November

28, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 42

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today,

fifty-eight Grade VI students from Ecole St. Patrick, Merrymeeting Road, St.

John's accompanied by their teacher, Barbara Caule and that is in the District

of St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the gallery today,

nineteen students from the New Enterprise Store (Part of P.J. Gardner Institute

at Memorial University in Newfoundland), accompanied by Instructor, Frank

Doland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 18th, I informed hon. members that the

Newfoundland economy is faring better in 1996 than expected. Today I am tabling

the November 1996 "Economic Review" which explains the improved economic

situation so far this year in more detail. This short report provides key

highlights of all the major sectors of the economy, and includes government's

revised forecast for 1996.

The Gross Domestic Product (a measure of all the incomes

earned in the Province) is now expected to decline by 2.9 per cent compared with

the 4.3 per cent decline projected last May. This 1.4 percentage point

improvement is partly because of the strong caplin and shellfish fisheries, but

mainly because work at the Hibernia construction site continued for longer than

expected, and that was until October. This generated an extra 1,000 person years

of employment beyond the 3,200 initially estimated. It also boosted total

employment which is now expected to fall by 4.2 per cent, an improvement of 0.8

percentage point from the 5.0 per cent decline forecast earlier. The improvement

in GDP was greater than the improvement in employment due primarily to the high

incomes earned by Hibernia workers.

Government anticipated the provincial economy would go

through a period of transition and adjustment following the conclusion of

Hibernia construction activities. This is the norm when an economy has been

stimulated by a mega-project. Accordingly, we expect the adjustments to continue

into 1997.

As I stated when I delivered the mid-year fiscal update,

while the economic situation is somewhat better than expected this year, it is

still imperative that we maintain a sound fiscal position to ensure that we can

continue to provide essential and sustainable public services. I am, however,

encouraged by the current upward change in the economic forecast.

With this caution in mind, I would point out that upward

revisions to economic indicators other than GDP also reflect a

better-than-anticipated economic performance this year. Personal income,

previously forecast to fall 3.5 per cent, is now expected to drop 1.8 per cent.

As a result, consumer spending is better than expected and retail trade,

previously forecast to drop by 3.5 per cent, is now expected to fall 1.5 per

cent.

The single biggest improvement was in the housing market.

Housing starts were previously forecast to fall by 8 per cent; we now expect

they will rise by nearly 4 per cent. Indeed, in the first nine months of this

year starts were up by 7.1 per cent with improvements in both rural and urban

areas. The Goose Bay area recorded particularly strong growth with starts up

more than five times from only 14 in the first nine months of last year to 78

this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The real estate market has generally been

strong this year as home sales in the first nine months were up nearly 20 per

cent. Lower interest rates, the lowest in thirty years, and the fact that net

out-migration has been less this year than originally expected, are also key

factors in this much improved situation.

I also note that exports in other sectors of the economy are

performing well. Specifically, we are seeing improved performances in the

Province's manufacturing and fishing sectors and we predict a positive year for

our mining industry. As well, we are seeing renewed investor confidence in our

oil and gas industry. This is facilitating increased exploration and new project

development as demonstrated by the recently announced Terra Nova development

project.

In

summary, this government anticipated the provincial

economy would go through a normal period of transition and adjustment following

the conclusion of the work at the Hibernia construction site. The upward change

in the economic forecast I have outlined is significant and encouraging. I would

encourage hon. members as well to peruse the Economic Review as it

outlines impacts on each of the major sectors of our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny, in all these years that I have been here I don't

think I have ever seen a Ministerial Statement on economic review. I say to the

minister, you must be thrilled that our GDP now is down by only 2.9 per cent and

total employment is down by only 4.2 per cent. And I bet the best one for you is

that personal income is down by only 1.8 per cent. You are accusing me of being

negative when your own negatives are not as negative as you thought your

negatives were going to be. Well, Minister, when you add up all those negatives

you still don't get a positive. Keep working at it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi is on a point of order.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House

will recall that in June of this year, the government announced that it would

provide Marystown Shipyard Limited with an increase in the loan guarantee for

its operating line of credit. Now, this was required in order to proceed with

the implementation of a five-year business plan that had been presented to

Cabinet by the Board of Directors of the Marystown Shipyard and by senior

management of the Yard as well. At that time, we had also authorized a

performance guarantee for the $45 million contract to refit the federal D and D

vessel the "Quest".

Honourable members will also recall that support from

government was contingent upon firm commitments from the employees at Marystown

Shipyard to work toward productivity improvements. At that time, Mr. Speaker,

Local 20 of the Marine and General Workers, as well as Local 904 of the

International Union of Operating Engineers, agreed to an 11-point agenda to

bring about the productivity gains that were required. This agenda focused on

productivity improvement and the formation of a working committee, which was

given a six-month mandate to arrive at a firm agreement to achieve a minimum 10

per cent productivity improvement at the Marystown Shipyard.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion,

indeed a great deal of negotiation, that has taken place amongst the working

committee process which involved representation from all employee groups as well

as senior management at the Yard.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform members of the

House that an agreement on productivity improvement measures has been reached

within the context of the full eleven-point agenda items.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: One of the key issues on this agenda was

trade flexibility. Management and the Board see the progress made in this area

as an excellent platform from which to build, and are confident that the members

of that union are prepared to embrace the changes in work practices at the Yard.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, and I think here we should reflect and applaud the

membership of the union, the employees of the Yard themselves in a recent vote,

96 per cent of Local 20's membership supported the measures agreed to by the

executive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I commend the union, the

senior management and the Board of Directors for their commitment to the future

of the Marystown Shipyard. Things are indeed looking brighter. Hard work is

beginning to yield good results. I am pleased to announce today that Marystown

Shipyard Limited has just won a contract with AMFELS Inc. of Brownsville, Texas,

for the fabrication of pontoon parts that will be used to cover existing

pontoons on oil rigs now being used in the Gulf of Mexico.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The work is valued at approximately $8

million, will involve approximately 150,000 person hours of work for the Yard,

and is expected to contribute up to $1 million towards covering overhead costs

in this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, upwards of 500 employees will go back to work

in the next few weeks at the Marystown Shipyard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: In addition to measures agreed to as part

of the eleven-item productivity improvement agenda, Local 20 has made a

no-strike agreement with the Shipyard for this contract and has also agreed to a

modified shift schedule. As well, supervisors at the Shipyard have voluntarily

agreed to a wage roll back, further improving the Yard's competitiveness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Province will, of course,

provide performance guarantees on behalf of the Yard in order to proceed with

this contract, as we have done on several occasions, at no cost by the way, in

the past. Members will recall that Hulls 53 and 54 completed for Maersk were

constructed under this arrangement.

All parties involved in this process have made a serious

commitment to proceed with turning Marystown Shipyard into a profitable

business. Based on past commitments, the present spirit of co-operation, the

benefits that will accrue as a result of future changes, I am confident that the

Marystown Shipyard is well positioned to become a leaner, more efficient

operation, and a significant player in projects like Terra Nova and like

Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, but change was

necessary in Marystown. The Shipyard must stand on its own. The government can

no longer provide for continuing subsidies year-in-and-year-out, and the

managers, and more importantly, the employees, have taken up that challenge for

change and they have met it with courage and maturity and with decisive action.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks today by paying

tribute to the board of directors, by paying tribute to the Member for Burin

-Placentia West, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, and the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology, who have worked extremely hard to bring about

this positive result today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am quite pleased to see a very positive outlook for

the Marystown Shipyard. Certainly, it is indicative by the commitment that the

workers have given there, the local people. It is a commitment of their pride

not only in their job but in their quality of work.

It is certainly my understanding that this particular

contract, which was a contract on work that could not be performed in the U.S.,

and they heard of Marystown and their reputation, and their ability to do the

work. And it was on their own reputation and initiative, that of the management

and the workers there, that they were able to have a skilled workforce ready to

do the work, and to be able to do it within the period of time in which it

needed to be done. That is positive, that we have and maintain in this Province

a very skilled workforce. We do have a lot of skilled people here in this

Province, and it is important that we take advantage of this opportunity. And if

it does require at times for government to put up the money just for the working

capital to ensure that those contracts are able to be carried out here, and to

be done on a profitable basis, it is important.

Through efforts in their wage roll-backs, in meeting strict

deadlines, on the eleven points that are mentioned here in the statement, it is

indicative of the people in those unions. I congratulate them, and I hope there

are great things to come for the shipyard at Marystown, and that our Province

can move on and be prosperous in an area in which they have great skills and

expertise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

The new harmonized sales tax is applied to the current GST

base, that means the RST act will now become redundant and I am sure we will be

seeing legislation in this House to that effect in the near future.

Now, the Province not wanting to relinquish its RST base

completely, has decided to implement some new taxes or levies namely: a 15 per

cent insurance tax and a new 15 per cent tax on the private sale of vehicles.

Will the minister confirm if there are any other taxes

planned, and how many millions of dollars does he project our Province will

receive in revenues from these two new taxes?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the two taxes that the hon. member mentioned are two of

the three essential measures that we are going to undertake in order to make the

overall tax reduction from approximately 20 per cent to 15 per cent a reality in

the Province. What we have done is, we will tax the sale of private vehicles

between individuals at the rate of 15 per cent; we will also adjust insurance

premiums up from 12 per cent to 15 per cent.

The other measure that we are undertaking is to preserve

alcohol and cigarette prices at the same level they now are, so what will happen

after harmonization is that, if you are a smoker or you drink alcohol, you will

pay in the liquor store or wherever you buy your cigarettes the same prices that

you now do. Were it not for that, you would have a decline in these prices. We

believe these measures are acceptable. Even with these, Mr. Speaker, the

Province will lose approximately $105 million in revenue, our total take will

drop from approximately $570 million down to about $465 million, so these are

minor adjustments upward, otherwise our tax losses would have been much more

substantial because our projected take on the GST would have been approximately

$380 million.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, how many millions does he project these

new taxes will account for?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The total take is approximately $90 million. In rough terms

the cigarette and tobacco tax adjustments are approximately $25 million of that.

I can get the hon. member the exact figures; I used them in April when I went

through it, I recently did again, I don't have them with me. The insurance tax

is approximately $25 million and the vehicles are somewhere in the same order,

so that is roughly the distribution of it, Mr. Speaker. There are some

adjustments we are doing as well on other grants and that.

Thank you.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the benefits of harmonization was a full system of

input tax credits which would result in the removal of barriers to

interprovincial trade and also to help reduce activity in the underground

economy.

Will the minister indicate if these two new taxes on

insurance and on the private sale of vehicles can be claimed by businesses as

input tax credits or, would business have to absorb the full impact of these

taxes?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: I am not sure if I understand the hon.

member's question correctly, Mr. Speaker.

Under the GST tax system, you can only claim GST input tax

credits so if I understand it, will they be able to claim these, the taxes paid

to the Province? The answer to that would be no.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to make sure

I'm clear. The minister has indicated that businesses cannot get the impact of

these taxes. They will have to absorb the full impact. I understand that is what

the minister said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. There is a growing concern that

the Harmonized Sales Tax will be largely inflationary, rather than stimulating

growth in the region. Historically that has happened with new taxes. I just

recently read an

article to that effect by an economic review. When the $348

million runs out in three years, I just want to ask the minister: What plan do

you have in place to meet the revenue shortfalls?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would disagree with

the hon. member that there are any substantial studies. It is an accepted

opinion that the GST is inflationary. The GST, in this case, is actually going

to be deflationary with our harmonization, because what we are basically doing

is lowering the price of goods to consumers. We expect that our tax revenue will

drop from $570 million down to $465 million. So in effect, we believe it to be

deflationary, at that level, rather than inflationary, in our particular

economy, particularly on the prices of goods.

The second aspect of his question dealt with how the Province

will deal with any revenue shortfalls. What we project is that this will add

approximately eight-tenths of a percentage point to our GDP in each of the next

four years. That whole loss is being made up by the federal government over this

period of time. We expect that we will have substantial year over year growth in

the order of 4 per cent to 5 per cent that will yield the additional tax

revenues in that period of time. We think that will substantially make up the

tax loss in the fourth year.

The other thing that we are including at this point is

projections that our economy will grow substantially starting in the year 1999,

and forward, and we believe our economy will grow more than sufficiently, and we

will have more than sufficient revenues, to offset any tax loss that might be

projected four years out.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With implementation

of taxes - while companies may increase profits, they haven't always been passed

on to consumers. This has historically happened. I'm sure economists and so on

will tell you that in various analyses. It is important that - what about if it

doesn't? Does the Province have a contingency plan to deal with this tax revenue

shortfall in case the economy doesn't grow to that effect?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, I think the hon. member's question is not

entirely clear. The whole issue of businesses passing on the GST savings that

they will get as a result of the input tax credits is separate from the economy

growing. What we will do is we will take measures to ensure that the GST savings

through input tax credits are passed on to consumers. If they are not, the

government will consider particular measures against those industries that do

not pass them on. The impact of the GST when this was brought in in the early

1990s by the federal government, and the experience in economic analysis I've

seen, indicates that within a year there was a full 100 per cent pass through of

GST input tax credits to consumers. This is quite evident in sectors such as the

automobile sector, where the manufacturers tax came off and it was very clear

what the savings were.

PREMIER TOBIN: The PUB just asked for the same, a

decision on (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, and it is interesting that this matter is

being quantified by the PUB, for example. We believe that it will, in the nature

of a competitive economy that we have in Newfoundland, perhaps one of the most

voraciously competitive in the country, it will be passed on. But let me assure

the public and the hon. member that if those savings are not passed on we will

do so through the tax system in one form or another, so we will ensure that they

are passed on to consumers.

Secondly, the growth will occur, as I say, through consumers

having additional money in their pockets to spend to get into the economy that

will create additional demand for both goods and services in these sectors, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has

indicated it would be passed on, if not in taxation in some form. I would like

to ask the minister now: Will he confirm that our Province has now given up its

autonomy by agreeing to conditions under the HST that would see New Brunswick

and Nova Scotia interfering with our ability to set retail and service taxation

rates?

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

MR. DICKS: No, quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Cooperating is not giving up autonomy. What we have done is we have entered into

a formal agreement with the other provinces - Nova Scotia and New Brunswick -

and the federal government. What is going to happen in this country, I suspect

over the next ten years, is a great amalgamation of various taxes. This will be

one of them. We already have the same system in corporate personal income tax.

It works much better. There are savings as a result of having integrated

administrations. There is a lot to be said as well for having similar rules in

different provinces. We believe that it is a very progressive measure. We don't

see it as a loss of autonomy. We believe it is a progressive tax measure in this

country to move toward a system where you have an integrated tax management and

tax policy system throughout the country, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions

this afternoon are for the hon. Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Senate has dealt with Term 17, as

was their right and duty by law, and it has gone back to the House of Commons

for a final decision, this party, this Opposition, Mr. Speaker, once again

expresses its desire to see the constitutional amendment passed by Ottawa with

the urgency that it so greatly deserves so any education reforms hinging on this

amendment can be implemented. My question to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is what

specific actions will this government take to urge the Chrtien government to

deal expeditiously with the Term 17 amendment and to bring it to the House of

Commons for a final vote during this fall sitting?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the

question from the hon. member because it is an issue of significant importance

to all of us in the Province. I must say that in the past and as today we

continue to appreciate the support of the Opposition with respect to this issue,

with respect to the support of the NDP party, the support of all members in this

House, Mr. Speaker, not like yesterday where we have an issue with every bit as

much importance with respect to renegotiation of the Churchill Falls contract

whereby the members of the Opposition yesterday found some excuse or reason to

not support the government in trying to get a good deal for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

With respect to Term 17, we do appreciate the continued,

unanimous support of this House, with respect to the issue. We have been making

contacts again today with the elected parliamentarians in Ottawa and are urging

them to find the first possible opportunity on the calendar in the House of

Commons to reintroduce the motion and have it pass. I am not in a position, Mr.

Speaker, to provide a date or a time frame other than that they understand the

need in this Province for the matter to be brought to conclusion before the

Christmas recess, both in the parliament in Ottawa and this Legislature, if at

all possible.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But I say to the hon. minister, let's not forget the whole

point of education reform and changing Term 17 and that is to bring about

reforms to improve the education of our children in the classroom and nothing

less. The bulk of these changes, the government already has the constitutional

authority to make anyway. I ask the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker, for example, why

has the government sent the special education report, the report which was

tabled in this hon. House just over a week ago, why has that report been sent

back for more study and more recommendations when the report identifies very

serious deficiencies in addressing children with learning disabilities and tells

the minister how to fix them?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I hope that that is not a signal that the Opposition

is going to try to play politics with something as important as the Special

Matters Report. The reality, as I have explained in Answers to Questions

previously in this House, Mr. Speaker, is that we had a group that studied the

issue and made some recommendations. All of the people potentially impacted by

those recommendations, particularly the students and their parental

representatives and advocates, had never seen those recommendations until a week

or ten days ago. They - and I have indicated this in the Legislature before, Mr.

Speaker - want some time now, even though they have made some presentations to

the committee, they want some time to consider the impact of the recommendations

made.

These are suggestions to the government. These other groups

have other suggestions to make and they want some time to decide whether or not

they agree or disagree with the recommendations made in the Special Matters

Report. We feel that it is only prudent, Mr. Speaker, to provide for some period

of time for the stakeholders and all of those who advocated and worked on behalf

of the students in the school system, to reflect upon these recommendations, to

consider the impacts of them and to see whether or not we can move forward on a

timely basis with the majority of them if it makes sense to do so. But no report

has ever been accepted before, to my knowledge, on one day, and then it be said:

We will implement all of these even though we have never had a real look at

them. This is the first time we have seen them, but we will receive the report

on Monday and we will implement it on Friday.

It takes some time to consider, and we will not unreasonably

delay the implementation; you can be assured of that.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. minister: The Royal

Commission Report is almost five years old. Why has the government let so many

child-focused, classroom-centred recommendations for reform go unheeded?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I gave a report card to the Home

and School Federation at the beginning of Home and School Awareness Week about

three weeks ago. If people want to review that, again you will see that a great

number of the recommendations of the Royal Commission Report of 1992 have been,

actually, already implemented. A number of the key issues cannot, unfortunately,

be implemented until we deal with the legislation that we will table in this

House of Assembly very shortly after Term 17 is completed in the national

Parliament. There is no intent to delay on any of these initiatives.

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

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

In view of the fact that my colleague, the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair is also standing, and she has not asked questions

in the House, I would defer to her if that is satisfactory with you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright -

L'Anse-au-Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Environment and

Labour.

It is my understanding that the Provincial Government has

entered into a joint environmental assessment with the Inuit and the Innu people

of Labrador on the proposed Voisey's Bay mining development. It is also my

interpretation of the Environmental Act that Aboriginal groups must have land

claim issues settled before a government can enter into joint environmental

assessments with them. Can the minister confirm that this is a requirement of

law?

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

Labour.

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

I will not confirm that for the member. What I will confirm

is that we have an MOU which is historic in Canada, as a matter of fact, in

dealing with environmental assessment in an area where land claims have not been

settled. We have, and very much appreciate, the co-operation and the willingness

of the Innu and LIA to enter into this agreement to work towards an

environmental assessment for a mining project in a region where land claims have

not been settled.

The Federal Government, the Department of Environment, the

federal Minister of Indian Affairs, have also participated in this whole

arrangement and whole effort to work towards a proper environmental assessment

procedure which would be inclusive of native groups that have not had land

claims settled. This is an historic document that we have worked together to put

forward, and we believe it is going to work quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright -

L'Anse-au-Clair, on a supplementary.

MS JONES: I commend the minister for the efforts he has

made in bringing this issue out with the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador. I ask

why the 4,000 Mtis people in Labrador have not been included in this process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her

question. Indeed, I congratulate the member on her questions in the House of

Assembly today on behalf of the interest of the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the reason there has been a four-way

environmental review process negotiated between the Federal Government, the

Provincial Government, the LIA, and the Innu - and that is the list of groups

involved, in particular the Innu and the LIA - is that a claim has been accepted

for negotiation by both the Federal Government, and by the Provincial Government

in the case of the LIA and in the case of the Innu. In fact, the claim that has

been submitted, the work that has been done - there has been, I think, over

half-a-million dollars of funding provided by the Federal Government, by the

Labrador Mtis Association - has been submitted to the Department of Indian

Affairs, and the last that I heard, had been referred on to the federal

Department of Justice for consideration.

I know the member appreciates the distinction between claims

that have been filed and claims that have been accepted for negotiation. In the

case of the LIA and the Innu, the member will appreciate that these are claims

which have been accepted for negotiation. In the case of the Innu, a framework

agreement is in place, was signed here indeed a few months ago. The member, I

think, was present on that occasion. In the case of the LIA, not only is there a

framework agreement in place but there is an accelerated negotiation process now

ongoing, indeed in the city of St. John's, with all negotiators present in one

location, with a view to, if possible, settling a claim as early as is

reasonable in 1997. That is the reason for the distinction.

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

au Clair, on a supplementary.

MS JONES: I fully recognize the progress that has been

made with both the Innu and the Inuit, the speedy progress, I must admit. My

concern is for the Labrador Mtis people in that their claim has been submitted,

as the Premier says, to the Department of Justice. It has not yet been fully

accepted by the Federal Government. It is in that process. However, the Mtis

people do have overlapping claims in Labrador in this area, and they, too, are

impacted by this development and this assessment. I ask the Premier if he can

assure me that the Mtis people will be included in some way in this

environmental assessment, and that the impact on their people will also be

recognized with regard to this development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give an

assurance to the member that every single citizen of our Province in Labrador

or, for that matter, elsewhere in the Province, who wants to have an opportunity

to be heard on this process will have an opportunity to be heard through the

panel review process.

I believe you will see that as the panel is structured by the

Minister of Environment and Labour, and by his colleague, the federal Minister

of the Environment, there will be a very considerable opportunity for all those

voices who want to be heard to be heard in an appropriate fashion.

I thank the member for her recognition of the distinction of

the progress in the claim's process so far between the Innu, the LIA, and indeed

the Mtis claim. That is the clear reason, and it is a powerful reason, why

there is a distinction in the way in which this four-way agreement was arrived

at.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services.

On October 8 an official of the minister's department wrote

all district managers to inform them that all home support cases with funding of

$3000 or more would be subject to a mandatory review. Your official gave a

listing of suggested cost-saving measures, reduction in hours, the sharing of

staff, etc., etc. You admit in the memorandum that your suggested list is not

inclusive, and that social workers would be encouraged to be creative in

discussing and exploring possible other options for further reductions.

Given the lengthy list that you suggest in your memorandum,

can the minister now inform the House of these other creative measures that were

found by social workers to further disadvantage the disabled people of this

Province?

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

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

There was a memo sent out to all the people who were

receiving home support over the $3000 limit, and we also stressed in a memo that

we wanted our social workers to work on an individual basis with each of these

families, and individuals, to come together with an appropriate resolution. For

me to list the number of alternatives would be to identify perhaps the number of

people that are involved. They are many and varied, and every person, and every

individual has their own issues that can be resolved on an individual basis.

Some of those maybe resolved through alternate forms of

living and some of them may have involved reductions in the hours of service,

but the crucial point is that no reductions were made without the families'

involvement and agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

Your memorandum also eliminates the department's share of

administrative funding for those families who access home support help. Is it to

be assumed that these costs therefore will be absorbed by the families

themselves? Given the cutbacks already noted, where does the minister expect

these families to find the money to be able to pay the administrative cost?

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

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

The direction that was given with respect to the

administrative cost was given based on, again, an individual assessment. Where

possible the administrative cost would be reduced. Where it was not possible,

that money would be maintained for people to do that administrative services

and, I think, the most important point to remember is that every cent is being

put back into that program so that we can continue to provide existing services

and allow new individuals to enter into the program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I have never before seen so many people so happy to see

cutbacks to the disabled in the Province. What in-service programs have been

introduced by the department, Madam Minister, to familiarize families with the

bookkeeping requirements of Revenue Canada, for example? What procedures have

you introduced to ensure that financial processes used are consistent with good

accounting practices? What in-service programs have you offered to the families

involved who now must assume the responsibility for their own bookkeeping and

their own accounting practices?

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

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

I would like to start off by saying that the money savings

from this program is being put back into the program to allow more people to

avail of the services. We do not see it as a cutback. We see it as a way to

obtain more funds to spread it around so more people can access the service when

all people are in agreement with those types of changes.

With respect to the administrative cost, our social workers

are assisting people. We also have engaged the services of some of our Federal

Government colleagues to assist us in doing this. Nobody will be expected to do

it without the proper abilities to conduct that service. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. Will the

Minister of Health tell us why, in the short period of June and September of

this year, the Health Care Corporation of St. John's spent $744,545 of public

money on twenty-nine expenditure items without sending any of them through the

public tendering process?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member puts forward a figure and quotes a number of

purchase arrangements that were entered into laying against that figure, and

asks me to explain what these twenty-nine purchases represented and on what

basis they were entered into. I would simply say to the hon. member that if can

provide me with some more detail of some substance that has a lot more depth to

it than the questions he was putting forward yesterday, and which the Health

Care Corporation roundly and soundly put straight -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If he will put forward some questions of

substance with some supporting evidence that there is some factuality to his

question, then I would be glad to undertake to get the answers for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what world -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - this minister is living in -

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: I told him at a meeting one night if he

thought everything in health care was okay, he was living in a dream world. I

believe that now more than ever. The figures that I just quoted, Mr. Speaker,

were figures that were tabled in this House. The information is there. You read

it, I read it.

Now then. My next question is: Will the minister tell us why

- I will given him a few incidents now if he wants a couple. In September the

Health Care Corporation of St. John's gave $9,522 in a printing contract for

Littledale School of Nursing to Dicks and Company, instead of public tendering

the work, and justified it by saying it was quote unquote "a pressing

emergency". Is this the type of health care expenditure the minister would call

a pressing emergency?

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

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

In terms of providing good judgement as to whether or not a

specific activity is of a pressing nature or a pressing emergency, I will seven

days out of seven and twenty-four hours a day out of twenty-four accept the

judgement of Sister Elizabeth before I will accept yours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, no answer. I am going to give him another one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: We are asking the questions, the information

is tabled, and he can't answer it, so you tell me what it is. Will the minister

tell us why the Health Care Corporation of St. John's sidestepped again the

Public Tender Act in August to purchase $9,951 this time, Mr. Speaker, in sheet

metal work for the Janeway Hospital, to do what again it called a pressing

emergency because the move of the Children's Rehab Centre was preset and `this

work was unforseen when planning was originally done.' What happened to all the

planning the minister was supposed to have put in place for the movement of this

centre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very briefly, the action was taken and the purchase was made

in the fashion in which it was because in the judgement of the Health Care

Corporation it was the appropriate thing to do at that point in time. If the

hon. member has allegations that the Public Tender Act is being not followed as

per the requirement that is placed within the act then let him bring forward

further evidence to that effect.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the House yesterday the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology told us that it was the government's policy to eliminate the payroll

tax when the timing was right. The Minister of Finance today has told us that

the impact of the shortfall in retail sales tax, due to the harmonized sales tax

would be greatly offset by benefits of increased consumer spending and economic

growth that go with the reduced tax rate. If the government really believes this

argument to be true, then why has it not considered the same argument in looking

at ways and reasons to reduce or quickly eliminate the payroll sales tax and

stop punishing the people that are creating employment?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we want to create growth in the

economy. I have to say to the hon. member, as his constituent in St. John's

South, how ashamed I am of my member for voting against Labrador Wests

resolution yesterday, in this place, to rearrange and reconstitute the Upper

Churchill contract which is just outrageous. Everybody agrees with that. Mr.

Speaker, even SNC Lavalin, the largest engineering firm in the country, residing

in Quebec, came out in full support of Premier Tobin and the government of

Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me quote what they say,

`Cognoscente of the vast potential in Labrador, Premier Tobin is concentrating

his efforts on development; the Lower Churchill, Trans Labrador Highway,

Voisey's Bay and in that regard SNC Lavalin supports Premier Tobin and the

Newfoundland Government in their efforts to resolve the inequities of the Upper

Churchill contract!'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the House

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: - not only could we remove the payroll tax but

we could remove all of the equalization payments if we could take what is owed

and owned by this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman wants leave to finish his

line of questioning. Feel free - by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we move to presenting Reports of Special Committees I

want to acknowledge the presence of a former member of the House of Assembly for

the district of Green Bay, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Treasury Board.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled - and I say to the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition - "Ac Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax

Newfoundland And Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us see how you

will re-act.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS the current policy regarding the wearing of sidearms

by officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary differs significantly from

the policy regarding the wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police operating in this Province; and

WHEREAS the training of officers of the RNC with respect to

firearm use and other police matters is of an excellent quality that is

comparable to that of officers of the RCMP; and

WHEREAS there is no justification - do you want to listen to

it or not? - for disparity for sidearms policy between the two police forces

based on demographic or any other factors; and

WHEREAS the number of firearms seized by the RNC officers

between April 1 and October 4, 1996 totals thirty, and the number of weapons

excluding knives seized in that same period totals fifty-six; and

WHEREAS the number of approved written requests by RNC

officers to carry firearms between January 1 and October 4, 1996 totals 568; and

WHEREAS the current policy which compromises the

officers and of the general public in the areas served by the police force; and

WHEREAS recent events involving the illegal use of firearms

in the area served by the RNC have raised public concerns about the capacity of

the RNC to protect them against the consequences of firearm-related crimes; and

WHEREAS the RNC Association has made a compelling case for

the elimination of the disparity in sidearms policy between the RNC and the RCMP

in this Province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make the appropriate changes so that

the policy regarding the wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary will be consistent with the policy regarding the

wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police operating

in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair called for Petitions but nobody

stood.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No.2

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries

And - Oh, sorry. Motion No 2.

MR. TULK: Motion No. 2, first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St.John's Act,"

carried. (Bill No.25).

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, it is the wrong one, I am sorry, it is

Motion 2.

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

"An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement," carried. (Bill No. 44).

On motion, Bill No. (44) read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, "An Act To Amend The

Fish Inspection Act".

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3, second reading of Bill No. 21.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some comments regarding this Act. The purpose of the

Act, the Fish Inspection Act, is to give the Province control over certainly,

quality, and other matters pertaining to fish inspection within this Province.

The Province has a certain responsibility in that specific area.

One of my concerns is that in the amendment to clause 4 of

that Act, there is a new subsection added, 4(f), which states, "which relate to

the regional distribution of processing licences, the development of the fishing

industry of the Province and other matters that are not directly related to fish

quality."

In the Fish Inspection Act, if you look at all other parts of

number 4, it is about requiring and providing for the licensing of persons

engaged in the handling, the processing, the storage, to ensure that we are

going to have a good quality of fish, a good quality product that is going to go

out of this Province at a fair standard.

We know it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to

regulate the inspections and standards of products that are going outside our

Province. If we look at clause 4(b), it refers to the licensing of

establishments used in connection with the handling, processing, storing,

grading, transporting and so on, again pertaining to an emphasis on the quality

of the product that we have.

Our Province has a responsibility there, certainly, to

monitor and ensure that we are going to have certain standards. As my colleague,

the Member for Bonavista South said, years ago you would back in a dump truck;

you would probably carry gravel or asphalt in it all day, and then back it in

and carry fish in it.

That day has certainly passed, no doubt, but the Province

still has a responsibility to monitor and ensure this. Of course, federal

inspection has been very active, and they have a role because most of their

product in this Province, we know, is exported. It is an export product, and

there has to be a federal regulation of this, and that has been going on for

some time.

It says: requiring and providing for the licence of vehicles

used in the transportation of fish, which is a provincial in-Province, on-land

responsibility here, the transportation aspect. So that is a provincial

responsibility. But when we get into 4(f), "...and other matters that are not

directly related to fish quality." In other words, it is saying that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council will have control of all matters not relating to

fish quality under the Fish Inspection Act.

MR. EFFORD: Sure, we have that now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, why do you need it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) court decision.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you do not have it then.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) of the Act.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I am familiar with it, I say to

the minister. I am very familiar with it.

If you have the authority now, why do you need to amend the

Act to get it?

MR. EFFORD: The court said we did not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you do not have it then, if the court

said you didn't.

MR. EFFORD: What do you want, a freehold system?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we are not talking about that, I say to

the minister. We are talking about this amendment, that is now going to - the

development of the fishing industry of the Province is a very, very broad

category. In what manner - there has been no consultation, to my knowledge, I

say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: Well, you don't have much knowledge.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I don't, but has the minister

consulted people out there, the stakeholders? I understand the Minister of

Health consulted on the Act that went through earlier this week, on Tuesday, I

believe, that we passed here in fifteen or twenty minutes. There was

consultation done, and the Nurses Act went through. There was general agreement.

This specific area is an area of concern in which there seems

to be no consultation giving control and powers to matters that do not relate to

the quality of fish. The amendment made in

article 5 says: "The minister may

issue licences under this Act subject to the conditions that the minister

considers to be appropriate, including conditions which relate to a matter set

out in

section 4."

In other words, the minister may make conditions that the

minister considers appropriate, including conditions relating to matters that

the Cabinet was given authority over.

Section 4 deals with the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, deals with the Cabinet. Then

section 5 says, the

minister now has power under conditions he considers appropriate, including

matters related to in

section 4. Are we saying that the minister then can

overrule, the minister can make decisions that supersede the powers of the

Cabinet?

MR. EFFORD: No, no minister has that authority.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, what is the minister's explanation of

those terms, I ask him. "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."

Section 4 outlines

the responsibilities of Cabinet,

section 5 the duties of the minister. The

minister now can set the conditions pertaining to any matters in

section 4 of

this Act, or clause 4, which means the minister has powers where he considers

appropriate to supersede the power of the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by

my colleague, the Member for St. John's South:

That the motion for second reading of Bill 21, which is now

before the House of Assembly, be amended by deleting all the words after the

word "That" and substituting the following therefore:

"That Bill No. 21,

An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act,

be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill

withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Resource Committee of

the House for further study and consultation."

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to have a copy of the

amendment and just recess briefly to have a look at it and see that it is in

order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had a chance to review the amendment put

forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I refer hon. members to

Beauchesne, Paragraph 673, and as well to the authorization of amendments given

on Page 314 of Beauchesne. In both cases it is obvious that this amendment is in

order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel it is important that with any bill coming before this

House there should be at least an opportunity to have it discussed at a

committee level, or have input into it, and I do not feel there was sufficient

time to have input into it. After sufficient input and discussion, we very well

would probably support it in its current form, or maybe in some altered form; or

some other minor wording in this particular bill would have been acceptable

there.

We have seen too many instances of a lack of consultation on

various bills. I know there is concern being expressed. I know the minister has

had concerns expressed to him regarding this particular bill and the lack of

consultation and various input. I think it is important that there be an

opportunity for that.

We have seen many instances in the past where the public have

been very upset with the lack of consultation. Now, we were promised

consultation. Whether you follow what people say or whether you do not, that is

one thing, but at least there is an opportunity to have input. No one person has

all the answers, I can assure you. Sometimes, listening to what everybody has to

say, input from government officials, input from the public at large, input from

stakeholders in the industry, are all a part of the final picture and should be

looked at before bills are passed in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many bills here on this Order

Paper that we would pass in minutes, because we do not see the need to unduly

delay a bill unless we think there should be an avenue followed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We feel it is our right, I say to the

minister. Even if a minister is right, it is no reason not to follow normal

procedures that are given to the House here, to have adequate time to discuss

it.

MR. EFFORD: I can tell you one thing, you know somebody

who will be very unhappy if we did not do it now.

MR. FITZGERALD: I know a lot of people who are going to

be unhappy if you do it now.

MR. EFFORD: No, Sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: To be honest with you, I am not going to

worry about who is happy or who is unhappy. If we do not follow a proper

procedure here in the House, and a proper avenue of opportunity, maybe there is

reason to be happy or unhappy, I say to the minister. There were a lot of

unhappy people when we said there were no cutbacks in health care. Did we talk

about consultation when we looked at health care restructuring here in the city?

Did we talk about consultation with pharmacists on dispensing fees, when it has

put pharmacies out of business? There was no consultation.

Just to take a meagre $61.00, I think it was, I say to my

colleague-

MR. TULK: Did you see the (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I have not.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh! Don't tell lies in this House.

MR. SULLIVAN: The ones with lights on them?

MR. TULK: No, no. The one I sent over to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: You saw that one?

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not get to read it but I glanced at

it, yes.

MR. TULK: But you will.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: So far you are only in the free fall.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I admit, but at least I am down at the

point where my feet are on the ground, I say to the minister, and sometimes it

is good to have your feet on the ground.

I say, to take $61.00 from the people who could least afford

it; there was no consultation in the process.

The minister stood here in the House and talked about

eliminating public exams when the exams were made up, students had -

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the price

of fish?

MR. SULLIVAN: It talks about consultation, that is what

it has to do with it. It has to do with consultation. Students were prepared for

public exams in June, teachers were prepared, the money was spent on making up

the exams, the exams were ready, and all of a sudden here in this House in late

May, to let students know that in two weeks time or a week-and-a-half they are

not going to be doing exams, is not a proper procedure to follow. Whether public

exams should be eliminated or not is another question but it is not the proper

way to deal with people out there.

Now we have to look at other aspects. Tax harmonization:

During this past campaign there was no talk of tax harmonization, none, but when

the election ended there was a Memorandum of Understanding on tax harmonization,

a Memorandum of Understanding where they said there would be a six-month period,

or several months, before an agreement would be signed and there would be plenty

of opportunity. There was no public discussion, no information out to the public

on what the implications might be, until on October 23, in secrecy, an agreement

was signed on tax harmonization. We might very well have supported many aspects

of it. There are parts of tax harmonization that I support. There are parts of

various policies of government, lots of them, that I support. If you support 98

per cent and don't support 2 per cent, people say you are not supporting

government and you are being negative. If you don't support 100 per cent of what

government does, if you cannot support the government, you are negative. I

support many things they do.

I support educational reform. I said here in this House, and

I said before, that our own Premier when he was in Ottawa for two months after

we passed that reform, he was our minister and it still did not come to the

House of Commons. Seven months later they decided to bring it up with summer

coming on. Dragging their feet has a tendency to cause problems. It did in this

case. I just hope in this instance that the House of Commons, in their wisdom -

and I am sure the Prime Minister and his government will see that it is

important to have this back in the House of Commons before Christmas and have it

passed so we can get on with any legislative changes that are needed here in the

House of Assembly. We will cooperate with government.

We passed one piece of legislation here in a matter of

fifteen minutes because the Minister of Health took the time to consult with the

people affected by it, and it went through very quickly. The Minister of

Fisheries does not consult with anybody because he is afraid he might learn

something. I say to the minister, I asked the minister a question in the House

on June 17: Will the minister confirm that the crab stocks are declining in the

recruitment crab? The minister stood up and his quote; I don't know but it is

here. I asked the minister a question in the House last year -

MR. EFFORD: What was the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: I got it here. Here it is, `Johnny'.

MR. SULLIVAN: Here is what I asked the minister in the

House on November 17 - this gives you his knowledge of the fishery. I said: Will

the minister confirm that scientific evidence indicates recruitment is declining

- that was in reference to the crab - and this trend is likely to continue for

the next two years in 3L and the catch decline indicates a decline in the

commercial biomass may have already occurred in 2J and 3K? The minister stood up

and said: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. In fact there are areas now out in 3L and

other areas around this Province where crab has never been so abundant.

MR. EFFORD: And that is true.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said: Not only that, DFO has just made a

decision to increase the quota from 32,000 to 37,000 tons. He asked me, what was

I talking about? Here is what I said: I am referring to DFO's stock status

report and I am referring to the snow crab management plans released just

recently. That was last June. I went on to indicate to him.

Now, my colleague asked questions in the House yesterday, the

same follow-up, the same line in this House, and the questions -

MR. EFFORD: What did I say?

MR. SULLIVAN: He asked the minister - the whole crab

stocks are under review by scientists. There is some concern about regroupment

in different areas around Newfoundland and Labrador. There are concerns, and

rightly so. Conservation in all species must be utmost in everyone's mind. The

Member for Bonavista South asked him, if he would confirm that there will be a

reduction in the quota of -

MR. EFFORD: Of 50 per cent. I said, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: - 50 per cent in Bonavista Bay. When he

asked about the 50 per cent in Bonavista Bay -

MR. EFFORD: And 35 per cent in (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. He said: The management plan will be

down in January. There are concerns expressed about it, no decision has been

made, and signs certainly indicate that there will be some reduction in the

amount of quota. Then the member went on and asked, if there would be a

reduction in White Bay of 33 per cent. The minister went on, again saying, just

a few months later, when the stock status report -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) November. That is six months

later.

MR. SULLIVAN: Five. June 17.

MR. EFFORD: June, July, August, September, October. It is

November.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there are five, that is what I said,

five.

MR. EFFORD: You can't count.

MR. SULLIVAN: June 17 to November 17 is five months. He

asked the question a little over five months and a week or so. So, I say to the

minister: What happened to the crab stocks in that time? Because the minister

hadn't read a report on the fishery here in the Province - the (inaudible)

Minister of Fisheries didn't even know what the snow management crab stock

status report was. I asked him that, and it is here in Hansard for anybody who

would like to read it. It was on June 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it isn't. It isn't a matter of being

smart. It is a matter of reading information that pertains to your ministerial

area. You don't have to be smart to read it.

Now the minister talks about all the consultation he is

doing. I mean, where was it? We talked about the mining and mineral rights tax

act. I asked the new `minister of finance,' not the current Minister of Finance,

the new `minister of finance,' the one who handles mining taxes, who sits behind

or to the right of, I suppose, the real, or supposed to be Minister of Finance

there.

By the way, while the Minister of Finance is here, I wouldn't

want him to run away, but this new economic review, I can tell you, is on a very

strict diet. I must say, it is very concise.

MR. DICKS: A good point. I like the hon. member's

comments.

MR. SULLIVAN: You like my comments, I say to the

minister? I'm sure he is going back to work on those right away, and hopefully

the good news next year won't be that the economy or jobs are down by 4 per

cent. I hope they will be up by 10 per cent next year, or even more.

Mr. Speaker, it is an example of a lack of appropriate

consultation. It isn't too much to ask to consult members of the public, to

bring to the public's attention, bring to the minister's attention, certain

concerns. When a bill came to this House, the first day it came up for

discussion, to rush in a bill, try to sneak it through without anybody knowing

about it so we could get it passed before the public is aware, isn't the proper

way to deal with a bill. You should run it by the stakeholders, see if they

agree or disagree, at least listen to their comments, take them under

advisement, and then make the decision that the department feels is the best

decision to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not finished with the Minister of

Health yet, I can tell him. If you want -

MR. MATTHEWS: What do you mean? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I will be back to revisit you

tomorrow. By the way, I say to the minister, since I provided those names and

other people who wished to remain anonymous, others have agreed to let their

names be used. If you still want other names I can give you names to follow up.

I still have others. On the list I gave you, some who wished to remain

anonymous, I can put a name now at least with one of those other three; if you

want to follow up and find out if what I'm saying is factual.

I don't think I should have to come to the House or the

minister to find out if it is factual. I'm sure if the minister consulted with

his colleagues, the minister representing Grand Bank, and the member for Burin -

Placentia West, I am sure those two are very much aware of concerns on the

peninsula. I do not think I would have to come here to relay their concerns. I

was very surprised that the minister is not aware of those concerns because, I

say to the minister, they are very, very legitimate concerns, and I can tell you

it is a very serious matter. Many of these instances are, and it is not a matter

that anybody takes a great delight in seeing happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they are serious matters, we will take

them seriously.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I certainly hope they are taken

seriously and I hope it will be corrected in the future, because that is a role

of the Opposition. If we do not get the results - it has been happening for the

last few months. A month ago I brought up an issue pertaining to it in the area,

nothing was done, and I brought it back again to the House. It is part of our

responsibility, bringing to the public view.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, when I have an opportunity to ask on

health. The question I would like to ask minister is: Would you like me to be

the health critic again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he would.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, well maybe I will get back to him on

Monday or Tuesday or maybe tomorrow.

MR. MATTHEWS: I love substantive questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not like questions that have no basis.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and what the minister does not like, I

can tell you, are the substantive answers that I provide to him in writing. That

is what he does not like. I can tell you, when I ask you a question there will

be a substantive answer, because if I do not consider it to be factual, I say to

the minister, I won't throw it out there. Any questions I have brought to this

House on health matters, I say to the minister, I took great pains to ensure

they were accurate because it is not an area where we would want to put out to

the public something that is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not true (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. My colleague raised some very valid

points, I say to the minister, very valid points. There are a lot of concerns

out there. Look, life is a learning experience. When you stop learning, there is

something wrong, and when you think you stop learning, something happened

probably a long time before that. You are absolutely wrong then. I will

encourage my colleague to get back again to the minister and bring it to his

intention.

Before I get back to my topic, I must say to the minister,

while he finds the view very good from where he is, I do not find the view any

better from where I am.

Seriously, back to -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but there is less hair. The colour is

different. The suntan, I must say, is a lot more, a lot greater. I ask the

minister: Does he ever get any calls from health care when he is out of the

Province to bring his attention to things I have been raising?

MR. TULK: I don't know if he is getting on your nerves

now, but he is getting on mine.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, it does not have to be serious

to get on the Government House Leader's nerves, I can assure you.

Now back to this

section of the bill. My amendment is to

refer this back to a committee. I mean, the committee might be able to deal with

this in a matter of a day or two and get it back to the House again. I think it

is important. When the government has a reason for not wanting to put something

to a committee, there must be something about it they do not like. I can assure

the minister it does not have to be in committee very long.

I believe the bill we passed here the other day, the Minister

of Health's bill on the Registered Nurses' Act, we must have dealt with that in

about fifteen to twenty minutes. I asked the minister: Did you consult with the

stakeholders affected by this?

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely.

MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely, and that is the point. The

minister in this act has not consulted. There are certain, serious matters and

points of concern in what is in this act, not only giving authority to an area

that has nothing to do under the Fish Inspection Act. It is not proper and is

giving the minister some powers to override the Cabinet.

Section 5 gives the

minister power to override the Cabinet, and that should not be a condition set

down in the act. It is not appropriate, it should not occur and I think

government has to look at doing appropriate consultation on that before we

should be bringing legislation to this House.

Now, I do not want to belabour the point unnecessarily. I

think I have made the point and I have stated the reasons why I think it should

go to committee. I have stated some of the problems encountered with it, that

could be dealt with if the committee had an opportunity to deal with it on a

short-term basis, and we could end up dealing with this in a very short course

if that manner is followed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak on the Fish Inspection Act amendment.

The reason I stand is because I have some very dear concerns as to what the

amendment will empower the government to be able to do. Cabinet can now make

regulations without bringing the matters back to the House of Assembly for

approval, which on such an industry as our fishery, which was at one point the

lifeblood of Newfoundland and Labrador, and while right now it is suffering to

make a comeback, it is still a very, very important industry to our Province, I

feel that the House of Assembly should have the ability to make regulations and

change regulations, and not just the Cabinet of government.

Could these regulations say where plants can go and cannot

go, how many plants can go in a given area, whether or not licences can be

transferred from fishermen, and so forth? Who knows? That has been left unclear.

The amendment is a very, very open-ended amendment which gives considerable

power, not only to Cabinet but to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It

does not make any difference who is sitting as the Minister of Fisheries at any

given time. No one person should have that much power when it comes to an

industry such as the fishery.

Where is the accountability in this new amendment? Where is

the voice of the people, or the vote of the people's representatives on these

matters? They lie within the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and within

the Cabinet of the government, whichever party should hold government at any

given time. There was no public input or consultation on the amendment, after

government had preached and vowed they would give consultation on important

issues.

The second amendment adds a subsection giving the minister

new powers. It says, "

(2) The minister may issue licences under this Act subject

to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, including

conditions which relate to a matter set out in

section 4."

The minister will have the power to determine whether

section

4 applies or not; not the Cabinet, not the Members of the House of Assembly. The

minister will have this discretion solely.

The term `appropriate' is left undefined. That is up to the

discretion of the minister.

The phrase, "...subject to the conditions that the minister

considers to be appropriate..." is also left undefined, completely at the

discretion of the fisheries minister.

There was no consultation with the Fisheries Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador, or other stakeholders in the fishing industry. These

decisions were made by the present Cabinet, and future decisions can be made

solely by the sitting and acting fisheries minister. It just goes to show a

continuation of government's unwillingness to consult, after promises of

consultation in the most recent election, such as the tax harmonization.

Government failed to seek public input before signing on to the Memorandum of

Understanding. They failed to seek consultation before signing the

interprovincial deal in the fall, and people still do not know the details of

this harmonized sales tax deal. They still do not know the implications. There

was a lack of consultation.

There was a lack of consultation on the public exams issue.

We were notified that public exams were going to be cut out at the end of the

last school year; no consultation with the students, no consultation with the

teachers, no consultation with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. It did

not consult with university students here, college students or the education

experts before eliminating public exams and it did not listen to the input of

the interested parties afterwards.

On education reform; the former Premier failed to consult. If

it were not for the Senate there would be no substantive consultations on this

issue at all, and even with the consultations of the Senate, it has gone back

now for the House of Commons to vote on.

Social Services; government did not consult before

eliminating regulation aid assistance, the emergency assistance. Government did

not consult before cutting dispensing fees to the drug stores. They did not

consult with the drug store owners, the pharmacists and they did not consult

with recipients of social services.

On health care restructuring; there were no public

consultations on major changes affecting the Grace, the Janeway, the Children's

Rehab, nursing homes, personal care home funding and so on. The government has

shown a complete unwillingness to consult and this new Act, this new amendment

shows as well their complete unwillingness to consult, not only now that the Act

is before the House of Assembly but if the Act is passed there will be

absolutely no consultation, there will be no need to consult because the

fisheries minister himself will have the full power to make very important

decisions on the fishing industry. There is absolutely no need for him to

consult with Cabinet, no need to consult with the House of Assembly, no need to

consult with the fishing industry, no need to consult with anybody, any of the

important stakeholders.

AN HON. MEMBER: Finally got a good man in the Premier's

chair.

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the education minister, he should

not be talking of consultation after the recent cuts in education.

Another example is the Crown lands and cabins; there was no

consultation with Crown land owners, no consultation with the public and no

consultation with the House of Assembly before this very important decision was

made during the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) fish in St. John's (inaudible).

What do you know about fish?

MR. H. HODDER: There was fish in St. John's when you were

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, there was fish in St. John's before you

were around.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I know there is more bubbling out of that

minister than there is out of a regulator in a fish tank.

The fisheries minister would have enormous powers over which

fishermen get licenses, towns get fish plants and effectively what communities

can survive. The fisheries minister would have unrestrained new powers to make

decisions subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be

appropriate - the minister himself, without requiring those decisions to go back

to the Cabinet or the House for approval. Should this minister or any future

minister be permitted to decide for himself and by himself, for his own private

reasons which people get licenses and which do not? That can have very, very

dear and very grave concerns and repercussions for the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

If we are to ensure that we do things right in making

decisions for the future, we need to open up the decision-making process, not

close it. We need to open up the decision-making process and provide more

opportunity for consultation and careful evaluation before changes are imposed.

People should not have to go begging to the Minister of Fisheries, whoever that

minister may be at any given time, to secure a future in the rural fisheries of

the Province.

This new Act or the amendment to the Act has very, very dear

concerns, as has been proven over the past week by people throughout the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, feedback through the media, calls to the

open line shows, and so on. The people of our Province have very grave concerns

over the powers that the Cabinet, and indeed the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture would have with this new Act. And not only for the people of our

Province but for future generations, if power is given to one man to make very

important decisions, to decide who gets licenses and what areas of the Province

can have fish plants, there is a very, very great reason for concern.

This concern goes far beyond the members of the House of

Assembly, and as I mentioned, far beyond the people of our Province today. This

concern will be echoed by generations to come if this bill is passed. So I urge

members of the House of Assembly to take a very serious look at this amendment,

a very serious look at what this amendment will do to the fishing industry, and

what it will do to our Province. The repercussions it will have in years to come

and the power it gives just to one person, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, that power and control should not be left in the hands of one

person and not left in one person's office.

This should be an area where each representative of each

district in the House of Assembly should have a say in the future of the

fishery. The fishery is still a very important industry to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador with many different species. And hopefully, with the

recover of the groundfish stock the fishery will continue to be a very, very

important industry to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the

people of our Province and to generations to come.

We need to work on rebuilding the fishing industry, and

putting the power to make these types of decisions with one man, with one

person, I think, would be a very big mistake. I think we have to seriously

consider what we are doing here today. I think we have to seriously consider

what effect this would have on the future of our fishery before we sign this and

give consent to change the Act and to make amendments to the Act that are being

proposed.

It is unfortunate but I feel this Act and the amendments to

the Act will go through and be passed by the House of Assembly because of the

number of people sitting on the other side, people who are supposed to be

representing the people of our Province. Many of the members sitting on the

other side represent fishing communities and I think it is very, very

unfortunate for those fishing communities, the people living in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that these amendments are going to pass without the

consultation of the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to ensure a successful fishery

down the road and rebuild the fishery today we have to make the -

MR. EFFORD: Who should have the authority to issue

licenses? Tell me, who?

MR. OSBORNE: Not one person.

MR. EFFORD: The Cabinet makes the decision but I am the

minister responsible. Don't be so stunned!

MR. OSBORNE: But the amendments to this Act would give

you the powers and abilities, and I think those responsibilities should be given

to the House of Assembly and not to one Cabinet and not to one man. I think it

is very, very important. This should be open to consultation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Cabinet. They always did.

MR. FITZGERALD: Why are you changing it, then?

MR. EFFORD: Boy, don't be so foolish! (Inaudible) court

decision. Sit down and I will explain it to you.

MR. OSBORNE: I will give you leave if I can get up again.

MR. EFFORD: Yes!

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

Aquaculture have leave to speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. SPEAKER: He is not closing the debate, is he?

MR. EFFORD: No.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Just an explanation to hon. members opposite

speaking on the Fish Inspection Act. Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time

again, this piece of legislation was brought in on the advice of the Department

of Justice because of a recent challenge by a fisheries plant to the Department

of Fisheries and Aquaculture on the exportation and transportation of fish. The

court said that the only authority the minister had was based on quality. It had

no other authority. Because of that decision by the courts, we had to put the

words in there to satisfy the court that we had authority to issue licences,

something which every minister in the Department of Fisheries has always had.

There is absolutely nothing different. The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, there

is no change, just a clarification of the power the minister has always had,

because of a recent court decision - no more, no less. Right now, according to

the court, I don't have any decision except for quality. That means any fish

plant in Newfoundland can do anything it wants. Is that what you want? You don't

realize what you are saying and what you are doing.

MR. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) changes.

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

MR. EFFORD: Because of a court decision. The court said

that the minister only had authority on quality.

MR. OSBORNE: The second amendment here says that: "`The

minister may issue licences under the Act subject to the conditions that the

minister considers to be appropriate, including conditions which relate to a

matter set out in

section 4.'"

MR. EFFORD: Other than quality.

MR. OSBORNE: The minister will have the power to

determine whether

section 4 even applies. The term "appropriate" is completely

left undefined. The phrase "subject to the conditions that the minister

considers to be appropriate" is left completely undefined. This gives the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture tremendous power that the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture did not have before. It gives the Cabinet powers that

the Cabinet did not have before. Decisions that had to come back to the House of

Assembly.

MR. EFFORD: Aha! The Cabinet has the power to do anything

it wants to do, at any time!

MR. OSBORNE: Based on the numbers that sit in the House.

MR. EFFORD: Make no wonder (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down now and

let my hon. colleague who has a much greater in-depth knowledge of the fisheries

stand and speak.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak on the

motion as amended, Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. I have

been listening to the, I suppose, debate between the Member for St. John's South

and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture back and forth.

I say to the minister - and to the Government House Leader -

if he feels that the Opposition is so wrong on this bill, and we are so

misinformed, then why is he afraid of not accepting the resolution as amended?

All we are asking is it go before a committee of this House which was duly

appointed, which is an accepted Standing Committee of this House, to attend to

legislation such as we are seeing brought forward here today and this past week.

We, in Opposition, are not obstructionist. We don't stand

here and oppose just for the sake of opposing, or stand because we like standing

for half-an-hour at a time and hearing ourselves speak. We are standing because

we have real concerns with this piece of legislation. I think it is incumbent on

us to stand and point out the shortcomings.

In the line of questioning, some time ago I asked the

minister if he had conferred with industry on this. He said: No, I have not

conferred with anybody other than the Department of Justice. I ask the minister,

what is so wrong with involving the industry and getting their opinion, and

getting their decision and putting it before the Standing Committee of the House

so we can bring it back, and if they say it is alright you will have it with our

blessing.

MR. EFFORD: Will you take one question?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I will.

MR. SPEAKER: On a question or closing the debate?

MR. EFFORD: A question, Mr. Speaker.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I ask the hon. member, in all seriousness:

Who does he think should have the power to issue licences to the fishing

industries of this Province? And who has always had the power to do it?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister opposite that if he

is going to take on new powers, or if he feels that he wants to assume new

powers, then why bring it in under the guise of the Fish Inspection Act? Bring

in another piece of legislation that will grant the minister new powers. Bring

in the legislation. The minister should do it in consultation with Cabinet, I

say to him. He should do it in consultation with Cabinet. It is not all that

clear, I say to the minister.

I know that Cabinet has the power, that the Premier has the

power, to give the minister the flick - I know that - but it reads here, in

section 1 -

MR. EFFORD: I know, too.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you should know.

section 1 it says, "which relate to the regional

distribution of processing licences, the development of the fishing industry of

the Province and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality."

If we are going to be dealing with other matters not related

to fish quality, let us not bring it in under the guise of the fish quality act.

Then we go on down to

section 2, paragraph (2) of

section 5

of the act, which says, "The minister may issue licences under this Act subject

to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate..." - subject to

the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate - "...including

conditions which relate to a matter set out in

section 4."

So all of

section 4, and I will not go on to read it - there

must be ten or fifteen sections there - and the minister has the power to have

the last word on that as well.

MR. EFFORD: Who else should have it? My poor old

grandmother?

MR. FITZGERALD: He asks who else should have it, and I

tell him we are not the only ones who have concerns. I spoke with people in

FANL; they have grave concerns about this. All I am asking, and all we are

asking, is to allow it to go before the Standing Committee of the House. That is

all we are asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: If Bud Hulan was still the minister we

would not have this problem.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, you are right. Just to give the

minister some praise, one of his colleagues, in private conversation, went on to

say that the minister we now have is the greatest fisheries minister since Bud

Hulan. I pass that compliment on to him.

Mr. Speaker, the editorial in the paper a couple of days ago:

Is John Efford making a big mistake?

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not only John Efford. That is what

scares me. It does not scare me that the minister may make a big mistake. What

scares me is the people out there who will suffer with some of the mistakes that

the minister may make. That is what scares me, the 30,000 fish plant workers,

the 30,000 stakeholders that this piece of legislation can hurt. That is what I

am scared about.

MR. EFFORD: Answer the question I asked you.

MR. FITZGERALD: You answer the questions I am asking of

you. I gave you an opportunity. Why are you not using a committee of the House

to put forward this piece of legislation? Since we have concerns about it, why

do you not grant the House the wishes of the Opposition to put it before the

Standing Committee, the Resource Committee of the House, and allow them to

report back?

No, sit down now. If you want to get up you will wait your

turn. You will not go shouting orders.

If you feel it is such a safe piece of legislation, and there

are no problems with it, let them come back and we over here on this side of the

House will have no problems with it. Is there something wrong with that? If you

had done that in the beginning, Minister, you probably would have had your

legislation now. But you decided to go the other way with it: We were not going

to consult with anybody. We are not going to ask anybody what their concerns

are. Because we say it is right, then you must accept it.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked with the fishing industry on this

and they have some grave concerns about it. They have no concerns about fish

quality, and I am not going to get into that because there is nobody here who

would disagree with the fact that if we are going to be able to compete, and if

we are going to have a fishery that is vibrant and provide opportunities, then

number one on the list should not be production, and number one on the list

should not be harvesting; it should be fish quality. If we cannot compete in the

marketplace then we are not going to compete very long as it relates to giving

opportunities and providing much needed employment in any of our rural towns.

We are dealing with an industry here that I do not think

anybody had a grasp on, or knew how important it was to this Province, until we

shut it down.

At one time you came into St. John's and talked about the

fishery, nobody knew what you were talking about. They knew it existed out in

rural Newfoundland and they knew some fishermen came in here on a Saturday and

spent their money, but other than that, they did not realize the importance.

They thought that if Bonavista's plant closed down or if the plant in another

town closed down, it would not reflect anywhere else and as long as you did not

live there, it did not matter. Mr. Speaker, we were soon to find out how greatly

it did matter and how great an industry that this particular fishing industry

was to our Province. That is the reason why we are here and that is the only

reason why we are going to stay, the only reason.

We can talk about all the new initiatives, we can talk about

the new technology and we can talk about being on the leading edge for this and

the leading edge for something else, all good things I say to the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology, we need it and I congratulate you. You will

never see me stand in my place here and knock you for going outside this

Province and trying to bring back opportunities for our people. You won't see me

do that, but by doing it, Mr. Speaker, and as important as that might be, let us

never lose sight of the fact that the only way that rural Newfoundland and

Labrador will survive is going to be with the return of our fishery. That is the

only way, and as we go out into our communities today and see what is happening

out there, Mr. Speaker, none of us I don't think, if we have any kind of a heart

at all, can turn our backs on it, walk away and feel that it is not affecting us

and what I have heard is forgotten about. It is far too deep for that now, what

we are seeing and for this minister to want to control that particular industry,

Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong.

I do not think anybody here, as much as we respect the

Premier and as much as we respect the Cabinet minister or any other member who

is sitting here in this House, I don't know anybody here who would say that we

want to put the power of controlling the fishery of this Province into the hands

of one individual. I don't think we should ever allow that to happen. We see all

the mistakes made in the past, how were they made, I say to the Government House

Leader, the mistakes in the past, how have they been made? They have been made

because we saw fit to put great powers into the hands of one individual. One

individual, Mr. Speaker, it happened on the Liberal side of the House and it has

happened on our side of the House. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we lose sight of why

we are here and we do not want to speak against something because somebody who

raises his voice the loudest, somebody who is a little bit noisier or can gather

support around them a little bit more than somebody else, we will fall in line,

we will be like followers and we will allow it to happen. Mr. Speaker, that

should never be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not the only one I say to the

government members opposite, I am not the only one who has problems with this

piece of legislation. There are nine people over here on this side of the House,

individually, have problems with it. The fishing industry has problems with it.

The union members have problems with it. Maybe all they need, and the minister

thinks we are all stunned, maybe all we need is a little enlightenment and I can

change my mind. I won't be, Mr. Speaker, the type of person who blocks

everything else out just because I think it is wrong or just because I think it

might give the other party an advantage, I am certainly not like that, and most

of the people out there, if they are misinformed, then I ask the minister to put

this piece of legislation before the committee and let the committee inform

them.

If we believe in the committees of the House then that is

what should be done. Yesterday, we saw a piece of legislation introduced here,

where, the consultation process had taken place, a couple of members had some

thoughts on it and they stood up, they were allowed to do that very quickly,

they did not go and take a half-an-hour or twenty minutes, five minutes just to

be on record saying what they wanted printed in Hansard to show their concerns,

Mr. Speaker, to voice the concerns about somebody who had spoken to them

privately or some other way, it should be done and that will happen with other

pieces of legislation.

In fact the greater amount of legislation that we have seen

come forward, we don't have any problem with it. We don't have any problem with

it because the right process has been used. The process of consultation and if

there was a problem there, Mr. Speaker, put it out to the Standing Committee,

put it out to the committee of the House. The only time or most times that

ministers bother to use the committees of the House here today is with the

Concurrence Debate on budgets. That is the only time, Mr. Speaker, that many of

our Standing Committees meet and we go through an exercise. As worthless

sometimes as it might be but it is a good way to get some answers, it is a good

way to have some dialogue with the minister and his staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the hon. member but it is 4:02 and under

Standing Orders at 4:00 I have to announce the items for the adjournment debate

at 4:30. The first one is to the Minister of Social Services, re the question on

supportive services for home care recipients, from the Member for Waterford

Valley. Question No. 2 is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, re my

question on consultation as per Bill 21, from the hon. Member for Bonavista

South. Question No. 3, to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Crown

land pricing policy and from the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, those are some concerns that

I have had with this particular piece of legislation and the amendment that was

put forward. I say to members opposite, if we don't believe in allowing our

Standing Committee's of the House to deal with this - let's dissolve them. Let's

get rid of them. Just because the former Premier thought it was a good idea -

and I think it is a good idea - just because he thought it was a good idea does

not mean to say that we should go through the motions to have Standing

Committees and not use them, Mr. Speaker, it is a farce!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There are a lot of lessons, I say to the

Government House Leader, that I have to learn. A lot of lessons but I believe in

fairness, Mr. Speaker. I believe in fairness, I believe in consultation, I

believe in involving people in decision making, especially when it is other

people's livelihoods, Mr. Speaker, their future. The whole rural Newfoundland,

all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be affected. It is not the point of not

trusting the minister who is sitting in that seat today. It is not the point of

not trusting him. It is the point of who is next? I know that we can go through

the process of talking about, Cabinet has to approve it and it has to go before

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and all that. Mr. Speaker, this gives this

minister great powers, unprecedented powers, I say to people opposite. Powers

that should never be put in the hands of any one individual.

Now I know the minister when he stands he talks about his

dream of being minister and all that but that is all good stuff. I think he

probably has his heart in the right place. I think when he goes out and makes a

decision, Mr. Speaker, that he will probably believe in his own heart and soul,

that the decision he is making is the right one but you know and I know that

they were not always the right decisions. They were not always the right

decisions.

The Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago read from a

report where he had asked him a question in the House back in June month, just

five short months ago. He talked about harvesting crab, Mr. Speaker, and here he

had 3L and 2J. The minister said there was no problem, there was an abundance of

crab. Don't worry about it, we are going to increase licenses, we are going to

increase the total allowable catch from 30 ton up to 37 tons. Don't worry about

crab there are lots of them. Only to come back, Mr. Speaker, five short months

later to find that we have a real problem. We have a problem today in

Newfoundland and Labrador with the harvesting of crab. We may never see the

quotas up to the levels that we see them today. Five short months ago there was

no problem. The minister was not going to listen to anybody. It was his thoughts

that there were lots of crab out there. We throw back the females, don't worry

about it, it works.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we saw the same minister bring in a

caplin quota. He was going to bring in individual plant quotas. Go out today and

talk to fishermen and ask them what they think of the individual plant quotas

that were brought in last year. Ask them what they think of them, and they will

tell you about the tons of caplin that were dumped last year around this

Province because of the plant quotas. Just stop and think about it. What was to

stop them?

I have two real problems with what the minister did last year

as it relates to the caplin fishery. Number one: he has not implemented it yet

but he is thinking about it, he talked about allowing fish plants to sell their

quota. I think his words were: this is a way we can allow fish processors to get

out of the business, and they can realize something for their investment. He is

going to allow fish plants now to sell their caplin quotas, their caplin

allocations. I do not know what it will be, whether it will be $2000 or $2.00 a

ton, but how about the people left behind I say to the government member

opposite? I do not know how much of a quota Beothuck Fisheries got in your

district to process caplin.

MR. TULK: I can assure you of one thing, for sure and

certain, Beothuck Fisheries will do okay.

MR. FITZGERALD: You are right, and I hope they do. They

did alright before you went there and I say to the minister they will not need

him because they have some good skilled people working there. That is the reason

way, and they have a good member there, sure they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: No, they never came asking for it, but if

I were there in a position to help them I would be the first, I say to the

government member, Mr. Speaker. I know some of them personally who work at that

plant and they are good individuals. You do not hear them crying, and you do not

hear them coming to government for handouts all the time. They are doing an

excellent job there because they are doing something right.

I say to the member if it were not Beothuck, or if it is it

does not matter, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy because he will

probably pay more attention. What happens tomorrow if we allow what the minister

is saying he might entertain, say in order for you, Mr. Way, to get out of the

fishery we are going to let you sell your quotas. What happens? So, I buy them

up in Bonavista and I take the quotas and leave Valleyfield altogether. Is that

the right way to allow people out of this industry? How about the people left

behind? How about the people living in Vallleyfield, Badger's Quay, Cape Freels

and Lumsden? How about those people I say to members opposite? If you are going

to allow that to happen you should do two things, Mr. Minister. Number one, you

should make the license owner stay where he is and operate from the premise, and

the second one, you should build in some kind of factor there whereby they must

have processed that particular species for a number of years.

I have a fish plant in my district, in fact I have three, but

I have one particular fish plant there where new owners moved in and they bought

the fish plant for $1.00.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. FITZGERALD: Charleston. They bought the fish plant

for $1.00 and they employed up to 427 people there at one time. Now, what

happens if we allow that individual - just look at it, he got the plant for

$1.00 and what's to stop him now, if he decides he is going to get out of the

industry, no rules and regulations the way the minister was proposing, what is

going to stop him if he decides he is going to sell his caplin quota for $2.00

per 100 or $2.00 per 1000 pound? He can see a chance where he can make $800,000

or $1 million and what happens to the people who are left behind?

MR. EFFORD: What are you talking about?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know what I am talking about. You

know what I am taking about I say to the minister. If you were listening you

would have known what I was talking about.

MR. EFFORD: You are asking it to happen.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not what I am asking to happen.

Those are some of the thing the minister is saying he is looking at doing, he is

considering.

AN HON. MEMBER: My son you are out to lunch.

MR. FITZGERALD: No I'm not out to lunch, I say to the

member. In fact, it came back to you as a recommendation. So those are the

things, Mr. Speaker, that concern me.

The caplin quota last year, before I leave that. Talk to

fishermen last year who came in. Some of them had a good product. Because

somebody said that the red feed count is over a certain percentage, they had to

dump their caplin. I know you shouldn't market caplin with a certain percentage

of red feed, because I know what happens. But, minister, a lot of people came in

with a count of red feed and with a count of caplin much lower than was

acceptable, and what they did with them was dump them over the wharf because the

plant was afraid to take them. They were waiting for better caplin. In that way

it wouldn't come off their quota. Those are the things that have to be attended

to. The minister has to make those kinds of decisions before he looks for

unlimited power to go out and take control.

Minister, I would like for you to find out how many - and

don't do it by calling the plants themselves, but do it by talking to the

stakeholders, talk to the fishermen. Find out how many tons of caplin were

dumped last year. Find out about it before you start implementing new changes,

or before you start grasping and wrapping your arms around the individual plant

quotas in another year. Just ask some of the fishermen. This is the very thing

that the minister is saying that he is trying to stop, that he is trying to

prevent, and it shouldn't happen!

How important it is to include other people in the decision

making. The minister, whoever he is, is there today and gone tomorrow. How about

the people out there with millions of dollars of investment? How about the

people out there with thirty years and fifteen years and ten years seniority? We

are going to go and put the livelihoods of those people, and put the future of

those investors, in the hands of one man. It should never be allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister says we are wrong. Maybe we

are wrong. But if you people know that you are so right, and if the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Here again, that is your view. There is

no point in doing it. If you gave every member an opportunity over there to say

what they wanted done, and say it privately, or not have to say it to the

minister or you because now they know your views, I can assure you that it would

come back. I say to the Government House Leader that you could have had this

piece of legislation if you allowed it to go through the standing committee of

the House.

MR. TULK: No, we aren't putting every piece of

legislation that you want (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: We didn't ask you to put every piece of

legislation. There was a bill that passed through here the other day, very

little debate. Most of what you have on the Order Paper will go through with

very little debate. There will be a few things, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is your opinion, and you are

entitled to that, and I will fight for it as long as I'm here for you to have

your opinion. But that doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion is right.

Other people have opinions and you should respect them as well.

MR. TULK: I respect them, but they are wrong.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe they are wrong, but all we are

asking you is to give them the opportunity to prove that you are right. Like

I've said, I've talked to people in the industry, people have called me.

I will tell you what I did with it, Government House Leader.

I took the piece of legislation and said: Maybe I am wrong, maybe the minister

is right, maybe the Government House Leader is right. I took the piece of

legislation, and I can show you the letter - I didn't say what my views were, I

didn't say what the Opposition's views were. I took a copy of Bill No. 21 and

sent it to the unions and to FANL and to other people. I just asked if they had

any concerns or suggestions about Bill No. 21. Right? I had answers back. I had

one visit, Mr. Speaker, and I had about, I would say, four phone calls.

It was enough to say to me, and to, I suppose, verify that my

concerns were real, and what I was asking for was not wrong. I only faxed it out

to about ten people so half of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I do not know. That is up to

themselves, I guess, who is a part of what, but the same people that you and I

have been just praising, if you called those people - have you talked to the

Ways down in Valleyfield?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Who did you talk to down there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, you are not going to tell me because

you are afraid I will call them and ask if you did talk to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, I did (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: They have no concerns about it? No

concerns whatsoever?

MR. EFFORD: No they do not.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe they do not. I am not saying they

do.

MR. EFFORD: I am telling you they do not.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not saying they do, Minister. What I

am saying is that we have a piece of legislation here that we have a problem

with, that the stakeholders have a problem with. There has been no consultation

other than with members of your own group.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) that legislation?

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. TULK: Do you know why FANL is upset with that

legislation?

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I do not know if they are upset with

it. I heard Mr. Chapman on the news the other day, that he (inaudible). I

provided him with a copy of it, and I will provide the minister with the letter

to show him that I did not push our views on the individual.

MR. TULK: Do you know why they are upset with that piece

of legislation?

MR. FITZGERALD: Tell me.

MR. TULK: You do not know why?

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know why. I guess they have

concerns about it, like we have.

MR. TULK: Because they could not (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, if that is the case then that is

wrong, but here is where your Standing Committee would come in. If those

concerns out there are not for real, if they are not justified, then we will

bring it back and you can get on to committee stage and have it within the

normal period of time that it would take to go through the House rules and

regulations in order to get the Lieutenant-Governor of the day to proclaim it.

The Minister of Education nods his head. He knows all about

what I speak of, a very big believer in the consultation process - and I think

the minister is. This is something that is trying to be slipped through. He is

uncomfortable with it. He is saying that he needs it confirmed. He already has

the powers, but if you already have the powers, why do you want it confirmed?

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what has happened -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have that right.

MR. FITZGERALD: I have that right, and I do not know what

has happened out in Southern Harbour somewhere a couple of years ago as it

relates to somebody processing crab and using the export market and not having

the proper licence for it. The minister probably does have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that myself, and everybody else has. You should be

licensed. You should only do it within the confines of the rules and regulations

of this House, but allow the Cabinet and the Lieutenant-Governor to make the

rules and regulations, and not the minister.

This is a bill that we have grave concerns about, and I will

re-echo my thoughts once again before my time is up, that we are asking that

this piece of legislation be referred to the Standing Committee, the Resource

Committee of the House, and then bring it back, and if the Resource Committee

has no problem with this particular bill then I can assure you that we on this

side will have no problem with it either. I do not think that is asking too

much. I do not think it is being unreasonable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: If the government of the day wants to

operate within the rules of this House and have, I suppose, good dialogue back

and forth, then please allow us to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few minutes to clarify the

misunderstanding of the hon. members opposite. It is a simple and very clear

understanding that this piece of legislation brought into this House at this

time is to do nothing more than clarify the authority that the minister had

thought he/she had always had as ministerial authority in the House of Assembly

- or in his office, I should say - no more and no different than. It was because

there was a recent court challenge, a challenge that had to be made, that was

made by the industry and by a decision that came down through the court.

We need this authority that gives the minister, through the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the authority to issue licences to fish plants.

If that is not done, then any fish plant within the Island of Newfoundland and

Labrador can do whatever they so desire. The only authority that I would have to

impose on them is to apply quality standards. If that is what hon. members want,

then stand up and say that is exactly what you want. If the Minister of

Fisheries, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, does not have that

authority, who should have it? I asked the hon. member opposite the question and

he would not answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cabinet.

MR. EFFORD: Cabinet has it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) override some of them.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, come on!

Mr. Speaker, if we followed the logic of hon. members

opposite we would open seventy-five more fish plants, like they proposed during

the last election. That is what we would do, bring in seventy-five more fish

plants and open them on top of the 200 that we already have in this Province,

and bring in $300 or $400 million worth of fish from somewhere around the world

to process in the plants. That is the type of sensible statements that were

made. We are hearing it now in this debate on this particular bill. It is the

authority that the minister thought he always had. When this bill passes in the

House he will now have it, and it is only to oblige the court in the decision it

made.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of

order.

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

I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

if he knows the difference between open and reopen.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: There is a lot of confusion that is

unfortunately being put out there among the people in the industry -

MR. FITZGERALD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, I

would like to make it clear that we, on this side, didn't open any fish plants.

There has been one fish plant opened since the moratorium was announced, and the

minister opened that one in St. Lawrence.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member said in his comments, it is

only for clarification. There is no point of order, again.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, so the hon.

member does learn something this afternoon, it was not one plant, it was two

plants and possibly three. I can tell you, it is a lot better to open fish

plants than to open greenhouses.

I think we have had enough debate on this piece of

legislation. It is for the overall best interest of the industry as a whole in

this Province. We have to make some changes, but in order to make some changes,

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture must have authority to do so, through

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to have the authority to impose conditions

on the industry - simply that, no more complicated, no more change than that.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 21 pass through this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All in favour of the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 21)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is 4:24 p.m. and the Late Show

starts at 4:30 p.m. I am wondering if the Opposition House Leader is now ready

to proceed with the Late Show. If he is we can do it and get it over with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes! Who do you want to ask a question? Who do

you want to slap you now?

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

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will agree to begin

the Late Show now. I was wondering of the Government House Leader could

probably, while ministers are coming in, tell us what legislation he int