November

21, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 38

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Before we call Statements by Ministers, I would like to

welcome to the gallery today a former member of the House, the former Member for

Placentia, Mr. Nick Careen, who is sitting the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in January of 1996, the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador committed to consulting the public on educational

reform. This promise was communicated to the public and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador through a document released by the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador titled, Ready For A Better Tomorrow.

The campaign document stated, and I quote, "We are committed

to an open, ongoing process of dialogue and discussion on all elements of

implementing education reform before decisions are made," and went on further to

say, "There will be extensive public consultation before any new school

viability rules are adopted." A further commitment was made to not change the

rules with respect to busing until after the consultation process.

In keeping with these commitments, nineteen public

consultations were held throughout Newfoundland and Labrador during September

and October of this year. I personally attended all nineteen meetings, along

with officials from the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, we heard more than 250 presentations with

respect to a range of topics. Three particular issues: school viability, the

designation of uni-denominational schools, and student transportation, were

dealt with in detail at all meetings. The meetings were attended by close to

5,000 people and, in addition to the submissions presented at the meetings,

almost 1,000 people took the time to complete a response form attached to the

consultation document.

I will briefly mention a few of the highlights gleaned from

the presentations and the response forms:

The most significant finding was the widespread support shown

by the public for not busing students further than the school nearest their

home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The response forms themselves demonstrated

76.6 per cent support for this concept. Seventy-one point nine per cent of the

respondents agreed that it is inappropriate to provide additional resources to

maintain a school when a better learning opportunity for students is available

nearby. The same view was reflected in the submissions at the public meetings

themselves.

Sixty-five point five per cent supported maintenance and/or

development of multi-grading in small schools to avoid busing primary students -

from Kindergarten to Grade III - long distances. This was clearly reinforced by

presenters at the public meetings as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: With respect to transportation and busing

issues, Mr. Speaker, there was consensus that government busing guidelines

should allow school boards the flexibility to deal with local situations such as

road and weather conditions.

With respect to the exercise of parental preference regarding

school designations, there was no consensus as to how the preference for a

uni-denominational school should be expressed, although there was general

agreement that government, through the school boards, must fully explain the

designation process to the public and ensure that parents understand the

consequences of choosing each available option.

Mr. Speaker, this government has demonstrated clearly that it

considers the views of the people to be important in making ongoing decisions

with respect to educational reform. The views presented to us during public

consultation hearings and through the public consultation response form will be

seriously considered as we do final drafting of legislation for the new Schools

Act and Education Act to be considered by this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, today I am releasing a report of the Ministerial

Consultation Process to all members of the House of Assembly, to our educational

partners in the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Home and School Federation, the Denominational Education Councils, and

also to the public through the media. When the draft legislation is finalized

it, too, will be shared with our educational partners prior to debate in this

Legislature. Then we will all be in a position to assess to what degree the

public input influenced the final decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

minister for the provision of the ministerial statement. The report is quite

lengthy, and obviously I have not had an opportunity to review the report but I

have had an opportunity to review the statement.

The consultation process, from my understanding, was indeed

an exercise with some merit. I had the opportunity, along with some of my

colleagues, to attend three of the meetings, in Placentia, Harbour Grace and St.

John's. It was certainly interesting, Mr. Speaker, to glean some of the

responses from the public at large with respect to their concerns and how their

concerns affected educational reform in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the ministerial

statement recognizes that there is no consensus with respect to the designation

of schools. I would suggest and submit that this is going to be the area of

greatest difficulty with respect to educational reform. The busing issues ought

to be able to be resolved. The viability issues ought to able to be resolved.

However, in our larger communities, particularly perhaps our cities, it may be a

challenge to all of us, in particular to the government and to the hon.

minister, as to how to best deal with the designation of schools, in terms of

which schools will be designated as uni-denominational or which will be

inter-denominational.

It is going to be very difficult, for example, for a person

who may live in a neighbourhood and who always had a school that was designated

as uni-denominational, now finding himself or herself in a situation where his

or her child can no longer go to that school because it is now

interdenominational, and vice versa. So therein lies the problem, Mr. Speaker.

That is the challenge. I would suggest that this ministerial statement

recognizes that challenge and that is why it is clear, as the result of the

public consultations which took place throughout this Province; there is no

consensus.

I would urge the government to thread very carefully and to

make sure that the school boards throughout this Province are given proper

guidance and direction, again with more consultation for the public, if indeed

that is required, to ensure that the public of this Province gets what it voted

for in a referendum of more than a year ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Mr. Speaker, no leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement which I wish to

make on the pine martin but I was late getting the statement in, so if the hon.

gentlemen opposite wish, I could wait until after Question Period and I would

ask leave to come back to Ministerial Statements again after Question Period, to

give them a chance to look at it and read it. Is there any problem with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: None.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. It has

been brought to my attention that there are serious problems occurring with the

Peninsulas' health care board that serves Clarenville and the Burin and

Bonavista Peninsulas.

Can the minister confirm that the situation has become so

critical that the administrator was placed on extended leave?

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

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

the question.

There have been some issues brought forward by the medical

staff at the Peninsula's institution down in Burin that are basically of a

contractual nature that they have asked the board to address. They became a

matter of, I guess, some public concern and debate over the weekend as a result

of the concerns that they have raised, mostly which are contractual in nature.

One however had to do with the lapsing of the servicing of equipment at the

hospital.

I have been in consultation with the chair of the board, the

executive of the board, and I have put in place a process that has been agreed

to by the medical staff who have brought forward the concerns, and I have asked

that the concerns that they have and any other concerns that any other medical

staff have who works for that board, be addressed by this committee. The

committee is starting its work as we speak. It is mandated to report to me by

next Thursday and at that time I may be able to advise further on what has come

out of that process.

To the other part of the question: No, the CEO of the board

has not been put on mandatory leave. He is on vacation for, I believe, a

two-week period, and he has taken that vacation by virtue of his own choice at

this point in time.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister confirm that areas under the board were left

without essential medical services because of the visions between the medical

professionals and the administration? The minister was personally made aware of

the situation when he was vacationing outside the Province and I ask him, when

he stands, will he confirm that the administrator is coming back to his job on

December 4?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware that there was any gap in service created as a

result of any of the concerns that were brought forward. To the question as to

when the CEO will return, he is on a two-week vacation and it is my

understanding that he will back to work at the end of that period of time.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that the board's failure to renew

maintenance contracts on medical equipment, contracts that expired in 1995,

resulted in placing the lives of many patients and residents in jeopardy?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that that

happened whatsoever. I can confirm that the servicing of some equipment at the

hospital did not occur in April as a normal

schedule would have dictated. That

was brought to the attention of the board by the medical staff at the hospital

and it has been attended to and corrected.

As to whether or not there is a connection between inadequate

service, or a gap in service, or inappropriate treatment being received at the

facility because of non-serviced equipment, I can't confirm that there is any

linkage whatsoever in that direction. The servicing of the equipment that was

referred to has now been done.

Other areas and other concerns that were brought forward by

the medical staff that are basically, as I say, contractual in nature, have been

mandated to a committee that the medical staff are a part of and have agreed to,

and a process that they have concurred with is now in place. The committee will

do its work over the next seven to ten days. If there are issues that arise out

of the work of that committee that need to be further dealt with, be assured

that this government and this minister will be acting as expeditiously as is

appropriate.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that patients who have sought medical

attention at the Burin hospital over the past several months have had to be

transferred to Clarenville or to St. John's, either because medical equipment in

Burin was not working, or there were no staff to operate the equipment?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, I can't confirm that has ever happened. Obviously, within

the jurisdiction of that board, and within the Province generally, people do

have to move around to obtain specific services which are delivered at specific

locations. People move on an ongoing basis from the Burin Peninsula or Northern

Newfoundland or Central Newfoundland or the West Coast or Labrador into St.

John's for services.

I'm not aware that anybody was denied services at that site

that would otherwise have been appropriately expected to be delivered at that

site. If there are situations or specific circumstances, I would ask the hon.

member to bring them to my attention, and I can assure him that they will be

dealt with in the firmest and the swiftest and in the most appropriate fashion.

Mr. Speaker, questions of medical treatment that people need,

questions of services that doctors need to render to people in the Province, are

decisions that have to be made by doctors. Ministers of health or officials or

CEOs or boards do not decide, or the Leader of the Opposition, even, does not

have the prerogative, the right, or the ability to decide on what is appropriate

medical treatment, and where it can be best delivered. These are doctors'

decisions and they will remain doctors' decisions as long as I have

responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the minister if he will speak to me afterwards

because I have numerous instances, and I will give him specific names to go with

those instances, of people who have not gotten the service at the hospital that

was normally given at that hospital. I will give him many names.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today as well are for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Minister, the married father of three children in Central

Newfoundland has to travel Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, year 'round, from

Grand Falls-Windsor to St. John's for three and a half hours of dialysis. Of

course there are something like twenty-five to thirty people in the Central

Newfoundland area just like him.

Can the minister put himself in the shoes of that gentleman

for just a minute and tell us whether he thinks the access to basis health care

services like dialysis are really adequate in this Province?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have dialysis services being delivered at the moment from

two hospital sites in the Province, St. John's and at the Western Memorial

Hospital in Corner Brook. These two sites provide most of the dialysis services

that have to be provided for people who have to go and have institutional type

services rendered. The hon. member would probably know that there are other

types of dialysis that are provided to people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: There is the type of dialysis that is given

in the home setting, it is called home dialysis. There is the perinatal dialysis

that is really a procedure that is ongoing in a person's body as we speak. For

the people who have to go on equipment, there are two places in the Province

where we render that service, at Western Memorial and in St. John's. At the

moment there is deemed to be a sufficient level of services in these areas to

meet the need within the Province.

I do acknowledge that people have to travel for dialysis and

people have to travel for other services in the Province. We have geography, Mr.

Speaker, that mitigates against everybody being able to get every service where

they would like to get it and where we would like to be able to provide it. On

balance, the best medical advice that I have for my officials is that we are

providing an appropriate level of dialysis services at the two locations and

people are getting the services as best we can provide them.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now then, Mr. Minster, can you imagine what spending four

hours on the road, four hours on a dialysis machine and then another four hours

on the road, three days a week, can do to somebody's health? Can you imagine, in

the case of the gentlemen I speak about today, who has to stay in St. John's,

the impact on that man's family and on their prospects for employment? Should

this man's wife really have to give up her job that her family depends on, so

that her family can move to St. John's just to be near a dialysis machine? What

does the minister have to say to this family and the dozen more like it

throughout Central Newfoundland?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. member

that I can to some degree put myself in the shoes of that individual or any

other individual, but nobody can appreciate a circumstance like that like the

person who is in that circumstance and their family.

If the hon. member is alleging that this government and this

minister have no concern and no consideration for people who need a very

critical service of that nature that requires high tech equipment that requires

significant medical support and back up in order to be able to ensure that it is

provided safely, if the hon. member thinks that we as a government or I as a

minister do not have sympathy or feeling for those people, then he better think

again. Because I can assure you that we have great empathy and great feeling and

great appreciation.

I have meet in my office, Mr. Speaker, with people in this

Province from Central Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: Spend some of the money you have spent on

Trans City (inaudible) and you would be able to provide some services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: It might be advisable for the hon. member

to speak to his colleague because obviously the frivolity with which he is

treating the incident over there is less than the dignity that the question

deserves. Let me tell the hon. member that we are doing the maximum we can in

the Province for dialysis patients, we will continue to do the maximum we can

for the need that exists within the resources that we have on the best medical

advice of people who are professionals and who provide that service in our

facilities, namely the high quality, capable, dedicated professional doctors and

nurses and technicians who backup and provide that type of service.

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

South, on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that the people of Twillingate and the

South Coast have raised money for the dialysis machine not currently located in

Central Newfoundland? Why is this government denying reasonable access to basic

health care services to the many tens of thousands of people in Central

Newfoundland, and is it his policy that people in less populated areas - if you

are finished, I will continue. Your own minister over there said that my

colleagues would not listen, so maybe if you would listen, as you are from out

that way, you might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FRENCH: Is it his policy that people in less

populated area will have to put up with second-class medical services, as they

are doing right now, Mr. Minister?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, there may be issues that are

raised in this House, and questions put by the Opposition, that from time to

time may lend themselves to lightness or probably a little comedy, but I can

tell the hon. members of this House that we, as this government, treat health

care in a very serious fashion. We take the matters of health care to be very

important, to be very critical, and to be very much the number one priority of

the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: That is why, Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon.

member again, that this government, while we decreased the Budget of every

department last year in government, we increased our health care Budget.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention, it is not the

policy of this government, to ensure, to see, or to even cause to permit to

continue people in rural Newfoundland to have a second tier or an inferior level

of service. We are, and we will continue to provide the highest quality of

service at the maximum level we can within the scope and extent of our capacity,

to all people of all regions, in all areas of the Province. We are doing that, I

believe, we will continue to do that, and I think the hon. member, if he were

honest in his heart, will get up and acknowledge that that is really in fact

what he thinks and knows is happening.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Health. We

are talking about Central Newfoundland. Over the last several years, in

particular, the Baie Verte Peninsula and the health care centre there has taken

many cuts, I say to the minister. Whichever way you want to phrase it, there

have been lots of cuts.

Mr. Speaker, since then, of course, a lot of the cases now go

to Corner Brook or Grand Falls. Things like appendectomies and tonsillitis are

not done at Baie Verte. Anything else in that area now has to go either to

Corner Brook or Grand Falls, some two hours away, three hours for people in La

Scie.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when those cuts started, we in that area

were told that the Corner Brook hospital and the Grand Falls hospital would be

upgraded so that they could take the increased workload.

Is the minister confident that the number of doctors and

staff at Western Memorial Hospital can take that increased workload from the

Baie Verte Peninsula?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have a high level of confidence in both the capability

and the level of services at Western Memorial, and at all of our hospitals, to

do the job they are mandated and required to do. At any given time we may be

short a doctor, either as a general practitioner, a specialist, or even a

sub-specialist in some area of health care in some area of the Province. That

will happen in perpetuity because doctors come and go, move from area to area,

and change employment sites as everybody else does. But on balance, I have to

say to the hon. member that I have had no indication whatsoever, recently, or as

far back as I can remember, from your particular area of the Province, or from

any area of the Province, that in any way suggests that we are not capable, that

we do not have the resources, and that we are not rendering a high level of

service, and an appropriate and a timely level of service at the Western

Memorial institute, my information is and my confidence is that on the contrary

we are doing an admirable, we are doing an adequate, we are doing a satisfactory

and an appropriate level of service for people who go to that institution.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I can give him a

long list of complaints I have from the Baie Verte health centre, but we do not

have time for that today.

On his other statement that he is confident in the Western

Memorial Hospital, let me give him just one example. We can give him the other

1,500 or so some other day. I would like to know if the minister is aware of

Philip White, a young sixteen-year-old who was brought to the Western Memorial

on November 5 during the night. He had to have an appendectomy in the morning.

He waited throughout the night. The pain got worse. Nine o'clock next morning

when he was scheduled for surgery, no doctor. At 10:00 a.m., still pain, no

doctor; 11:00 a.m., still no doctor; at 11:30 a.m., a ruptured appendix, still

no doctor. A call was put outside the hospital to a private clinic to have a

doctor come in and perform an operation, six hours after he was supposed to have

the operation. Are you still confident in Western Memorial, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. member has documentation or

general information of a nature that he feels suggests that there is, even in

one instance, at one point in time in this Province, inappropriate or inadequate

medical services available to an individual, I would ask him to bring it to my

attention. I will undertake that when sufficient detail is provided to me that

it will receive the highest level of priority and attention from me personally

to ensure whether or not there is factual basis for the allegation, if whether

or not there is something that needs to be done to correct the situation, and I

will be happy to report back to the House if, in fact, there is anything

untoward that had to be addressed.

I am not aware of any individual who was unduly deprived of

services, except what you have told me. I suggest probably that the question may

have been thought to be coming to the House today, because just a few minutes

before I came over it was suggested to me by one of my officials that a question

may be raised in the House regarding an appendectomy situation at Western

Memorial. I have no information from anybody, written or verbal, other than what

you have given me. I will attend to it if you will give me the facts that you

have.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, you are

a little bit out of touch. This was two weeks ago. None of your colleagues,

nobody has called your office - the media, anybody, on this particular case?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I asked the minister a direct, straight,

serious question. I would ask his colleagues to listen to the question, because

this family is very upset with this particular situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that a

doctor was not available for up to six hours. They had to go out to a private

clinic to have a doctor come in and perform -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

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

his question.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the member that somebody should

have been aware of it. It is pretty bad if two weeks later the Opposition has to

be informed before the minister.

Mr. Speaker, is the minister standing on his statement that

he is confident - and this is one story out of a million of the Western Memorial

Hospital - that there are enough doctors? It is a simple question: Are there

enough doctors at Western Memorial Hospital, in light of this situation and

others, that he is confident can handle the workload out there?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me answer the

first question. He asked me if I am telling him that I became first aware five

minutes before I came to the House that there is a potential for a question

around an appendectomy brought to my attention. Yes, that is the first time I

have heard it. It has still not been brought to me in any substantive or

official form.

MR. SHELLEY: I will give you the official (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I would be happy to take notice of the

information and deal with it, but let me re-affirm the answer that I gave

earlier, Mr. Speaker. I have every confidence in the level of capability and the

quality of service that is being provided at Western Memorial Hospital. If there

is any suggestion by virtue of evidence of any nature that we are not providing

a quality level of service, let the specifics be brought forward, and the

appropriate level of investigation, and to the extent that we can, if there is

action to be taken it will be taken.

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

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

today are for the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Will the Minister of Justice please confirm for this House

whether or not an out-of-court settlement with respect to the Trans City fiasco

has taken place?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: A supplementary to the Minister of

Justice.

Will the Minister of Justice today, Mr. Speaker, table copies

of the cheques the government has issued so that the people of this Province can

see how this gross error in judgement has cost the people of this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to

table that today. There are extenuating circumstances which would dictate that

that, at this time, is not in the public interest. In due course, however, all

of these things will be made public.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to

accept the fact, when the Minister of Justice says it is not in the public

interest, when we are talking about public money.

It has been reported that the settlement involves funds in

excessive of $2 million, that these are public funds and very much a matter of

public interest, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the hon. minister: Will the government do the

honourable thing and commission an independent inquiry into this Trans City

scandal to determine what were the motives and who bears responsibility for this

$2 million disgrace?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member

that no stone has been left unturned to make sure that public funds are spent

properly by this administration, and in due course we will make available to the

people of this Province all the facts. I can tell the hon. member at this time

it would not be in the public interest to make all of these figures available,

but in due course all will become known.

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

supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just out of curiosity, I understand the minister Chairs a

committee which will delve into public expenditure with respect to numerous

departments within this government. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, as Chair of

this committee, this $2 million, which department will now do without the $2

million? Is it the Department of Education, closing of schools, affecting the

busing? Is it the Department of Health, impacting upon the issues that were

raised by my colleagues today? Is it the Department of Social Services, more

cuts? Which department will have to suffer the blow, Mr. Speaker, of this $2

million fiasco as a result of this Trans City scandal?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to attempt to satisfy the hon.

member's curiosity, the Trans City deal, by the time the hospitals are paid for,

will have saved the Province in excess of $6 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can't help it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I can't help it if hon. members find that

funny, but these are the facts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: These are the facts that have been verified

over and over, even in the court proceedings. Even in the court proceedings, Mr.

Speaker, it was made perfectly clear that this deal will save in excess of $6

million.

Now, there was an out-of-court settlement for x number of

dollars. That had to come out of the $6 million, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the court proceedings, the lawyer for

the plaintiff said: We know it is a good deal for the Province, but we are

fighting this on a technicality. And they walked off with some taxpayers' money

on a technicality. If the hon. members want to support that, that is up to them,

but the deal, in the long run, saved this Province $6 million.

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

a final supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again we are talking about public funds, very much a public

issue.

Will the minister please tell us - and as Attorney General

and Minister of Justice he ought to know - are there other activities of this

government that may soon end up before the courts, that could potentially cost

us millions more of the public's money?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is

indicating his desire to see that the government is not given the burden of any

additional cost because of activities of Members of Parliament, and perhaps he

might have a word with his brother who, together with other members of the

Canadian Senate in the Progressive Conservative Party, have announced they are

getting ready to defeat the amendment to Term 17 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and in defeating, as a matter of policy

by the Progressive Conservative Party, the amendment to Term 17, are stalling

the reform of the education system in this Province and are costing all of the

taxpayers of this Province lost savings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite truly

has an interest in efficiency, truly has an interest about what is important to

the taxpayers of this Province, I suggest he call Senator Ottenheimer and ask

Senator Ottenheimer why Senator Ottenheimer - notwithstanding a referendum in

Newfoundland, not withstanding a unanimous vote of this Legislature, not

withstanding indeed the member's own position, nevertheless, he is going to have

an non-elected Senate, an unaccountable Senate, defeat a democratic initiative

by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

A couple of weeks ago the Premier announced that he would be

hiring a consultant to look at what he perceives, or what should provide him and

his government some advice on an effective labour regime for the production

aspect of the Hibernia project. Can the Premier enlighten the House, or inform

the House today, has a consultant been hired? What are the Terms of Reference?

When is he expecting to hear from the consultant? Was the consultant, or the

need for a consultant, put out to public tender, or was the person just hired

from the Premier's office? Was there a request for proposals, or did you just

get somebody who was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: When do you expect to get results or

information back from the consultant?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion for a

consultant - the member would know, I am sure, because I think the member is a

serious member and does his homework in this regard - has come from both the

Offshore Development Council, representing the sixteen trade unions which have,

so far, been involved in the construction of the Hibernia project; the

suggestion for a consultant comes from each of the players associated in the

consortium with respect to both the Hibernia project and the Terra Nova project.

So the industry, both on the business side and on the labour

side, has said to government: It is absolutely clear that if Newfoundland and

Labrador is going to reap the benefit, the potential benefit, of an expanding

and growing offshore oil and gas industry, that a labour regime which is

efficient, which is productive, which is forward looking, which is stable and so

on, is necessary. And the best way to achieve that kind of regime is not to

arbitrarily impose something, but rather to seek the views of all of the

stakeholders, to ask all of those unions and all of those private sector

players, from the consortium to the labour unions to the members of NOIA, for

their advice.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Labour - who

is not present today in the House - with his ministry, in the days ahead, will

be announcing a consultant. The consultant will be an independent player not

affiliated with the labour unions or affiliated with the oil industry, but

rather someone who will report to government and give us advice in a manner that

is in the best interest of the Province as a whole.

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

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could take advantage of the

leave that was offered to present (inaudible) ministerial statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader has a question.

MR. TULK: I am asking for leave to revert to Statements

by Ministers, as requested earlier.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe that was agreed upon earlier, that

the hon. Government House Leader - we are reverting to Statements by Ministers.

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible) with leave. Go ahead.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Ask the question. Ask it with leave.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

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

is asking me a question across the floor, and I know he wants to ask it on the

record. I suggest we give him leave to ask the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the hon. the Government House Leader had leave to

make a ministerial statement. We will get to the Premier's point of order when

the hon. member has delivered his statement.

MR. TULK: I would certainly sit down and let the hon.

gentleman ask the Premier his question, and ask for leave after the hon. member

has asked the Premier the questions that he needs to ask. By all means.

AN HON. MEMBER: With leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asking for leave to

ask a question?

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Premier wants me to put a question

on the record, I will deal with it during Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he is

aware that on August 31 a person with a heart problem went to the Burin

Peninsula health centre and had to be sent to Clarenville because there was no

specialist there to deal with that problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the

Opposition asked me across the floor of the House, and this is why I wanted to

give him leave to say it publicly, was whether or not the husband of the Deputy

Prime Minister had been hired by the government, and he named him, Austin

Thorne. That is what you said, and indeed the House will record that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely not,

no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Got your answer now? Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I would like to take this opportunity to update

the hon. members of the House of Assembly on the initiatives taken by the

Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to secure the future of the

endangered Newfoundland American Marten. The marten, which was listed as

threatened in 1986 with a population of 600 to 800 animals, was listed as

endangered earlier this year with an estimated population of 300.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm this government's

commitment to ensuring that the marten does not go extinct. I would like to

outline some of the ongoing activities of the department which we believe will

collectively lead to the recovery of the species so that it will no longer be

considered threatened or endangered.

In cooperation with the Western Newfoundland Model Forest

Incorporated, and stakeholders and interest groups, my department is involved in

defining a proposed combined wilderness and wildlife reserve in the area of

Little Grand Lake. This reserve will consist of 167,000 hectares in total, which

will protect in excess of 50,000 hectares of prime marten habitat. Conservation

of the marten habitat is necessary to protect the core population of marten at

Little Grand Lake. With this well-rounded team of scientists, industry and

community representatives working together to define the area to be protected,

we will soon be able to make this marten reserve a reality. I would add that we

have put our people on notice that we want this done as quickly as possible.

Establishing formally protected reserves is not the only

strategy to protect marten habitat. We are negotiating with stakeholders such as

the large pulp and paper companies to leave sufficient habitat for marten to

survive in forest harvesting areas outside of these special reserves. Reserves

alone will not ensure the long-term survival of the species.

One of the most significant dangers to marten populations is

accidental snaring. To protect the marten, we have declared areas where this

activity is no longer allowed. This year we closed a portion of the Main River

watershed to snaring and trapping. As well, we are examining other areas to be

considered for some form of closure over the next several years. Snaring and

trapping has been banned in the core marten area at Little Grand Lake since

1973. Several years ago we expanded the "no snare" area to include Glover

Island.

My officials are sensitive to the fact that we cannot ban

snaring and trapping activities in all areas where the marten occur. However, it

is still imperative to protect the animal as much as possible. To achieve this

we, in cooperation with others, are also investigating modified snaring and

trapping techniques which will allow for persons to continue with these

activities without accidentally killing the marten.

My department has been very proactive in studying the

American marten. I would like my fellow colleagues to recognize the value of

ongoing scientific research which will help us to better understand this animal

and put ourselves in a better position to ensure its survival.

Number one, we are partners in a study in the Little Grand

Lake and Red Indian Lake areas. Number two, we are working with biologists in

Terra Nova National Park with the objective of having the marten more widely

distributed throughout the Island portion of the Province, rather than be

concentrated in only one protected reserve. Number three, we have initiated a

captive breeding program at the Salmonier Nature Park with the objective of

enhancing the population and introducing them to new locations. I might add, Mr.

Speaker, that has been fairly successful. Number four, we are planning to

explore modified wood harvesting practices with both Corner Brook Pulp and Paper

and Abitibi Price to protect the habitat from marten.

I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the financial support

for marten research and management for 1996/97 will be $530,000, of which 27 per

cent is a direct contribution from the Province. Other major research funding

partners include: the Western Newfoundland Model Forest, Forestry Canada, Terra

Nova National Park, and the Endangered Species Recovery Fund of the World

Wildlife Fund. I wonder, could we keep the gentleman from Bonavista South quiet?

Finally, Mr. Speaker I would like to address the concerns

regarding American marten habitat in the vicinity of Star Lake. Mr. Speaker, I

acknowledge that a small amount of marten habitat will be lost as a result of

the Star Lake Hydro Development. However, that loss will probably affect about

four animals, and even then the efforts will me minor, amounting to a loss of

about 10 per cent of each animals' home range - for the information of the

Member for Kilbride. Therefore, my department does not consider this development

as a major threat to the future of the marten.

Mr. Speaker, what we must strive for is a balance between

protecting a sufficient amount of habitat for the marten to survive and recover,

while allowing for the sustainable development of our natural resources. We

believe that the strategy that we have in place will give the marten the best

opportunity to recover and thrive.

Thank you.

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

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

I would just like to make a couple to quick comments. I thank

the minister for giving me the statement just after the House opened, but it did

not give me time throughout Question Period to read through it.

First of all, like we say, when credit is due... We applaud

the government for bringing forward this statement today. The next thing, of

course, is to follow up on the legislation and, as the minister would probably

agree, to enact it as quickly as possible because of the low numbers of pine

martens in the Province right now; I think 300 is the number quoted. Also, in

one of the lines it says, "With this well-rounded team of scientists, industry

and community representatives working together to define the area to be

protected.." I think it is very important that we do involve the community

representatives who are very concerned about this particular animal in our

Province, and hopefully we can move forward quickly and expedite this process so

that it is in place before we have any more decline in the pine marten in the

Province.

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

Vidi. Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table the audited financial statements of the

Province of Newfoundland Pooled Pension Fund for the year ended December 31,

1995. Some points worthy of note include: that the pension fund, members will be

happy to learn, grew by 13.1 per cent during the year and had investments with a

market total of $1,116,000,000 at December 31, 1995. There were 11,171

pensioners on payroll, having a total cost of $158.7 million annually. The two

largest plans, the PSPP and the teachers' pension plan, had pension fund

balances of $785.8 million and $330.2 million respectively. The other two plans,

the uniform services' pension plan and the MHAs' pension plan have no

accumulated investment assets as they are in deficit positions requiring

additional payments from the Province to cover their annual pension costs and,

as well, do not have separately allocated assets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I have six. I will

make one statement and then say the bills after.

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

to introduce the following bills entitled:

A bill, "An Act to Amend The City of St. John's Act";

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act";

A bill, "An Act to Amend The St. John's Municipal Election

Act";

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Municipalities Act";

A bill, "An Act to Amend The City of Mount Pearl Act";

A bill, "An Act to Amend The City of Corner Brook Act";

Mr. Speaker, quite honestly in the almost four years I have

been in the House this is probably the most important act:

A bill,

An Act To Provide Fire-Fighters With Protection From

Personal Liability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

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

the residents of Mount Pearl, parts of St. John's and as far away as St. Bride's

and St. Mary's Bay. This petition is again on the topic that I have been talking

about each day since the House has been open. It deals with the safety of school

buses and the safety of children.

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, there are circulating in this

Province today great numbers of petitions that will be presented almost every

day in this House by myself or some of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, it goes to

show that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are asking the Minister of

Education if he would listen to the prayer of the petition.

The petition reads: We, the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the House of Assembly

to direct the Department of Education to legislate a paid adult bus monitor

program for all school buses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that is raised is that we have many

children going to school on unsupervised buses. We have many children who face

risk because of the fact that they have to get on the bus and off the bus in all

kinds of weather and that there is a real potential danger to their safety.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the parents are saying is that they do

not want the safety of their children to be compromised. They are saying to the

Minister of Education, look at the issue. It may be, as I said the other day,

that we have to have different kinds of bus monitoring for different age groups.

We should have a look at, in particular, children who are in primary and

elementary schools and school age children. Mr. Speaker, that is because the

very young children are potentially the ones who will be the quickest to become

distracted or probably they, because of their size, would have the greatest risk

of not being seen by either a car driver or by the bus driver and so therefore

they are the ones who face the greatest risk.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the Province has to

readjust its priorities but we have heard the Minister of Education say that he

is making tremendous savings because of consolidation, he is making tremendous

savings because of changes to the staffing, the changes to the school boards,

twenty-seven boards down to ten boards, and the lay-offs that have occurred at

the administrative level. So there are, according to the reports, millions of

dollars going to be saved in education in this year and even more dollars in

subsequent years. So we are saying to the Minister of Education, put some of

that money back into the children of this Province, put it into the classrooms,

in some cases, but do not overlook the issue of school bus safety.

Now, Mr. Speaker, since the knowledge of this kind of

petition has been circulating throughout the Province we are being told that

more and more parents are today circulating petitions. They are not convinced

that the Minister of Education is hearing what is being said on a daily basis in

this House. They are hoping that if enough petitions get presented, the Minister

of Education will come to a realization that this is a priority.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today to listen to the prayer

of the petitioners, look at the issue of school bus safety and place the safety

of children very high on his agenda. In fact, it should be the highest on his

agenda, on everybody's agenda, every day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the hon. House to give all

due consideration to the prayer of this petition presented by the people who are

listed here from Mount Pearl, St. John's, Outer Cove, St. Bride's and other

parts of the Province as well.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to simply second the petition as has been

brought forward by my colleague, the Member for Waterford Valley. This issue, of

course, is a very important issue to many parents throughout this Province. We

have tens of thousands of young people who are bused on a regular basis to and

from school, in many cases over not what we would describe as the best of road

conditions. Mr. Speaker, the issue of bus monitoring is one which unfortunately

was brought to the fore as a result of a tragedy which occurred not too long

ago.

Mr. Speaker, bus monitoring ensures that there be a stability

and a degree of discipline aboard school buses at all times. It also ensures,

Mr. Speaker, that when children are boarding buses and getting off buses that

they can safely either stay on the side of the street that they have disembarked

on or safely cross the street. The purpose of monitors are to ensure that the

safety and protection of children are uppermost at all times.

I recently heard, Mr. Speaker, how, in the City of St.

John's, I believe as recently as yesterday, there is a parent who has taken an

active interest in ensuring that this bus monitoring system be put in place as

quickly as possible. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is a growing movement.

This is not something which just is important in an isolated way; this is a

growing movement. We have parents in communities throughout this whole Province

who find it, as a matter of priority, essential that they stand up, be counted

and be heard on the issue of bus monitoring for the benefit and the welfare of

their children.

So I support the petition as presented by my colleague and I

would ask the hon. minister opposite to please heed these petitions. I mean,

these are petitions that are presented daily. Sometimes it may give the

impression that the only people who are talking about the petition are the

presenters and the seconders. Well, that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. These

petitions are filled with names of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

see it as important in their lives that this issue be addressed. So it is not

the hon. member sitting in front of me and myself who are just making these

petitions to the floor of this House, it is the dozens or hundreds of

Newfoundlanders, and I would say on this particular issue, quite conservatively,

thousands of Newfoundlanders, who find this issue important and will ultimately

want to have this issue addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did want to take an opportunity to make a few comments with

respect to the petition presented. I think the issue, Mr. Speaker, that we have

been dealing with for some time is actually much broader than that presented in

the petition. I know it is not appropriate in a petition to debate and I do not

intend to debate the issue, but I think at some point it might serve some

purpose for clarification for the record, that we had the two hon. members today

stand and support a petition that, in its specific plea to this House, deals

with one aspect only of a very complex issue with respect to school busing and

school bus safety and that is the issue of monitors but specifically paid

monitors, and not only paid monitors, but paid, adult monitors.

The reason that I even make the point, Mr. Speaker, before I

go on to two or three other things I would like to say with respect to the issue

generally of school bus safety, is that following a recent tragedy in the

Province, the Opposition critic for Education who spoke in support of this

petition today, which calls specifically, directly and solely for support for

the concept of paid, adult monitors, indicated to the media that he felt that

the solution was monitors, but that it did not require paid monitors and that he

recognized the difficulty with finding money for these kinds of things, and that

volunteer monitors could very well be part of the solution. Now, Mr. Speaker, we

have both members today supporting a petition that deals with one aspect of

school bus transportation and safety, which is paid adult monitoring.

The parent groups that have met directly with me and with our

departmental officials have dealt with the much broader range of issues. They

have dealt with the notion of the actual physical condition of the buses

themselves, the fact that we have regulations allowing buses in this Province to

be older than in some other provinces. They have dealt with the issue that

school buses do not have reverse back-up warning systems on them,

whereas they

have those for all kinds of commercial and industrial transportation

initiatives, but they are not on school buses. They have dealt with the need for

wider arms for protection, and direction signals and so on to be there when a

bus is stopped so that we can enforce the actual no-passing of school buses.

They have dealt with the issues, and we are dealing with the issues of driver

education and training. What level of training should a bus driver have other

than just a Class 2 license? They have dealt with issues of whether a school bus

driver should be trained in CPR and/or first aid.

It is not just monitors that these parents have been coming

to the department and meeting with us about. It is a broader range of issues.

They have dealt with the issue of the monitors themselves, whether they need to

be paid, whether there should be different levels, as the hon. member in

supporting the petition pointed out, for different grade levels and different

ages of students. They have dealt with the issues, and we are dealing with the

issues of safety training for the children themselves, for any monitors, for the

drivers, and also the whole idea of additional emphasis upon the programs that

are provided in schools already, to make students themselves aware of some of

the potential dangers involved in travelling on school buses, that we accentuate

our safety programs so that students themselves become more aware of their need

to practice safe habits when using the school buses in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the issue. There is no need

for the Opposition to feel that they have to stand up and repeat this petition

every day looking for adult-paid bus monitors, because the parents are not

particularly asking for that, and I am sure that the first response from the

Opposition through the official critic was that they did not think that this

petition needed to be the answer, that adult-paid monitors was the solution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they are standing and saying, by virtue of presenting the

petition and signing their names to it, that the most important issue with

respect to school bus safety, all of a sudden, is an adult-paid monitor. There

are many other issues, and we are dealing with them in order.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Motion No. 2, Mr. Speaker, to get some first

readings out of the way before we move to second reading of some bills.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act", carried. (Bill No.

26)

On motion, Bill No. 26 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

"An Act To Amend The Freedom Of Information Act And The Privacy Act", carried.

(Bill No. 39)

On motion, Bill No. 39 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, we have to do something in order

to get those bills read a first time a lot faster. That procedure is

tongue-twisting. It ties you up in knots and, to be quite frank, I think it is

kind of crazy. I think we should take a look at a simpler way of doing things in

this House.

MR. J. BYRNE: Does tradition mean anything to you?

MR. TULK: Tradition means a lot to me, but I tell you

something today, too; efficiency has to mean quite a bit.

Mr. Speaker, I move Order No. 2, second reading of a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act". I call upon the best Minister of

Fisheries this Province has ever had, to introduce that bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act". (Bill No. 21)

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction from my hon. colleague,

the Government House Leader, I was very enthused when I stood to my feet, but

looking across the House and seeing my friend on the opposite side with his

measuring tape out I am starting to get nervous. I have lost my enthusiasm, Mr.

Speaker. One thing I can assure the hon. member, whenever it is time for me to

go, I am going to be taken away by a Liberal; so it is not going to be a Tory.

The only fellow that I am sure of that is in that position is Carl Moores out in

Clarke's Beach.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will get on to Bill No. 21, "An Act To

Amend The Fish Inspection Act". I am going to just mention briefly the reason

why the changes are necessary to the Fish Inspection Act. I will just simply

read this, "Clause 1 of this Bill would broaden the scope of the Fish Inspection

Act to enable the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations for

non-quality related purposes. Clause 2 of the bill would confirm the minister's

authority to impose conditions on licences issued under the Act."

Mr. Speaker, the processing industry in this Province has

been the total responsibility of the provincial Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. The federal government is responsible for the fish harvesting,

licensing, the issue of licenses, quota, conservation measures, and all those

other issues related to the industry, but when it comes to the processing it is

the responsibility by the Department of Fisheries, or the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture of Newfoundland and Labrador, to issue licenses for processing

plants, wherever they may be located or deemed to be located within the

Province.

All of the years that have passed since the Fish Inspection

Act was brought into the Legislature of this House, and passed by the House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, the authority of the minister to issue

licenses was never challenged until, I am not sure, I believe it was a year ago,

or just recently, when it was challenged in the courts by a processor in the

Province who deemed it necessary that he could go out, without the authority of

the minister, and process whatever species of fish he sold or they so chose to

process in their operation. When the then Minister of Fisheries, the Department

of Fisheries, found out what was happening in the Province they went, of course,

and issued orders to stop the processing for those species of fish which they

did not have licenses to process. Naturally the individual, the processing

company, did not agree and argued against the minister's authority. Therefore,

upon doing that, he challenged the authority of the minister to place conditions

on licenses in court. By doing so and challenging the court, it was judged by

the court of the day that the minister did not have the authority to control the

conditions, or add conditions to the processing of species of fish into the fish

processing sector of the Province, except for quality purposes.

Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Justice reviewed the act,

at the time they challenged it in court, it was decided upon that some

amendments had to be made to the changes of the act so that the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council could provide provision in the Fish Inspection

Act so as it would give the authority to the minister to place conditions,

though the Fish Inspection Act, on the conditions of licensing into a processing

sector of this Province beyond a quality control; in other words, socio-economic

reasons, processing species. They wanted to be able to have the total control

without dispute or without a challenge in court.

In doing so, two changes had to be made to the Fish

Inspection Act. To just simply read this:

"Subsection 4(1) of the Fish Inspection Act is amended by

striking out the word `and' at the end of paragraph (d), by striking out the

period at the end of paragraph (

e) and by substituting a semicolon and the word

`and', and by adding the following immediately after paragraph (e)...."

Which states, "(

f) 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 other words, it broadens the scope of which the minister

has the authority to issue or not, to issue licences or to say to a processing

industry that you can only process one or two or whatever species the minister

of the day or the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture deems necessary.

Clause 2 reads: "Section 5 of the Act is amended by

renumbering the

section as subsection 5(1) and by adding the following

immediately after that subsection:

`

(2) The minister may issue licences under this Act subject

to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, including

conditions which relate to a matter set out in

section 4.'"

Simply, these two clauses added to the present Fish

Inspection Act would give the minister authority to place conditions on the

licence beyond that which is already deemed his authority in the Fish Inspection

Act, such as quality. This will take it to the necessary step so that the

minister has the full authority to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the processing industry in this Province is in

turmoil, not only because there is a lack of fish. We now have some 220 fish

plants across the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 220. That

is the total number of buildings. That may not be exact, but there are

approximately 220 buildings across the fish processing sector, some with

pelagic, some processing one species, some processing just the groundfish, some

just processing shellfish from different species; the main problem being the

number of plants around the Island with the amount of resource available.

The history of the processing sector of this Province has

been very clearly understood by everybody. There are few opportunities in these

plants for people to get long season employment. The main contributor to the

socio-economic employment conditions in those communities has been the fishing

industry, but it hasn't been sustainable to the fishing industry except to get

enough weeks of work to either get to a make-work program, to be supported by

either the provincial or federal government, or to barely scrape enough work

weeks to get UI, or in the future EI, insurance premiums.

What we have to do in the fishing industry of the Province is

that the minister must have the authority to be able to regulate the fishing

industry, to control the number of fish processing plants within this Province,

so that wherever the plants are located they must be a multi-species operation,

quality conservation measures must be top on the list, but nevertheless the

minister must have the authority to impose licensing, either restrictions or to

allow them to operate in a manner in which they can get the longest season

possible of work for those people in the community.

It cannot happen with the number of plants that we have now.

There have to be some major decisions made in the very near future. There have

to be major changes made with the whole of the processing industry. This is only

one step to give the minister authority to make decisions, and the necessary

decisions, to ensure that the fishery of the future is going to be successful

and sustainable to the people who depend upon it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to

add a few comments and a few words on Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish

Inspection Act." I am the first one to agree with the minister that we do need

changes. We need changes in fish inspections and we need changes to the way

things were done in the past. I am quite familiar with the way things were done

in the past, I say to the minister, having worked in the fishing industry myself

for fifteen years, and I am the greatest believer in quality and I think that

what we have done in the past has been nothing short of criminal, when you see -

Mr. Speaker, it was not uncommon. I know in the plant where I worked, and I

think it was pretty well the status quo for just about the whole fishing

industry, it was not uncommon to see somebody out during the day trucking

asphalt with their dump truck, and at the end of the day they would take it up

in front of the tank that distributed diesel oil or something and spray it down,

then go on down, Mr. Speaker, on the wharf that evening, fill it up with fish,

take it back to the fish plant; up goes the dump in on the floor of the holding

room. It was common practice, Mr. Speaker.

People were going out with their dump trucks and hauling

gravel and asphalt and any other thing that you might mention during the day,

and at the end of the day they would probably spend their next four or five

hours trucking fish into fish plants.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) your area.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was not just in my area, I say to the

Leader of the Opposition. That was common practice. It was common practice to go

and see fishermen get into their boats in the morning and load up their trap

skiff with oil and gas, provisions for the day, no ice, no boards to cover the

fish, no tarp, go out and spend the day or maybe two days out on the fishing

grounds, load up their boats, come back in, tie them up to the wharf under the

blistering sun, go home and have dinner, come back whenever they had a chance

after they made grass or after they dug a few spuds or whatever, and then start

unloading the boat and throwing it up on the wharf.

I remember going down to Black Tickle, which was one of the

areas for which I was responsible in my duties, Mr. Speaker, first when we

started buying turbot down there. At one time, anybody who knows anything about

the fishery, it was not too long ago that there was not much of a sale for

turbot, nobody even bothered catching it. All of the sudden there was a market

established for turbot and the fishermen were going out and putting some effort

into harvesting it. It was not uncommon to go down to Black Tickle in the middle

of the summer, Mr. Speaker, and see pen boards put around the wharf and

thousands and thousands of pounds of turbot left on the wharf for days and days

at a time; left on the wharf before it was taken and put aboard a boat and

probably shipped over to Cook's Harbour or somewhere where it was unloaded and

taken somewhere else to be cut and frozen. So you can imagine what this product

turning up in the marketplace looked like. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the

kind of thoughts that the consumers must have had when they went to the stores

to purchase some of this product made here in Newfoundland. Those were some of

the things that were happening and there is certainly a great need for fish

inspections and observers.

Mr. Speaker, it was not uncommon to go down on the wharf and

see the fishermen with their pitchforks. That was the accepted thing at the

time. They would go down and jump down in the midship room of the boat and take

their prongs and, as fast as they could, Mr. Speaker, it was up on the wharf;

two-forked prongs, up on the wharf with no regard whatsoever as to where the

forks of the prong went. It didn't matter how the fillet turned out, if there

were holes in them or if there were bruises in them, it did not matter as long

as they got rid of their fish.

Today, Mr. Speaker, that has suddenly changed, and so it

should, because I think it is probably a reflection of the compensation that not

only the fisherman got in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but it is also a

reflection of probably the high unemployment levels. People did not want our

fish, it was not of good quality, it was not of any significant value.

I have to tell you this story, Mr. Speaker, of this one

particular fish plant where I was. It was not one that I worked normally. This

gentleman was the cutter in the fish plant and they would have an hour for

lunch. Do you know what he spent his hour at? He would go out at the side of the

plant and cut hair for that hour. He would cut people's hair. People would go

out and sit down and get their hair cut. Then they would dust themselves off and

go back on the production line. Those were the kind of things that were

happening. You would see people going to work in our fish plants and you did not

know if they were going grouse hunting or if they were going into a place to cut

fish.

Then all of the sudden somebody realized that we were doing

something wrong, we were not doing things right. Our fish wasn't getting the

price that it should be demanding on the marketplace and other people's products

were outselling ours. A better quality of product naturally commanded a bigger

price. It took awhile, and in fact we are not there yet, it took awhile to

change people's attitudes. It takes awhile to change people's attitudes, not

only fishermen and fish plant workers, but it takes awhile to change attitudes,

period, Mr. Speaker.

All of the sudden people's attitudes started to change and

people were told time and time again: Boys, listen, what you are producing

there, what you are handling there, is being eaten by somebody. It is food and

it has to be handled like food. That, Mr. Speaker, is where we fell short and I

think we still have a long way to go, but we are getting there.

I thought when I read that bill that that is what the bill

would be. It reads, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", but it does not

really touch much on inspections. It touches on other things. Mr. Speaker, back

some time ago we delved into fish inspection again and had a situation whereby

the inspection department decided they were going to go out and look at cost

recovery. They were going to look at new ways of having processors pay back

government the cost of doing inspections. They looked at new ways of having fish

processors pay back government so they could have some way to recover the cost

of wages for their inspectors and the cost of providing that particular service.

Here again, Mr. Speaker, they fell short of the mark. They

did not go out and consult anybody. They did not go out and ask the industry

what they thought was right, what they thought was reasonable, and what they

thought should be done. Instead they went and sat down in a room up in Ottawa

and decided this would be a fair way to treat the fish processors in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not a very fair way at all, Mr. Speaker. In

fact I had a couple of processors in my district, and there were dozens of them

right across this Province, whereby small processors with about 1000 square feet

of production space could end up paying more than some of the giant companies

like FPI and National Sea. It would have put them right out of business. In

fact, inspection fees would have went in excess of 4000 per cent.

This was happening at a time when we had a moratorium

declared and it was happening at a time when we were encouraging fish processors

to get involved in doing new products, being innovative, to put new products in

ready for the marketplace, right out from the plant to the supermarket shelves.

This is what we were promoting ourselves as people who believed in the industry.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, while we were trying to encourage them to do

this and to get into pickling, spicing and smoking, we were saying that, we are

going to charge you now for even trying to get this product into the

marketplace. In areas where sometimes they had to go and pay as little as $10

for a license they were going to be paying $400.

The fair way of doing it, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to

expect people to go and expand their business, keep involved with the industry,

hire new people, the right way of doing it would be to go out and first of all

consult, talk to the people involved. They know of the services, they know what

it is to expect people to come to their plant and carry out and exercise an

inspection. They knew what it was costing them because they are dealing with

employees every day; and ask for their input. That wasn't done. It was done

unilaterally by Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and instead of going out and saying that

probably the fair way of doing this would be to charge an inspection fee on the

total volume of sales or on the floor space that you use for production, so much

a square foot, instead of doing that Mr. Speaker, government in its wisdom

decided to go and do the other thing and throw in the negativity, Mr. Speaker,

of charging processors for every species of fish that they were producing and

every way that they were processing that particular species.

The minister is well aware of what I am talking about because

I brought it up to him before. Granted, there were changes made and they were

made because the industry revolted. The industry said this is wrong, we need

help, we need to be able to get some support from government in order to be able

to put this new product that we are putting forward to market. We do not need to

be burdened with all this expense that you people are bringing forward now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister knows what I am saying is

true. He probably did not get involved in it because it was a little bit above

his head, could not relate to it, Mr. Speaker. Certainly this is the way things

have happened in the past. When I read this Bill, that is what I expect to see

happen here. So, Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things that need to be done,

the stakeholder's need to be consulted.

This past year the provincial government got into dock side

monitoring. It is now a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the government of the day

is telling the fishermen of the day that we are going to start controlling what

you are doing. We are going to start looking at what is happening right from the

wharf, out in the boat, and the way the product is brought back, to make sure

that it arrives at our fish plants in good shape in order to produce a good

product. You cannot ship a good product out from the shipping room door if you

do not bring in a good product from the receiving door. From what I understand,

it has worked very well. From what I understand, Mr. Speaker, there might be

some fine tuning that needs to be done, but for the most

part it has worked very

well. I have witnessed the dockside graders out in my district on the wharves

and it seems like the fishermen have cooperated. The dockside graders were well

trained for the most part, did a good job, got along with the fishermen, Mr.

Speaker, and I would encourage that kind of an environment to continue.

Mr. Speaker, what concerns me when I read this bill is when I

see such things like the second part of the bill.

Section 5 of the act is

amended by renumbering the

section as subsection 5(1) and by adding the

following immediately after that subsection. Now, Mr. Speaker, those few lines,

only one paragraph, but just listen to it, just listen to this paragraph, I say

to the members opposite. `The minister -

MR. J. BYRNE: What minister?

MR. FITZGERALD: `- may issue licenses under this act

subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate.'

MR. J. BYRNE: For now.

MR. FITZGERALD: `Subject to the conditions that the

minister considers to be appropriate, including conditions which relate to a

matter set out in

section 4.'

Now, Mr. Speaker that gives me great concern.

Section 2, the

new addition to subsection 4(1) is paragraph (

f) which relates to the regional

distribution of processing licenses; the development of the fishing industry of

the Province and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality.

So, what are we talking about here, I ask the members opposite? Do you know what

we are talking about here? Do you know how many people are involved, or were

involved in July of 1992, in this particular industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador? Does anybody here know how many were involved? I ask the minister,

does he know? Well, there were in excess of 27,000 Newfoundlanders who qualified

for the NCARP program, so it is safe to say that there were over 30,000 people

involved in our fishing industry. The lifeblood of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, and what are we going to do with it, I say to the Member for Terra

Nova? We are going to put the livelihoods of those 30,000 people, and we are

going to put the livelihoods of the fish processors in this Province, not in the

hands of Cabinet, not in the hands of the Liberal Government or the government

of the day, not in the hands of the House of Assembly; we are going to put the

lives of 30,000 Newfoundlanders and 227 processors at the minister's will.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh that's shivering.

MR. FITZGERALD: At the minister's will. That is exactly

what we are going to do and that is frightening. That is what we are going to do

with this piece of legislation. The minister does not have to take it back to

Cabinet. It does not have to be done with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. It

could be done by the flick of a pen at the will of the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the forty-eight people who are sitting in this

House of Assembly were sent here to represent their constituents. Every one of

us here was sent here to speak out and speak up for, I suppose, anywhere from

4,000 people to 15,000 or 20,000 people that we have in our riding. Now we are

going to sit here and allow a piece of legislation to pass through that affects

hundreds of Newfoundland rural communities, and put it in the hands of one man.

Now whether we have respect for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture today

is not issue. That is not an issue. I do not care about that. There has to be a

minister, there has to be a head of the department. We have a minister today, we

will probably have another one tomorrow, and no matter if that is the minister

today or a minister from this side, nobody should be granted that much power.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister gets up and reads his bill,

and he goes on to say that there is not much to it, there is nothing to it; we

are going to leave out a semi-colon here and we are going to leave out a dot

somewhere else, and we are going to take, `and' out of another paragraph, we are

going to take that out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: So it is only a housekeeping bill; but

this is piece of legislation that scares me. When it comes to a time in this

Province - and we are supposed to be living in a democracy - but when it comes a

time when people have to go in and bow down to one man in order to make a

livelihood, or in order to keep a license, or in order to be able to go and take

part in a processing industry, when people have to do that we are in big

trouble.

Before we had a moratorium on the fishery here in

Newfoundland and Labrador I am not sure how many people here really, really

understood what the fishing industry meant to this Province. I am not sure if

people really understood. A lot of people in the communities, or I should say

some of them, some people in the communities would say to me when I came home

from the fish plant, `Gee boy, get away from me; you stink.' Nobody said it when

I went to spend my money. Nobody told me that they did not want the money that I

made.

I remember working out in Gaultois, when they start up the

meal plant. For those people who have been out in Gaultois, you know the way the

plant is laid out there. The plant is down by the wharf, and the meal plant with

its short stack just reaches up probably right in line with the road that leads

up the back way. When they would fire up that meal plant, boy, I will tell you,

everybody in the community smelled alike. Whether you had clothes on the line or

on your back, it all smelled alike. But the point is that people were working

and people were happy, and people were going out and making a pay cheque.

What do they have to do today? What do those same people have

to do today in order to maintain that plant, or get another operator to come in

there? What do they have to do? They have to come and see the minister, make a

trip to the minister's office if they want another licence.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. FITZGERALD: You are going to make every plant a

multi-species plant, you are saying. Is that not what you are saying? Yet in

order for fish plants to be able to operate today and become viable they have to

be located in a regional operation and be a multi-species plant.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) you don't understand what you are

talking about.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, boy, I don't understand, I know all

about it. But I can guarantee you, if I want to be enlightened I know where I'm

going.

So now we are going to go and we are going to make every

plant a multi-species plant. Now we are going to give everybody a crab licence.

We are going to give everybody a crab licence now, okay? Now, if we give

everybody a crab licence - the scientists are already saying that we have to

take a very serious look at harvesting this particular species. The minister is

probably going to go out and issue more licences. What is he going to do? What

is the bottom line?

People now who are working in the crab fishing industry are

saying: We want more work, we want to work, we want more work; and you don't

have to go and catch crab in June or July or August. This particular year you

could have been catching it since March. You could have been catching crab since

March, I say to members opposite. What did they get? For the most part they

probably got about thirteen weeks. I know in my particular district, Mr. Speaker

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

MR. FITZGERALD: Shame is right, I say to the minister,

but it is not their fault. It is shame because they are not allowed probably to

go back (inaudible). We have been so uncaring in the past that we have taken

advantage of everything that was put before us, and today they are not allowed

to go out and catch other species of fish that would allow them to work longer.

Now we are going to go out, and if we follow the minister's

advice, or if we let him go on with his way of thinking, and we are going to

issue more crab licences. If we are going to issue more crab licences, what are

we doing? Just stop and ask yourselves, what are we doing? Are we going and

creating 200 new jobs down in St. Lawrence? Are we going and creating 500 new

jobs in Burgeo? No, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing is saying to the people who

are already taking

part in this particular industry, what we are doing with them

is taking the normal weeks of work that they would get and transferring it to

other places, and those people will be getting seven and eight weeks' work, and

the other people will be getting seven and eight weeks' work, which is no good

to anybody.

We have to be very realistic about this. He knows what I'm

saying is true. If everybody over there was allowed to go and take a secret

vote, and there would be no chance of being identified for the way they voted, I

can guarantee you that they wouldn't allow this minister to dictate, by himself,

what the fishery of the future is going to be like.

MR. EFFORD: This minister should dictate because it is

making sense (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Makes sense to you, minister. The

minister goes on - and I will come back to this. There is something else, Mr.

Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FITZGERALD: They didn't give him much fish when his

association went looking for a box of crab for a fund-raiser. They didn't get

much. The Tories got a lot, though.

Mr. Speaker, look at clause 2 under the Explanatory Notes. It

says, the minister wants to "confirm the minister's authority". Now he wants to

confirm that he is the minister! The minister wants everybody in this House to

confirm that he is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture! He wants his

authority confirmed. He is not clear. He doesn't know what he is, he doesn't

where he is going, but still he wants to manage our fisheries. He wants to be

the sole voice.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to

happen. I don't think it will happen. I think people are going to look at this,

and the people who have fish plants in their district, and have fishermen in

their district, in excess of 30,000 - and if you look at the families you are

probably talking about 300,000 families or more going to be affected - and we

are saying that we are going to allow this minister -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, this is the kind

of situation that scares me, because what I am saying makes a lot of sense. I

stand here sometimes and I fall in with the crowd, and I joke and I carry on,

but today I am very serious, I say to the minister, because this affects my

district to the extent that if this minister makes a wrong decision, which he is

capable of doing, and which he has done in the past, then those people will find

themselves on the way to Alberta or British Columbia because of the actions of

one man. That is wrong.

The fishery of the future is one on which we all have our

thoughts and ideas. We got away from placing blame; all that is over and done

with. Now we are looking ahead to the way things should be. We all have our

ideas on what the fishery of the future is like, or what the fishery of the

future should be like. The minister has his, the Member for Burin-Placentia West

has hers, the Members for Terra Nova, Trinity North, because we are hearing it

every day. Every day, everywhere we go, somebody is saying to the Member for

Trinity North, and to me, and to other members here, what they would like to see

the fishery of the future be. Everywhere he goes he is seeing the hurt that has

been brought on, and the despair that is out there, by the mistakes that were

made in the past.

Now today, because somebody has a great feeling about

themselves, because somebody feels that he has all the answers, somebody comes

out and decides: I'm going to put forward a piece of legislation that is going

to give me the authority to do what I always want to do. What happens to this

particular minister if he makes a mistake? Let's look at the minister for a

(inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I don't make mistakes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, I hate to refer to it, but what

you did the other day as it refers to a certain industry in our Province is

unforgivable. You know it and I know it, and I will say no more, because I don't

even want to be a part of it. The Member for Bay d'Espoir knows it.

MR. EFFORD: What are you talking about?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know very well what I'm talking

about. Here is the same minister who is coming forward now and saying: Trust me,

because I have all the answers. Leave it in my office. Let them come forward to

Exxon House and I will tell them what they can do and what they cannot do.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two ministers on the opposite

side, and I say this in all sincerity, who really scare me. It really scares me

that they have influence. There are only two ministers, and the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two of them.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, he isn't two of them, he is one of

them. Scares me (inaudible). Just stop and listen. What happens if the minister

makes a mistake, and if he is flicked out of Cabinet, and if he goes back to his

native home, saying (inaudible), you know, what happens to him? He goes back. I

saw him a couple of terms ago here arguing with somebody on the other side about

who had the most money. They were flicking their credit cards and all that, Mr.

Speaker.

What happens to the minister? He goes back to Port de Grave,

and he goes into oblivion and retires. He travels around the Province in his

boat, completely removed, completely unaffected, by the decision that he makes.

What happens to the people in your district, I say to the

member for Trinity North? What happens to the people over in the district of the

gentlemen from Burgeo & LaPoile? What happens to the people in your district?

What happens to the people in Bonavista North? Here is a prime example, right

here. `Old suspenders' himself. Here is a prime example of a person who should

be concerned.

MR. SHELLEY: He called himself a natural gas plant the

other day.

MR. FITZGERALD: Here is a person who should be concerned.

I mean, I know a lot of people on the north side of Bonavista Bay. There are a

lot of good fishermen there. Do you want, I say to the member, do you want one

man - forget who he is today, although you should never forget who he is, but

lets lay him aside for the argument that I am putting forward here. Would you

want -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: My friend there from Port de Grave is being

assailed and I want to assure the hon. gentlemen from Bonavista South that after

Port de Grave is taken care of Bonavista North is next in line.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Abuse, Mr. Speaker, that is total abuse.

We are here dealing with a very, very serious subject today and the Government

House Leader shrugs it off as a laugh. We are not use to seeing that. We are use

to seeing a Government House Leader that would come here and listen to a great

speech like I am giving today and make notes and nod his head in agreement.

The former House leader may have been involved in drugs, but

he had his wits about him, I say to the minister. He had his wits about him and

he knew, Mr. Speaker, what was happening. Very professional, Mr. Speaker. This

member here comes forward and just taps his old buddy on the back and says: We

believe in what you are doing and we trust you, but minister you have to be

careful. You are a fellow who is supposed to sit in the House and you know the

House rules very well. I will praise you a little bit now. You know the House

rules very well, I will give you credit for that, and you have been around for a

long, long time. I know when you were sitting in the opposite benches, Mr.

Minister, that you would never let one minister, one person, control the lives

of the 300,000 or 400,000 Newfoundlanders. Do not depend on the person, you have

one man there today and another minister there, Mr. Speaker, in two or three

years time.

So if we are going to go and allow one person to decide what

the fishery of the future is going to look like and push his views forward on

everybody involved in this particular industry, then God help us, Mr. Speaker. I

do not know if we should be allowed to survive. If any member opposite will

speak in favour of this piece of legislation, then they are no better.

If the minister really believed in helping this particular

industry, rather than having the ego of wanting to go out and put the rubber

stamp, stick out his chest and say, I did this or I did something else, Mr.

Speaker, the minister wants to be serious and sincere. Let him go out and

consult the people, go out and ask the people. Don't go into the communities and

ask only the school teachers or only the doctors, go out and consult the people

out there that work in the industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a license for Port Union?

MR. FITZGERALD: Do I want a license for Port Union? I

want anything that I can get for Port Union that will allow the people to go

back to work. That is what I want for Port Union, nothing less, and I am scared

that that will not happen if you are allowed to continue in the same vein that

you have been operating in for the past five or six months.

So, this piece of legislation gives me great concern, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: When is Chuck coming home? Is he allowed to

come home? What is he after doing now he is not allowed home?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is coming home for Christmas.

MR. FITZGERALD: I doubt it.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'll be home for Christmas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he give you the willies?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he does give me the willies.

When you look at this minister being able to dictate where

plants go, what type of plant is allowed to exist here, what they are allowed to

process, who gets the license, who is allowed to transfer licenses from one area

to another, what have we come to? Why do you need a Cabinet? You have a one-man

show over there and it seems like there is nobody in Cabinet who is going to

question this. If I were part of an organization and if I had to accept the

blame of what happened, then I would want to be part of the decision making. I

would want to be able to express my constituents' views and my views before some

of those decisions are made.

The minister, in his wisdom, is saying: First of all, I want

you to confirm that I am the minister. I want you to tell me I am the minister,

confirm that, and then give me all the authority to go and decide who gets a

fishing licence, what species they are allowed to process, where the plants are,

what I consider to be regional areas. Leave it with me, trust me and I will look

after you. Mr. Speaker, this is what gives me great concern.

If we are going to exercise our judgement in a partisan way,

a partisan way as has happened here in the past and happens far too often with

such an important piece of legislation and with such an important industry in

this Province today, Mr. Speaker, then we deserve to get a black eye and we

don't deserve to have this industry come back and flourish as it was before. I

do not believe that is going to happen. I think it is obvious that this piece of

legislation is not going to pass through the House today, it is obvious.

I would think there are members opposite who are now looking,

and if you see some movement around the House, they are going out and are

getting Bill 21, to see exactly what it says.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill what?

MR. FITZGERALD: I believe that. When you say Bill what, I

believe that minister. I doubt very much minister that you have even read the

bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Which minister? The Minister of education.

Put it on the record.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the member for Marystown, if she

has read this bill, if she has talked to her constituents about it, and if she

has not, would she go back and ask them if they are willing to put their faith,

their trust, their livelihoods and their future in the hands of one man? Ask

them. As much faith as the people of Marystown has in the member, came in top of

the poll in all of Newfoundland and Labrador, so they obviously have a lot, I

can assure you that when she comes back again and privately speaks with the

minister that she will tell him that she has some problem with this.

She has some problem with this bill, because she went to Tim

Hortons in Marystown the other morning and ten people approached her and said: I

heard Roger Fitzgerald in the House the other day and he made a lot of sense.

The Member for Bonavista South made a lot of sense in what he was talking about,

he knew what he was talking about and he pointed out something that might be

allowed to slip through the House.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask the member for Mount Pearl what she

thinks about it?

MR. FITZGERALD: The member for Mount Pearl, well, you

know, she is certainly concerned about the fishing industry because it is an

industry from which a lot of the revenue is spent in her town. She does not have

any wharves there or slipways, but I can assure you she is concerned. Everybody

who lives in Mount Pearl has relatives out around the bay. That is what Mount

Pearl is made up of. I have all kinds of relatives in Mount Pearl and everybody

here knows somebody in Mount Pearl, everybody here. There is a minister who has

nobody in Conception Bay South. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

has nobody in Conception Bay South, but everybody else has people, I am sure,

who live in the area somewhere.

If she were to go and speak to her people out there and ask

if they trust this minister to have this much power, I am telling you that she

will come back again with her wisdom and say that we have a problem here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You may have that faith in that minister,

I say to the member, but what about the next minister? We do not say we are

going to grant those powers to John Efford. We do not say we are going to grant

those powers to the member for Port de Grave. What we are saying - this could

even end up to be the minister who just walked in, God save us! Supposing it was

him, God bless us, supposing it was him, would you have the same faith?

Supposing it was the Member for Carbonear, would you have the same faith?

This is what is happening, Mr. Speaker, we are trusting on

two people here. We are trusting on the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

and I suppose the person, in their wisdom, who decides who that person might be;

and that's it. Cabinet is totally removed from the decision making process of

what the fishery of this Province, what the fishery of the future, will look

like. I, for one, do not intend to let this piece of legislation, with such

grave implications, Mr. Speaker, on rural Newfoundland and Labrador, pass

through this House without asking some questions, without asking why.

Why hasn't the system worked so far? Is it any big problem

with our parliamentary system, as we know it, whereby Cabinet makes decisions,

whereby decisions of this magnitude are brought back to the people's House to be

discussed? Do we have a great problem with that, as legislators? That is why we

are here. We are here because we want to make sure that every piece of

legislation that is brought into this House, brought through here that will go

out and affect our people, we want to make sure that we have every opportunity

to ask questions, take

part in debate, point out the inequities and the

shortcomings, put forward our concerns and receive answers on them. Only then,

Mr. Speaker, will such a piece of legislation, or any piece of legislation, be

allowed to become law, be allowed to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here. That is the way our democratic

process works.

I ask the Minister of Justice, if he has reviewed this piece

of legislation and if he has passed it on to his solicitors and if they had any

problems with this piece of legislation?

MR. DECKER: Yes and no.

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay and we can put them, I guess, in any

order we want. Yes, he has concerns about them and no, he never asked anybody

what it was all about.

Mr. Speaker, this is my great concern here. We have to stop

looking at ourselves and we have to stop saying that we are okay. I would like

to have the power myself. I would love to have the power to be able to go out

and decide myself -

MR. EFFORD: You will never make it.

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope I don't. I hope nobody every

grants me the power to be able to make such decisions by myself. I hope nobody

ever grants it to me. I don't want it, I say to the minister. If I am going to

go and make a decision, Mr. Speaker, if I am going to go and be part of a

decision I would go out and seek input. I would talk to people and I would say

to the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, which is getting paid and which sits as a group

together, to give me guidance and give me direction. This one minister today can

make those decisions separate from Cabinet, separate from the members opposite,

separate from the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. All you can do is come back

and expect them to give you an answer or, in his own way, to answer a question

that you might put forward as it relates to the people in your district. That is

wrong and it should never be allowed to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but it is 4:00 p.m.

and under our Standing Orders it is time to read the questions for the

adjournment of debate at 4:30 p.m., but probably the member would like a break

at this time.

The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Health, re: my question, health care funding. That

is from the hon. member for Conception Bay South.

The second question is to the Minister of Education, re:

special education report. That is from the hon. member for St. John's East.

The third question is to the Minister of Finance on

electricity rates, from electricity rates, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things

that concern me. I do not think the minister of today, or any other minister,

should be allowed to go and flick out licenses, and be allowed to decide how big

the boats are going to be. He is doing that now, or at least he is not putting

any effort into changing it. He is not dealing with his cousins up in Ottawa at

all. From what I understand there is a rift there now. I am beginning to believe

that. There is very little consultation between the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture and the federal minister up in Ottawa, very little reference between

the two. I understand that is happening. That is what happened to Bud, the last

minister. That was the start of it, and now it is happening here.

Mr. Speaker, many of the people here on this side are very

anxious to put forward their suggestions. In fear of repeating myself, I say to

members opposite: Pick up Bill 21, and when you stand at your convention on the

weekend, and you look for direction from your people, when the times comes for

you to stand on the floor of the Gander Hotel - I suppose there will be a few

fishermen there - I do not know what you are charging for the admission fee to

you event, but I suppose there will some fishermen there and some fish plant

workers, some down-to-earth common people, I say to the people opposite, get up

and ask your people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, there will so when somebody makes a

motion that it not be allowed to happen. Get up and ask your people if they are

willing to put this kind of power into the hands of the minister, because this

is what this piece of legislation says. I am not standing up here today because

I enjoy shouting and hollering. I do not want to be here like this today. I

would rather sit down and listen to somebody else speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: What was that?

Look at Bill 21, I say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, and ask your people if they are willing to put this kind of

power into the hands of one minister. I do not care if it is the Member from

Port de Grace. I do not care who he is. Nobody should be allowed that kind of

authority. Or ask if they would rather have it go back to Cabinet where

collectively they make a decision?

Mr. Speaker, this minister was suppose to put in an industry

renewal board that was suppose to travel the Province and seek input on what the

processing sector would look like. The minister of the day said he was not going

to get involved in deciding which fish plants are going to open or which fish

plants are going to close. He was not going to get involved in that. He said he

did not want to play God. He was going to let the marketplace detect what the

fishery of the future would be like.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them what would have happened if I

had not (inaudible) previous Minister of Fisheries. Look at all the control he

would have had.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right, and with the job I did on

him as critic.

Mr. Speaker, it was only the other night when I was driving

home that I was saying to myself: Roger, what have you contributed since you

have been in the House of Assembly? Are you just there collecting a pay cheque?

Or do your views and your opinions, and the things you say in the House, mean

anything? I thought about the few things I have done since I have been elected,

and I am going to pad myself on the back now for a moment.

First of all, because of the policies and because of the

actions of the former Minister of Words, Services and Transportation, he

disappeared - gone! Then I was elected and was the critic for the Department of

Social Services. Now where is the minister who was the Minister of Social

Services at that time? Gone, Mr. Speaker! I maintained being a critic for the

Department of Social Services, and where is that minister now? Gone, I say to

the member! Then I changed portfolios and they put me critic to the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture at the time. Where is that minister? Gone! So,

minister, take heed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take heed; you will soon be gone.

MR. FITZGERALD: You will soon be gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bud II.

MR. FITZGERALD: Bud II.

Mr. Speaker, not wanting to make light of this piece of

legislation, because I am very, very serious when I put forward my concerns -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: You shouldn't either.

Mr. Speaker, what I suggest to the minister is that he refer

this piece of legislation to the resource committee of the House. That is why

committees are put in place. If there is a piece of contentious legislation, if

there are some concerns expressed, that is why we have the standing committees

of the House of Assembly. Put it forward and let those people review it and see

if there is need for any further input or any further consultation. That is why

we have the standing committees of the House. That is democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what the premier of the day said.

MR. FITZGERALD: Absolutely. But I guess this is the

reason you see that democracy doesn't work, because the minister wants to

sidestep, the minister wants to short-circuit, all those democracy rules and

regulations. He wants to run a dictatorship. That should not be allowed to

happen. That is what I suggest to the minister. I suggest that he use the

committee of the House. I suggest that he look again at this piece of

legislation. I suggest that he look at that, because I can assure you that our

phones will be ringing this weekend, the processors will be calling, the

fishermen will be calling, the fish plant workers will be calling, and they will

be expressing their thoughts and their views and their concerns, and rightly so.

We have to learn from the mistakes we made in the past. The minister is the

first one to say this, but still he reaches out and says: Trust me, allow me. We

have trusted politicians and one-man shows too much in the past, and that is why

we are where we are today. That is why we have a process.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I trust Cabinet. We come together as a

caucus every morning and if we have some concerns, or if there is something that

we feel is too great a decision for one person to make, we talk about it. We

reason it out. I think most men and women on the opposite side are no less

reasonable than we are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I believe that. I said most of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking for? You have

nothing to decide.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, you spent too much time out in

Conception Bay South knocking on doors when you should have been preparing

yourself for the House of Assembly. You spent too much time out in C.B.S.

knocking on doors, I say to the member opposite. I don't know what good you will

do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sunday afternoon, campaigning

on Sunday afternoon.

MR. FITZGERALD: I saw him, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Can I prove it? I don't want to prove it.

Why would I want to prove that I saw him out there? Every time the Member for

Topsail speaks, he goes right to the legalities of it. Can you prove it? What's

the litigation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh no, he isn't tied up with that. He is

the first to admit that he isn't a QC. (Inaudible) and I should have asked you

what you thought of this piece of legislation, because of the legalities that

are there, because of the concern that - the Member for Topsail, QC, should be

looking at that and reading it and studying it instead of shouting across the

House at such a wonderful speech. That is what you should be doing. You should

be whispering in the minister's ear, pointing out the inequities and the

shortcomings of this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It isn't terrible, that is the truth. It

is a terrible truth.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are an honourable man.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am an honourable man. There is no doubt

about that. That is why I am pointing out the shortcomings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he is not allowed to do that, but he

doesn't understand the rules of the House. That is the only way the member

opposite will ever get in the front benches, to sit there illegally. The other

member there from Labrador is smiling like a fox. Look at him. He is saying to

himself: Such is not the case with me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Clerk. She says that I

am making a lot of sense.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and use

an hour of my time to point out what this minister did not point out. He stood

on a piece of legislation, he talked about the commas, he talked about the ands

and the buts, but he did not tell anybody -I suppose he did not think that we

would read it either. He thought that we would stand up and say: Yes, there is

nothing wrong with this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot wrong

with it. If any processor on this Island today has to go be a Liberal or a Tory

or a New Democrat in order to decide whether they are going to get a fishing

license or not, there is something wrong; and that is what is comes down to.

When you see the action of this Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, by granting the other three crab licenses without consulting the

industry, without talking to the processors out there, without putting forward

those licenses to people who probably very deservingly needed to get them, and

wanted them, and should of had them, then you know that there is something

wrong. When you look at the licenses, who they went to, how they got them, then

you should be worried. You should be worried because the minister knows who the

principals are at the fish plant down in St. Lawrence. The minister knows who

they are. I have asked him here in the House, and I have told them the names,

and he blatantly got up and said no; I know different than that, I know who they

are.

Mr. Speaker, this is what is going to happen. This is what

you are going to see the fishery of the future look like. You are going to see

the buddies of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture get their licenses; you

are going to see the buddies of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture being

allowed to transfer their licenses; and you are going to see the buddies of the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture being allow to have processing facilities

in their particular areas or their particular districts.

I think people on the Bonavista Peninsula, people on the

Burin Peninsula, people on the Northern Peninsula, people on the South Coast and

the West Coast, deserve better than that. I think they should be allowed to come

forward, put forward their suggestions to an independent board, and the minister

and the Cabinet should be allow to hear that board, and hear what their

recommendations are. That should not be allowed to be done by one minister.

Only the other day he took a gentlemen whom he had sent out

to bring back their suggestions, to talk to people and listen to people and

bring back their suggestions of what they thought the fishery of the future

should be like, and the minister did not like it. He said on the Fisheries

Broadcast: I did not like what Cashin had to say, so I sent him back. Did any

other Cabinet members hear what Richard Cashin had to say? No idea? He went

before the Member for Port de Grave; he did not like it and he sent him back. I

have to have a chat with the Premier about the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture because people out there do not trust him. People out there, once

they find out that the fishery of the future is going to be placed in the hands

of one person, whoever that person might be, I fear that you are going to hear a

lot of people speak out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Best Minister of Fisheries since Bud

Hulan.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Minister of Health said we have the

best Minister of Fisheries since Bud Hulan.

Mr. Speaker, when I saw this particular act brought forward,

I thought it was going to be

an act on the inspection of fish facilities. I

thought that was going to be the situation because the minister always speaks

out and says how he believes in fishing, fisheries inspections, plant

inspections and the like; and I do as well. When I saw him stand in his place

the other day and he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just to clue up.

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I rise to make a few comments on Bill No. 21, "An Act To

Amend The Fish Inspection Act," because -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) fish in Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well there are a lot of fish in Petty

Harbour and Maddox Cove. A lot of fishermen live in the Goulds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: There are a lot of fishermen in my district

on TAGS who have been equally and harshly affected by federal government

decisions with respect to TAGS, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, thi