. Up trying to - talk about someone trying to make political

points!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the people who work at the

dockyard have genuine concerns. It was brought up in the House today about

Irving trying to lobby Ottawa. The Premier of this Province has been associated

with business long enough to know that a natural part of business is to lobby.

As a matter of fact, there are paid lobbyists in Ottawa by big business, so in

actual fact they have a genuine, legitimate concern with respect to that. They

hear what is going on throughout the country and throughout the Province with

respect to the dockyard. Obviously, where there's smoke there's fire.

The people who work at the dockyard have for a number of

years been under a great shadow of doubt with respect to what their future will

be. Their future -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Who has the floor, I wonder, Mr. Speaker?

Does the member over there have the floor or do I?

Anyway, the people who worked at the dockyard and their

families have been under a great shadow of doubt over the past number of years,

in particular, the past two years. Granted, the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology is working hard to keep the dockyard open. All I am saying at this

point in time is that I wish him every success, as I am sure every person who

works at the dockyard, and every family member of the people who work at the

dockyard, wish him success. Again I will say I am glad to see that the Premier

is alongside, but then again, he does take every opportunity to make the

political points that he was accusing me of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 900

people from the Port au Port - Stephenville - Bay St. George area. This petition

relates to a matter which I have raised previously in this House, just some days

ago, related to the use of helicopter and the hunt of big game.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

strongly oppose the indiscriminate use of helicopters as observed to flush, spot

and harass big-game animals during the big-game hunting season.

Whereas this practice causes undue pressure on the animal

population, therefore we believe that hunters who use helicopters as a form of

transportation should not be allowed to hunt until the helicopter has left the

hunting area.

Therefore we the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to enact legislation prohibiting legal hunting within twelve hours

after being dropped off by helicopter in wilderness areas. We also ask that

existing laws that prohibit harassment of big-game animals by helicopters be

strictly enforced.

Mr. Speaker, this action has been initiated at this point in

time by virtue of the fact that there are increasing numbers of complaints from

people who are engaged in the big-game hunt of incidents which they are

witnessing involving the use of helicopters, as the petition reads, to harass

and indeed to hunt big game. As the members of this hon. House would be aware,

up until recent years the use of air transport would have been restricted

primarily to people who are involved in bringing in hunters from outside the

Province, big-game operators, outfitters. Primarily it would have been the use

of fixed wing aircraft, but it is only in recent years that helicopters have

been used. Of course, the difference that helicopters make is that there is no

area of the Province that is not now accessible.

The people who are complaining and who are raising this

concern with government are not objecting to the fact that people, in pursuing

their business, big game outfitters, should not be allowed to use this type of

transport to get their hunters into the country to participate in the hunt. What

they are strenuously objecting to is the use of these helicopters to engage in

the hunt itself.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous complaints. I have heard of

many myself and, as a matter of fact, as I stated in this House some days ago, I

had the opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to witness firsthand certainly

something that was of a questionable nature, a helicopter in the area circling

for some thirty or forty-five minutes. We assumed that there was probably

somebody lost, but then the helicopter went down and within fifteen minutes you

could hear shots. One can only assume that something was happening. This is the

sort of thing that has been played out over and over.

I have also personally spoken to people who have seen

helicopters actually used in flushing moose. Now, if you can visualize that

these are people who are claiming to be hunters, going into the woods, there is

no problem locating them from a helicopter, and they are not safe within the

woods because the helicopter just buzzes the trees and flushes the animals. This

is certainly not a hunt. It is certainly not a good use of a resource, a

resource that belongs to all of the people of this Province. As this petition

states, it is a situation which must be dealt with, it must be ended, and

basically all that needs to happen here, because this cannot happen legally.

People are using helicopters to actually engage in the hunt, and this is an

illegal activity. Basically what the petition is calling for is the enforcement

of the laws that presently exist, and I call upon the minister and ask that he,

through his officials, ensure that this sort of activity ceases to continue in

this Province so that the resource may be protected and continue to be there for

some time to come for the benefit of all the residents of this Province.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise in my place today to present a petition on behalf -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the petition?

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

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

MR. TULK: In answer to the gentleman's petition, I want

to acknowledge the petition that was presented by the Member for Port au Port,

and so ably presented in the fashion in which he did it. He, like the rest of us

in this House, I am sure, and like the people in Port au Port who signed that

petition, are concerned about the use of helicopters by anybody to harass big

game rather than to engage in a fair chase hunt.

I want to tell him that we have recently become aware that

this kind of harassment, this kind of so-called hunting, and this kind of

so-called killing of big game, is becoming an increasing concern to us and an

increasing concern to a number of people. As he said in the petition, nobody is

objecting to outfitters transporting their guests to lodges, or transporting

them in the woods, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to ensure that once

the people have been transported into the outfitting lodge, or whatever, that

they carry on a fair chase.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Port au Port would know, this

was raised at the Liberal annual meeting, I believe by a person in his own

district, again. We want to acknowledge that concern, and we want to acknowledge

his concern, and say to him that I have had discussions with my officials and

asked them to start stepping up enforcement for the rest of this year and

indeed, if it is necessary, to put in place what those people call covert

operations to catch somebody, because it is not even now condoned by the

regulations.

I want to also tell him that I have asked my officials, as of

yesterday, to start reviewing - and that again was more or less in response to a

commitment I made to the Member for Port au Port - any relevant legislation

across the country that might be available, and to see that indeed, come next

year, while we may not agree with the twelve hours, that we will certainly see

that the principle of espousing this position put forward by the people from

Port au Port, if there is any way we can strengthen our regulations or our

legislation for the next hunting season, to see that it is done. I have

committed to bringing those things to Cabinet and hopefully get approval of this

Legislature for the next hunting season.

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

Does the hon. the Member for Bonavista South want to reply?

MR. J. BYRNE: I give leave.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to support the

petition put forward by the Member for Port au Port and responded to by the

Minster of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

I say to the member that this is certainly nothing new. I am

aware that this has been going on, and I have heard complaints of it for years

and years. It is not new, and those people should not be too hard to identify or

catch. We are talking about a helicopter. We are not talking about a trike, and

we are not talking about a boat; we are talking about a helicopter.

I remember on a similar expedition, I did not take

part in

the illegal hunt, or I did not take

part in doing something that was wrong, but

I was in an area that witnessed a similar event that took part down in Labrador

back in the early 1980s. At that particular time it was not hard to identify the

aircraft. It was just a matter - I think somebody identified the plane. It was a

certain colour. Most of the people who own helicopters have their names written

on the sides. It carries their distinctive colours, and it is only a matter of

making a telephone call to see who is there. It is not hard to identify who the

occupants of the particular helicopter are. It is something that should

certainly be looked after, because if we are going to realize the full potential

of our resources here, especially our wildlife resources and the many dollars

and the many hours of enjoyment that brings to our people, then those are the

things that we are going to have to correct. I think some of our initiatives are

working very well, the dial-a-poacher and similar other things that are on line

now.

I think the whole of Newfoundland has taken a different

outlook as it relates to poaching. One time it was an accepted thing; you would

laugh at it, and you would share in the fun of it, but not any more. It is not

an accepted action at all now.

I commend the member, and I commend his constituents, for

bringing such a petition forward. I think that there would be nobody in this

House of Assembly who would not support such an initiative. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to present a petition

on behalf of some of the residents of Bauline. The pray of the petition is as

follows;

We, the undersigned inshore fisherpeople of this Province,

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

late 1980s and early 1990s the decline in fish stocks was a major factor in

determining the income of fisherpeople in Newfoundland. As it stands now, only

skippers qualify as CORE fishers and the rest of us are passed as Level II

professionals, which means nothing.

Therefore we, the undersigned Level II professionals, feel

that we should also qualify as CORE fishers and be treated fairly.

On that petition, Mr. Speaker, there are eight signatures.

This is basically an extension of the petition that was presented here

yesterday, which had probably twenty or thirty names. The people who signed this

petition have a legitimate concern. They are concerned about their futures. When

I say they are concerned about their futures, it basically boils down to - a

fear that was expressed to me was that if in the future the CORE fishermen,

which are classified as such, as time goes by, and we have crew members with the

skipper or the head of the enterprise, and that skipper or CORE fisherperson

decides to sell his license in the future, what will happen to the people who

are classified as Level II professionals? They may indeed be out of a job. Now

they may have a licence for certain types of species, but they are genuinely

concerned that if they lose their positions with a certain skipper they may be

left out in the cold. Now, of course, a skipper can pass it on from father or

mother to son, or whatever the case may be, but that still does not protect

these Level II professionals; so they have genuine concerns there.

Now with respect to the qualifications, and the people

qualifying for the CORE fisher's licence, some of the years that were used to

qualify these people were the years that the fishery was down, and some of the

people who have made applications for the CORE were refused and they went on

appeals, and I represented some of these people. For instance, an individual who

worked as a crew member decided one fall, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s

when the catch was down, that they wanted to fend for themselves, or basically

provide for their families, their children and their wives, whatever the case

may be, and they went outside the fishery to work for the fall, maybe at a

construction company, anywhere. They got a job to get money for their families

and to provide for their families, and this now is actually being used against

them to qualify for the CORE fishery.

From my perspective, I think what they are asking is that

basically anybody who qualified for TAGS or SEC, or whatever the case may be, or

NCARP before that, that they all be classified as one, on a level playing field,

and that there should not be certain classes of fishers within the Province.

I think, personally, that is a reasonable request, or

something that is reasonable to expect from the fishery, particularly in light

of the fact that some of these people have fished fifteen, twenty, twenty-five

years, and now they are in a potential situation where down the road, a year or

two or five, they may be excluded from the fishery for whatever reason. We

listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as he stands in his place

each day, and we know that there are major changes coming in the future fishery

of Newfoundland and Labrador, particulary, I suppose, with respect to the

processing and the number of plants that are going to be licensed in this

Province. There are going to be changes, too, I suppose, with respect to the

licensing of the fishers and what have you. I think these people have a genuine,

legitimate concern.

Another point I would just make before I sit down, and this

was expressed to me by a couple of the people I represent, was that they feel

they should not have to be put in a place where they are begging for their

future, especially in light of the fact that they have put so much into the

fishery over the years, and they feel they are now begging for their future. I

think that is a legitimate concern also.

With that I would just like to say that I support the

petition, and I support the ongoing actions of these people, and hopefully in

due course they will basically achieve what they are setting out to achieve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support

the petition as put forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I said yesterday here in this House, and I will repeat it,

that this particular designation known as CORE is a designation brought forward

almost to punish fishermen, or fisherpeople I suppose you should say, for having

the initiative to go forward and take a job. In many cases there are fishermen

in this Province who have taken

part in this particular industry for fifteen,

twenty, as much as twenty-five years, and because there have been a couple of

down seasons at a time just prior to the announcement of the moratorium on cod

stocks, some of those fishermen have had the initiative to go forward and take

other jobs. Because they didn't make 75 per cent of their income from the

fishery in that particular year, or because their boat was less than thirty-five

feet they didn't have sales of over $3,000, or if their boat was over

thirty-five feet they didn't have sales of over $10,000, they missed the CORE

designation.

The government of the day continues to say: Don't worry about

the CORE designation, it doesn't mean anything, you won't need it. Fishermen

today don't believe that because they have seen already where they have been

discriminated against by not being designated as a CORE fisherman. They have

seen that when the crab permits were issued these past two years, a very

lucrative fishery whereby with the amount of pressure that was brought forward

by inshore fishermen the government of the day decided that it would issue

permits. In my particular area, in the Bonavista Bay area, I think all

enterprises that were designated as CORE eligible received a permit to catch

crab.

This particular designation is still an active designation, I

suppose, if you would, it is still there that you must meet the CORE criteria if

you want to apply for certain fishing licences. Part of the criteria that is

brought forward is that you must be the head of an enterprise. And in one

particular case, it is a situation where you had two brothers fishing, they both

had the same investment in the fishery, there was one boat, all the expenses

were shared with the fishing gear that they used, but all the sales were made in

one person's name. They were both equal partners but there was no need of the

other individual having a groundfish licence. There was no need for it - he

fished with his brother in the same boat.

Now, when they go back and bring in the CORE designation,

only one of them is deemed to be CORE eligible. Both equal partners, both own

the same boat, both paid for the same gear, both got into the same pick-up and

went to the same wharf and went out fishing in the same boat, but you hand-pick

one person only to be eligible for CORE, and to me, that is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

A few months ago, in this House, we brought in the

professionalization of fishermen, Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker. Now, if we are going

today to be sincere about professionalizing fishermen, and including the people

from this industry in order to govern themselves, then let's throw out those

foolish government rules and regulations.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to

another foolish rule and regulation that is there. And maybe, the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods can take this one into consideration and that is,

some of the rules that exist today as they relate to the cutting of firewood.

How many people in this House know today that if you went in

and cut your own firewood and decided to take a skidoo load out in the afternoon

and you have your wife or your husband on with you, you are not allowed to bring

out your firewood; if you are caught, one of you may end up in jail. It is a

violation in the Forestry Act to have your wife, or your son, or your daughter

on your skidoo to bring out a load of firewood.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are some of the silly rules and

regulations that we see today that we have to live by, and it is about time, Mr.

Speaker, that we threw out some of those rules and regulations and got down to

doing the things that make a little bit of sense in governing this Province and

allowing some of our people to do what they always did and did not hurt forestry

or the fishery by doing such things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he

would talk to his cousins up in Ottawa and let the people who were put in place

to look after this industry, the board that was just recently appointed, to look

after the rules and regulations that would deem who is a professional fisherman

and who is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are there any further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

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

petition that has been brought to my attention. The prayer of the petition

reads:

We, the undersigned drivers of the Arnold's Cove area,

request that the Provincial Government move the present boundary line of

insurance rating Territory 2 from its present location at Port Blandford further

to the east, so that Arnold's Cove and the surrounding communities would be

included in a revised insurance rating Territory 2, and be excluded from

insurance rating Territory 1.

We live in a rural area where there is much less traffic flow

than in urban areas like St. John's where the risk of accidents is much greater

as a result of increased traffic flow etcetera, but we pay the same basic

automobile insurance premiums as the drivers in urban areas such as St. John's

where the insurance-loss ratios are much higher.

We think that this is very unfair and we are requesting that

our Provincial Government take us out of insurance rating Territory 1 and

include us in a revised insurance rating Territory 2.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition as a follow-up to the

petitions that I presented here yesterday, which was a 4,000-name petition, with

a very similar prayer to it. The spirit of the petition is identical, just from

a little bit of a different area, I guess. Yesterday I presented a petition from

the Bonavista and the Burin peninsulas, and this particular petition comes from

the Arnold's Cove area.

What they are asking is very simple.

MR. BARRETT: How many names are on it, `Roger'?

MR. FITZGERALD: They are seeing the injustice that has

been brought about by having their communities included in Territory 1 and not

in Territory 2, and they know that they live in an area that is not unlike a lot

of other communities that are in Territory 2 now.

The Member for Bellevue asks how many names are on it. I say

to the member there is more than three. The reason why this petition was not

presented yesterday is because there was a different prayer on it, I say to the

member. I had the petition in my presence. There is a different prayer on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are how many names on it?

MR. FITZGERALD: There are approximately thirty names on

this particular petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: More people out there support it than

that.

MR. FITZGERALD: A lot more people, I say to the member,

and I think he is aware of it as well. This one particular individual in fact

called me the day that he saw some - I think it was on the radio he heard that I

was accepting the other petition, and he wanted to make sure that he got at

least a few names from his area, because it was a big concern. He went on to

talk about how if he had a bit more time he could have gotten thousands of

names.

Mr. Speaker, I showed yesterday an example whereby somebody

seventeen years old could purchase a vehicle in Territory 2, which is points

west of Port Blandford, compared to Territory 1, which is points east of Port

Blandford, and the saving was something like $1,854.72. That was just the basic

coverage, the basic right to allow somebody to drive:

Section A, $500,000 public

liability,

Section D, $11, and SEF-44, $13, which is the only thing that is

included in that particular insurance policy. He could have gone on and

purchased many other items, but in those particular items alone, with just a

compulsory coverage on that vehicle, there was a saving of $1,854 should the

territory be Territory 2 rather than Territory 1.

Those people are speaking out because they know that the risk

is not the same as in an urban area. People know that the rate of accidents is

completely different. People know that the risk of having an accident is

certainly much greater when you drive in the traffic conditions that we

experience here in St. John's, as compared to out in the Arnold's Cove area,

Clarenville area, Bonavista area. It is certainly not any different from

somebody living in another part of Newfoundland which is in Territory 2.

Those people are not saying that we should not be responsible

and pay if we have a loss or if our claims, I suppose, are above the normal

claim rates that you would normally see. If you go out and you have two

accidents a year, or five speeding tickets, you still have to be responsible;

but, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be responsible enough to pay those kinds of

insurance rates which are certainly completely out of whack with the exposure to

the risk that is involved.

Let me give you another example here of a - that was a young

person yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion -

AN HON. MEMBER: No conclusion.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

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

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

I rise again today as I did yesterday to support the petition

put forward by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South. The hon. member has

very eloquently put forward the case for changes in the way in which insurance

costs are allocated by the insurance industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, in

particular, the variations you find between people who live on the Burin and

Bonavista peninsulas and other parts of the Province.

I am sure the House was very encouraged yesterday by the

statements by the hon. the minister. The minister indicated that before the

Select Committee of the House brings forward its report, he will be looking at

some special arrangements, some interim arrangements, and we certainly encourage

that. Mr. Speaker, that indicates that the minister certainly is aware of the

problem. He certainly has had, I think, prior knowledge of the difficulties that

it is causing, and we want to say that to do otherwise would be only to foster

the present system and foster non-compliance.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. the Government House

Leader, that we over here are a very co-operative bunch. I simply complimented

the hon. minister a few minutes ago, and I cannot find in the records of Hansard

one occasion when the Government House Leader - he was the Opposition House

Leader - was so complimentary. But we say it like it is. When the government is

doing things right we say to the government: You are doing things right. When

the government is doing things wrong, which is most of the time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. the

minister that we appreciate his initiatives. We would like to see more details

to see how he is going to implement it, to see the breakdown on how he is going

to be able to bring reasonableness to the industry. We look forward to, probably

in the next week or so, having the minister rise in his place and share that

information with the House, probably through a Ministerial Statement or through

some other way in which he can assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

that he has heard the prayer and as his hon. colleagues have been indicating

during this discussion, they have also had representation from their districts

as well.

Mr. Speaker, I again acknowledge my support and thank my hon.

colleague, the Member for Bonavista South for bringing this issue to the

attention of the Province.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, Bill No. 23, "An Act

To Amend The Registered Nurses Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill entitled "An Act To Amend

The Registered Nurses Act." (Bill No. 23)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make just a few brief comments because the amendments

that are before the House, with respect to the amendments to this bill, to the

Registered Nurses Act, are for the most part housekeeping in nature and routine

in terms of their effect upon the function of the Act. The Registered Nurses

Act, of course, in the Province governs, controls and guides the practice of

registered nurses as a very vital and important component in the health care

system. By way of introduction for further debate, as the Opposition see

appropriate, I will just make a few observations at this point and respond to

any questions that they might have or any points that they might raise during

the debate.

The first

section of the Act that is being amended is

Section

2(

d) and 6.(3). These sections are amended to correctly describe the position of

the executive director in the association as opposed to the current wording and

certainly that is routine and housekeeping in nature.

The other sections of the bill, Sections 2(j), 8, 13, 15, 16

and 17 contain changes to clarify the issues surrounding registration and annual

licensing procedures for registered nurses. Nurses, of course, have to meet an

initial qualification in order to gain registration and have their names entered

on the historical register. In order to practice in the Province, nurses must

annually qualify for an obtained licensure and there are some housekeeping

changes that are intended in these amendments that are being put forward.

Section 6.(2)(

b) will make a change so as to allow two

people, who are not normally members of the association, to be appointed to the

Council of Registered Nurses. This is in keeping with trends in other

legislation where the public appropriately should be represented in order to

have a voice in an objective and an independent sense on bodies that govern the

activities of professions in the Province, so this is not specific or new to the

Registered Nurses Act. It will be common to what is in place in other situations

as well.

Section 8.(2) (

c) will make it possible to refuse

registration to a nurse from other jurisdictions whose registration or licence

to practice has been suspended or revoked, or who is under investigation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the issue of increased

portability, and the recognition across jurisdictions of the acts in all

provinces that govern professions, this amendment will impact upon people who

want to come in and practice nursing in Newfoundland and, simply put, if they

have a revoked registration or licence in another jurisdiction it would affect

their ability to be able to be registered and practice their profession in this

Province.

Sections 11 and 12 will reflect, really, the current practice

regarding admission to schools of nursing and to the role of a board of

examiners. As hon. members would know, we have had some changes occur in how we

provide nursing education in the Province. We have gone to a collaborative

approach, to a condensed one point of entry school of nursing for the future,

and some changes of a housekeeping nature required to reflect the new way we are

doing business in terms of nurses' education.

Some of the other changes that are contemplated here are

changes to

Section 21, 21(1), 21(2), and 21(3), and these changes really are a

little more substantive in that they completely revise the procedure for the

disciplining of members by creating a complaint's commission and a discipline

committee. The discipline committee members, by virtue of the amendments to the

act, are given the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. The

committee may make findings of professional misconduct, incompetence or

incapacitation, and may revoke or suspend licenses, impose restrictions on

licenses, give reprimands, impose fines, and publish notices of findings.

Procedural safeguards to ensure fair hearings, of course, are included. When it

is in the public interest to do so, a nurse's licence can be suspended pending

the hearing of the disciplinary matter. Appeals are provided to the Supreme

Court Trials Division, and on points of law, of course, to the Court of Appeal.

Of paramount importance in any of the acts governing the

activities and the working of a professional association, there have to be

appropriate procedures in place to ensure that disciplinary hearings can happen

and can take place, so that to the greatest extent possible the public of the

Province is protected. We have a responsibility, as legislators in this House,

to ensure that people who practice nursing, or practice any other profession,

particularly in the health care section, are people who are appropriate to the

job that they are being paid to do and to which they apply for employment.

It is not acceptable, simply put, to have people practice on

any level in terms of health care where their level of licensure is not

appropriate because they do not meet the requirements, or because of their

actions or activities they cause either their professional ability to come into

competence, or their personal practice in terms of ethics, and those sorts of

things. So the significance of the amendments in terms of substantive matters

revolve substantially around the amendments to

Section 21.

Section 21(4) really says that where an employer of a nurse

terminates that nurses employment for reasons purporting to constitute

professional misconduct, incompetency, or something of that nature, that

employer is also obliged to report the termination of the employment to the

professional association to which that person or that nurse belongs. In this

case it would be the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these, as I have said earlier, are basically

housekeeping amendments to the Registered Nurses Act, and I would be glad to

take note of any question or comment that might arise from the Opposition if

they decide to speak to the bill, and answer them as best we can today or at

some future date in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I should say that I move second

reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): The hon. the Member for Conception

Bay South.

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

make a few brief comments today if I could concerning Bill No. 23. I would like

to say that we on this side of the House support Bill No. 23, I guess much to

the Government House Leader's delight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: We support this particular piece of

legislation. We have thoroughly reviewed this act clause-by-clause. We have

contacted the Association of Registered Nurses, and they have told us that this

particular piece of legislation is legislation which they themselves have wanted

for some time. It is legislation that they themselves proposed to the minister,

and I am glad to say that the minister has acted on their behalf. They have

expressed to us that they are satisfied with this bill, and that the bill

reflects their aspirations as the Association of Registered Nurses.

We have been told that they very strongly advocate the

appointment of a lay representative to their council so that health care

consumers can have representation at that level and can share in making

decisions and offering input on matters of health care delivery. They have

advocated the annual licensing of nurses, and the proposed new criteria for the

Association membership, and the role of the Association members.

Nursing is an integral part of our health care system, and it

has always been. Nurses provide an invaluable service to the people of this

Province. This Province has produced and welcomed many fine nurses over the

years. Many of them are doing an excellent job in health care facilities and

occupations throughout our Province. Many have taken their skills and caring

attitude to other provinces, states and countries, and have served as some of

the finest ambassadors that this Province has ever produced. Far too many,

however, have had to leave their home of choice because of inadequate health

care funding.

This government, through unrestrained health care cuts in

recent years, has done nurses a great disservice, has overburdened them, and put

them in a position where they have even suffered injuries because of funding

cutbacks. The serious consequences of the cutbacks were made crystal clear some

days ago and will continue, I guess, over the many question periods to come.

This legislation is about nurses. It is about nurses taking

very seriously their role in health care, and the delivery of health care in

this Province today, which I am sad to say is very lacking. They have much to be

concerned about when they look at health care delivery. When people are told to

be at hospitals where their parents are, so that they can be fed, and on and on

the list goes of things that are lacking in our health care system.

It is important that the government start listening to nurses

and other health care professionals. In bringing forward this legislation it

seems the government has indeed followed the lead of our nurses, and we support

their initiative. We hope the government will not close its ears to nurses when

the issue turns to matters of health care delivery and health care funding. We

support this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to addressing the

bill clause-by-clause in the Committee stage.

Thank you.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague

has said, we on this side of the House support the principles that are the

foundations of this particular bill before the House, the amendment to the

Registered Nurses Act.

In doing so, we concur with the minister that this act is

merely to update the current act to get rid of some of the obsolete language.

We also concur with the new structure of the board, the

addition of the two lay persons. I would note, however, in

Section 6.(2) where

we talk about the new council, that there is not any maximum number that is

indicated to the council. It says, "The council shall consist of: (

a) that

number of persons elected from among the members who hold annual licences as the

by-laws may provide."

It does not say that there will be ten members, or that they

have to be from various parts of the Province or represent different aspects of

the nursing profession, and it does not give an absolute number. So I ask the

minister if he might look at that and we will talk about that again when we come

to the clause-by-clause. The minister is now paying some attention. It is Clause

2, and it is in

Section 6.(2)(a). It talks about the fact that we have not

specified, Mr. Minister, the maximum number of persons who shall sit on the

council. Of course that may be governed by the by-laws of the nursing

association, but that is not indicated here either. So I ask the minister if he

would look at that. I am pleased to see two lay people. We do acknowledge that

the government has tried to amend the various pieces of legislation to assure

that lay representation is now a factor in most of these professional governing

bodies.

I also wanted to draw the minister's attention to

Section 5,

where it says, "Section 9 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

`9. The council shall approve schools of nursing that meet those requirements

that may be adopted by the council.'". The minister, when he is giving his

concluding comments at second reading, might want to give us some more detail on

the power of the council and what you mean by approving the schools of nursing.

Does that mean that they are approving the curriculum, or that the council may

actually initiate the proliferation of more schools of nursing? I say to the

minister that the trend, as the minister knows, in the past few years, is to

decrease the number of schools of nursing we have in the Province. I just want

to get his comments on that, and what the role of the council would be in

approving schools of nursing.

I also want to see if the minister could comment as well on

the continuing role we have between the Bachelor of Nursing program and the

Registered Nursing Association, what the status of that is. We do know that by

the year 2000 the registered nursing designation, RN designation, will begin to

be phased out and all nurses will be, shall we say, expected to thereafter have

the equivalent qualifications as laid down by the Bachelor of Nursing Program at

Memorial University.

I wanted to say to the minister as well that we acknowledge

that the minister and his officials have consulted with the members of the

nursing association and we say that is a good idea. In our discussions with the

Registered Nurses Association, they have acknowledged that they were consulted

both at the initiation stage and throughout the consultations that have occurred

over some months, and the result is a piece of legislation that is agreeable to

the Nursing Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and because it was brought

forward by the minister it is agreeable to the government - it has to be to the

Department of Health - and we find that it is a very commendable approach. We

only wish that he had recommended that approach to his colleague, the Minister

of Fisheries, and then we would not be bogged down the way we are in the House

with that particular piece of legislation. It is the lack of consultation that

occurred with that particular piece of legislation that is causing difficulties

for the House.

Also, I wanted to refer back to something my colleague, the

Member for Conception Bay South, said when he noted that we have extra duties

being placed on nurses. Over the past number of months, since January, I have

had occasion almost on a daily basis to be a visitor to one of the city

hospitals. I can say to the minister that the obvious workload and the stress

that goes with it, the increase in the workload, is pretty evident.

I want to commend the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and those with whom I have been associated, in particular those who work at the

Health Sciences Centre and St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, the two hospitals that I

have been visiting on a pretty regular basis because of a family situation over

the past ten months. I want to say to all of these people, and also to the

nurses in this Province generally, that we as a society should recognize their

great contributions, and that we look with some displeasure on the cutbacks and

how they have affected the front-line service delivery. I can tell you that

witnessing it on a day-by-day basis, I know of what I speak. However, I can tell

you that nurses who come off a twelve-hour shift give their utmost during the

last half-an-hour as much as they would give, say, in the first half-an-hour of

their shift, and that is commendable.

I also want to say to the minister, I don't see much evidence

here of the minister being willing to change some of the roles that nurses play

throughout some of the parts of our Province. We know that many of the functions

that are carried out by doctors could, in some cases, be designated as roles to

be assigned to nurses. If we had a more co-operative approach between doctors

and their mandates, and nurses and their mandates, we would, I think, greatly

improve the efficiency that we could have in our health care system. However,

that will require, of course, consultation of the Newfoundland Medical

Association and the nurses association to really find some of the roles that we

could expect from our health care system and the people who are working in it.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, particularly with the

comments relative to the consultation, we find that we are prepared on this side

to now conclude debate. I don't know whether one of my colleagues has anything

else he may want to add. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis will have a few

comments. We do not expect this debate to go on for any great length of time

because of the role and the consultation that has taken place prior to it being

brought before the House today.

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

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

I guess I will speak on Bill 23, I say to the Government

House Leader. That is why we are here, to say a few words on any legislation on

which we would like to speak. I am not going to take up a lot of time, to be

honest. I just have a few comments. This bill, basically -

MR. TULK: You have to get on the record (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There are reasons for everything we do, I

suppose, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: I cannot hear you. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I can deafen you if you want me to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

I say to the Government House Leader, there are reasons for

everything we do.

This bill basically deals with the Registered Nurses

Association and indeed, of course, they are a professional association. It deals

with tightening up the act, which has been supported, from what I can gather, by

the nurses themselves and the nursing association.

One of the things that this bill is going to deal with, of

course, is that it talks about members in good standing. Every association has

to have regulations in place to deal with any person who may go outside the

guidelines set by the professional association and, of course, this bill will

address that and give the nursing association authority to deal with people who

basically step outside the rules and regulations and the professionalism of the

nursing association.

Another point that any professional association, of course,

has to have is the authority and the power to register people and to register

applicants into their association, and they have to be able to set examinations

which are fair and compatible, I suppose, with the nursing associations in other

provinces. This bill seems to address that concern.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to say a few

words with respect to the nurses, and the nurses' workload in the Province. The

Minister of Health has been on his feet a number of times in this House of

Assembly, and any time we ask questions with respect to health care in this

Province the typical and normal response from the Minister of Health is that

health care is improving in this Province. I would suggest, though, that the

Minister of Health go and talk to some of the nurses I have spoken to and get

first-hand information from the nurses in the different hospitals in the

Province, at the Health Sciences Centre, at the Janeway, the Grace, and St.

Clare's.

He will quickly find out that the nurses in this Province

today, and I would imagine it is common right across this Province, are

overworked and understaffed. I have been in the Health Sciences myself recently,

over the past few months, visiting people in there, visiting patients, some of

them relatives actually. In one instance I know where there is one nurse on one

of the floors in there taking care of something like seventeen patients. If you

sit back and think about the amount of work that one individual would have to

do, and the minister stands in his place and says that health care is improving

in this Province, I would have to question what planet or what province the

Minister of Health lives in.

Twelve-hour shifts is the norm for the nurses working in the

Health Sciences Centre and other hospitals across this Province. That alone, in

itself, from what I can see, would be a strain on any individual. But when they

have to work twelve-hour shifts and be understaffed, you can understand why they

would need

an act, or amendments to the act, to try and basically keep nurses

with the experience, to try and keep those people in their field, when I know

many of them are stressed out, I would say. There are a number of nurses over

the past number of years who possibly took leave because of the stress that they

were under. I wouldn't have an actual figure on that, but I wonder if the

Minister of Health would want to be forthcoming with those figures?

The minister stood and said that this bill basically is

housekeeping, and it probably is mostly housekeeping. As he said, the act

controls and guides the practice of nursing. The purpose of legislation of any

professional association is to control and guide the practice of that

profession. In this case, of course, it deals with nursing, and rightly so.

Also, I think probably the most important aspect of any

professional association is the complaints and discipline of any association,

and the members of any association. This amendment apparently gives the nursing

association more power with respect to complaints and discipline, and rightfully

so, to deal with the professional, or probably a better word would be the

unprofessional, conduct of any members who may happen to be, and to deal with

those members.

From my own personal experience dealing with the nurses, and

from the treatment I received any time I was in the hospital, and there have

been a few times, let me tell you, any service or any care I received was

completely of a professional nature. But I suppose you have to be ready for any

situation, and in fact you have to have a complaints and discipline committee to

deal with any situations that may arise. Of course, when you have a complaints

and discipline committee it has to also have the authority to set out penalties.

This would address that concern.

Basically all I wanted to say was that the Opposition, or

from what I can gather from this side, basically supports the legislation,

especially in view of the fact that the nurses' association supports it, but

basically brought it to the attention of the minister himself. Just in saying

that, I would conclude by saying that hopefully when the legislation comes to

pass and is enacted, and the Lieutenant-Governor gives his signature, that the

nursing association in Newfoundland and Labrador will be all the better for this

legislation, and hopefully the minister will be commended in the future for

bringing it forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

comments and the observations that were made today by the speakers from the

other side of work that they have lent to the bill. The Opposition critic on

health, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, indicated that his caucus

was supporting the amendments and we appreciate that gesture, not so much on our

behalf but on behalf of the nurses of the Province who have had significant

input into this bill and who have requested the amendments that have been

brought forward.

I just make a couple of comments in response to questions or

queries raised. The issue in

Section 5 as to what is meant in saying, `the

council shall include schools of nursing', really means this: that before

government will fund schools of nursing that might be wanting - or might in fact

be coming into existence, that we would require the Registered Nurses

Association to approve the inception of, and the course of study, that would be

put forward in that school. We believe it would be unwise, quite frankly, to

have courses of studies put forward, or in fact schools come into existence for

the training of nurses, that did not have the blessing and the support of the

Registered Nurses Association.

MR. TULK: I would say.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, so that is what that means.

The hon. the member who used to be for Waterford Valley but

is now from that new district whose name escapes me -

MR. TULK: Waterford Valley.

MR. MATTHEWS: Is it Waterford Valley?

MR. TULK: It used to be Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. MATTHEWS: I see. I am more up to date that I thought.

I am running ahead of myself as usual. I am way out in front of myself, I say to

the hon. Speaker, in terms of -

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be your member, right?

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, he used to be my member, and

I have to say to the hon. Speaker, and to members of the House, that whatever

good he has done, I have to be honest and say he has done no harm that I am

aware of in the district. I am not sure how much good he has done but I can tell

you I am not aware of any harm he has done. So, in that context, the hon. the

member put himself forward for re-election in a reconfigurated district and he

won very easily, very handily, and of course he is to be commended for being

able to achieve that distinction. He was one of a small and paltry group of nine

from the Opposition who made it back to this House, so that speaks well of his

credentials and his prior performance. Because I can tell you, there were a lot

of members who sat around him the last time we sat in this Chamber who did not

make it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) it back.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member and to the members

of the House that they maybe coming back but I would have to say it may be in

another life and in another century, because I see no prospect of any of the

defeated PC candidates ever sitting in the House again in this century which is

now coming to a close.

MR. TULK: In this millennium.

MR. MATTHEWS: In this millennium. The hon. the Government

House Leader puts words in my mouth. It is not infrequent that he does that,

because his years of experience in the House have gained him a wide and solid

reputation as being a parliamentarian of great distinction, who knows the rules

of the House, who knows how to debate in the House, and who even knows what is

most appropriate to be saying in the House in terms of lingo, so I defer to the

hon. the House Leader on many accounts.

Getting back to the point that was raised by the hon. the

Member for Waterford Valley, it is true that I believe there are some cases

where a case can be made for an expanded scope of practice for nurses. I have

supported the nurses in that area and have said to them that we should allow

them to have the maximum scope of practice in terms of what they are trained to

do. I have also said that to nursing assistants and to other health care

professionals. We want to ensure that everybody enjoys the full ability to

practice the skills for which they are trained. And to the issue of whether or

not we can use them better in the health care system, let me share with the

House that we do have, in fact, a pilot project underway at the moment, through

the Health Care Corporation, that seeks to have nurses and other health care

providers more fully integrated into a continuum of care setting that we are

piloting on the Southern Shore, and that I believe will be beneficial all around

to the health care system and the people of that particular area.

We appreciate, as I said earlier, the comments that were made

and, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses

Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 23).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill No. 21).

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 21, "An Act To

Amend The Fish Inspection Act".

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East, I

would like to welcome to the public galleries on behalf of hon. members, Mr. Ray

O'Neill, City Councillor for the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to continue for a few minutes from debate

yesterday with respect to a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act",

(Bill No. 21).

Yesterday, we had discussion in this House, Mr. Speaker, of

subsection 4 (1) (

f) giving Cabinet new power to make regulations on the

regional distribution of processing licences, the development of the fishing

industry of the Province and other matters, Mr. Speaker, that are not directly

related to fish quality. And it was the consensus by members on this side of the

House that this was an extremely broad amendment, an amendment which gave

unfettered and unrestricted authority to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture in dealing with issues with respect to licensing, licensing

establishment, licensing of plants and so on, for various individuals and

corporations throughout the Province.

As a member of the Opposition, and as echoed by my

colleagues, we had difficulty with the fact that Cabinet could make regulations

without bringing the matter back to the House of Assembly for approval, and that

is essentially why, Mr. Speaker, we take objection to the wording of the

amendment because it makes it quite clear that the minister may issue licences

under the Act, subject to conditions that the minister considers to be

appropriate, so this is completely unrestricted.

This is legislation which allows the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture, at will, without any direction from the public at large,

without any debate in the House of Assembly, to make decisions for himself, of

his own accord, without any participation by the people of this Province. And

this is essentially why members on this side of the House take strong exception,

Mr. Speaker, to the

section 2, subsection (2) of Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The

Fish Inspection Act".

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I ran through a number of examples

where government - and this government has shown in the past where it has failed

to consult and to invite the general public of this Province to be active

participants with respect to various legislation and policy changes concerning,

for example, health care; and we see the consequences of a government trying to

make changes without what I consider to be, Mr. Speaker, the necessary and the

requisite public consultation. I referred yesterday briefly to the dispensing

fees, and how pharmacists were outraged by changes which seemed to just appear

out of nowhere, resulting in policy changes which affected the very careers of

these people.

Also, I spoke briefly on the issue of Education Reform, where

it was my submission and certainly the submission of members on this side of the

House, where the whole question of Education Reform and the whole confusion

which continues to exist today, in November of 1996, well after one year of a

publicly held referendum in this Province, where confusion continues to reign.

The question I ask, why? Simply because there was inadequate public consultation

from the beginning and the people of this Province were not allowed to

participate, resulting in an education confusion today which continues to exist.

We see, for example, as a result of the consultation process

which eventually was introduced as part of the educational process in a document

which was tabled one day last week - I believe on opening day, Mr. Speaker, on

Monday the 18th, as I recall - structuring the education system, a report of the

ministerial consultation process. We see that with respect to denominational

preferences, there was -and I quote from this government document: `There was no

consensus as to how the preference for a uni-denominational school should be

expressed.' I raised the question and I asked the question, Mr. Speaker, why is

it there is no consensus? My response, Mr. Speaker, is simply because when the

issue of education reform became a public issue and was debated in this House

approximately two years ago, the public was not consulted. The participants in

education reform were not invited to participate to a point that we would

ultimately see an answer and a conclusion to the division which was caused when

discussing the whole issue of education reform. The consequence of this

approach, the consequence of making decisions without public intervention is

that even today, two years after the debate started, one year after a

referendum, we find ourselves still without consensus and the debate, I am sure,

will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned briefly as well yesterday the issue

of public examinations and how this was imposed upon the people of this

Province. The fact that the public examinations in Level III, or Grade 12, as it

was once known, how there would now no longer be any system of public

examinations, no standardization with respect to evaluation in Grade 12. And,

Mr. Speaker, this, too, was imposed on the people of this Province, on the

students of this Province, without consultation - a direct example, I would

submit, Mr. Speaker, as to how and where an individual or a group of individuals

make decisions without having the public involved. Again, I want to remind the

members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that is why we have difficulty with respect

to the wording and the thrust of the legislation as is found in Bill No. 21. It

gives the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture unrestricted and unfettered

discretion in dealing with many policy issues, many appointment issues, many

issues of delegation of who gets what, when it is obtained, what communities

will survive, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, in the number of examples which I

alluded to yesterday and again today, the government has shown that to make

decisions, discretionary decisions, without active participation by the public

will certainly in most cases, if not all, be problematic. I have difficulty

supporting this bill. I would encourage my colleagues opposite to reconsider.

When one looks carefully at the wording of Bill 21, in particular subsection

(2) where it states, "The minister may issue licences under this Act subject to the

conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, including conditions

which relate to a matter set out in

Section 4." Again, it is complete

unwillingness to recognize that the public of this Province and those who are

involved on a daily basis in the fishing industry, have a right to participate.

I would ask members to reconsider and again, I join with my colleagues in

objecting to the wording of Bill No. 21.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

My colleagues and I have expressed some real concerns with

the proposed amendment to the Fish Inspection Act, Bill No. 21, now before the

House. In the debate a few days ago my learned friend, and I use that not as the

former House Leader would have used it but my very learned friend from Bonavista

South, who is the critic for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, put

forward before this House a great dissertation on the reasons why we would be

opposed to this particular amendment. The difficulties centre around the broad

nature and the blank cheque that it gives to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, we note that when the present government was

elected last year, they talked about consultation. We have seen consultation on

the school reform. We acknowledge that the Minister of Education went across

this Province in September and October and had something like twenty different

consultations in a wide variety of communities of various sizes in all parts of

this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We say that was an approach

that we find acceptable. We cannot say that we agree with all of the conclusions

that the minister communicated in the House the other day. We do not necessarily

agree with all of his statements, but the process itself is okay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, by comparison the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture brings in an amendment to the Fish Inspection Act and there has been

no consultation. There has been no consultation with any of the producers or

with either of the two unions of the Province who have members in their ranks

from various sectors of the fishing industry. There has been no consultation

with the employer's group that is associated with the fishing industry in this

Province. So, there has been no consultation. Because of that, we find that we

here, on this side of the House, have to say, no, this is not the right

approach. If we could be assured today that the Fishermen's Union and the Fish

Processors Association, if these people were saying they supported this bill,

then we would be able to say, yes, this is the right approach.

By comparison, a few minutes ago the Minister of Health rose

in his place and introduced second reading to an amendment to the nurses act. It

had gone through a very good process and was confirmed to us by the nursing

association. As a consequence, we were able to give second reading to that piece

of legislation in very short order. As a matter of fact, the whole time taken up

by second reading was less than twenty-five or thirty minutes. That is because

the process that we find acceptable was followed.

Now if the nurses of this Province, when they were consulted

by the ministry, if they had said that the minister was putting in things that

they objected to, we would have then consulted with them and would have made

some analysis of whether we could support the proposals put forward by the

minister or not. However, they have said that they supported the amendments to

the nurses act in this Province.

However, when we look at that and compare it to what the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has done, it basically says he wants the

power, the very broad power, the unchallengeable power, to do what he feels is

right. This has been confirmed by his statements in the media. What the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants us to do is to give him permission to do

through the front door what many people suspect he has been wanting to do

through the back door for awhile, and we say no to that. We say, no, you cannot

do that. That is not the way good government should operate.

So we, on this side of the House, cannot give, say, a blanket

approval or a blank cheque to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In

essence, what it means is that, in the future, the Cabinet and the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture will make all of the decisions without consultation,

because it says Cabinet can make regulations without bringing the matter back to

the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, last summer we saw an example of where

Cabinet made regulations as it affects the appeal process for people who were

receiving and are receiving help through the home care system. Last summer, in

the middle of the hot summer days of July and August, the Minister of Social

Services had an amendment passed through Cabinet, an amendment to the

regulations whereby the people who were going to be deducted 10 per cent of

their home care costs, basically people who were disabled, were told: No, this

is the final decision, there is no appeal.

So, Mr. Speaker, we say to you today, is that the right way

to go? Is it right, that in the middle of the summer that the gove