May 15,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like

to welcome to the gallery today, twenty Law and Democracy students from St.

Michael's High School in Grand Falls - Windsor, along with their teachers, Edgar

Power and Madonna Sparkes. As well, we have in the gallery today, fifteen

participants from Youth Services Canada in conjunction with the New Perlican

Water Protection Program in the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde, along with

their co-ordinators, Ms Gwen Mahaney and Mrs. Betty Tuck, and work term student,

Ms Jackie Cole.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute

to a former member of this House, the late Greg Power, who passed away early

this morning at the age of eighty-eight. The former MHA for Placentia - St.

Mary's, Mr. Power held several portfolios in the Smallwood Administration,

including Minister of Finance and Minister of Highways.

Perhaps better known as a leading supporter of Confederation

during the national convention, Mr. Power was one of former Premier Smallwood's

closest associates through the 1950s. As an avid writer, Mr. Power's

pro-confederate efforts found a home in numerous Letters to the Editor in The

Evening Telegram , clearly proclaiming Confederation as the best solution to

the Province's social and economic problems. Together with Joseph R. Smallwood

and Harold Horwood, he founded his own weekly publication called The

Confederate . In fact, he authored a column in that paper called: The Sacred

Cow and used his satire and wit to lampoon his anti-confederate opponents.

Greg Power is the author of several books and his poem

Bogwood , has been called one of Newfoundland's best literary achievements.

In addition to his exceptional political and literary accomplishments, Mr. Power

was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame in 1983.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members of this House

and, indeed, all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, when I express our

sincere condolences to his wife, Mary, to their seven children: Greg, Dawn,

Gerry, Geraldine, Ethel, Roberta and Rosemary. Greg Power's vision for

Newfoundland and Labrador as part of a united Canada was critical to the

Province's economic and social well-being. Today we rise to express condolences

to his family, but we rise as well, to salute a life well-lived in the service

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too, on behalf of our caucus, join with the Premier in

sending our condolences to Mrs. Power and her family on the loss of a great

Newfoundlander, a respected Newfoundlander, a well-known Newfoundlander, a

person who served here in this Legislature. I understand that Mr. Power, too,

was a tremendous writer and wrote most of the pro-confederate information, as

the Premier referred to, and he took a strong stand as a believer in a union

with Canada in which we all work together in unison as part of a great country.

So, once again we, too, ask the Speaker to pass on our

condolences on behalf of our caucus to Mrs. Power and the surviving members of

the Power family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the

Opposition in commending the life of service to the Province of Mr. Greg Power,

whom I have met on a number of occasions, a very personable, knowledgable

individual. His wit and poetry is well-known. His athletic prowess was less

well-known, but Mr. Power had a very interesting and varied life and made a

significant contribution to the debates over the Confederation issue. I would

like to join in offering my condolences and that of my party, to his widow,

Mary, and their children, a number of whom are known to me and whom I went to

school with as a young man. My sincere condolence to the family, on Mr. Power's

death.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me apologize

to the House and to my hon. critic, the Member for Cape St. Francis. I just

received this myself, no more than five minutes ago, and I thought to, I

suppose, alleviate the fears of some of members of the House of Assembly on what

could be done with what money was left in the infrastructure program and I

guess, to be honest about it, and to get them off my back more than anything

else.

I would like to read for the record a letter I received

earlier today from the Mayor of Clarenville: "The Clarenville Town Council has

directed me to write and indicate that it hereby gives full support to you with

respect to the Clarenville Sports Complex Project, including the funding

arrangements with the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I have worked pretty diligently

with the mayor and council in Clarenville, and through the member and through

the federal MP, in trying to come to a resolution on this particular matter. Now

the committee will review this particular letter and hopefully, in the next few

days, we will be able to make a final decision on what exactly we are going to

do with that particular amount of money. Thank you.

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

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

The minister now is finally producing in the House a letter

from the Mayor of Clarenville, saying what I was saying all along, that they had

support for the arena. They have finally come to the minister's aid and produced

a letter of support and sobeit.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, further to my statement in the

House on Tuesday regarding government's parks privatization process, I am

pleased to advise the members of the House of Assembly that the department has

successfully concluded its ninth privatization arrangement for a provincial

park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that

Walter Manning and Sons Ltd. of St. Bride's is the successful proponent and new

operator of Fitzgerald's Pond Park. The park, with its twenty-four campsites, is

scheduled to open on or before Monday, June 16, 1997.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, this company is a long-standing,

well-known and highly respected member of this Province's tourism community. As

owner/operator of the popular Bird Island Resort in St. Bride's, Walter Manning

and Sons Ltd. is planning to develop a tourism strategy for that region.

As I had stated in the House on Tuesday, government is

actively concluding the final arrangements on the remaining private parks and

will have more announcements in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, this example, as well as the eight announced on

Tuesday, certainly speak to the success of this privatization initiative, as

well as the public's interest and enthusiasm in acquiring these viable business

opportunities. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have only a couple of statements in response to the

Ministerial Statement. First of all, Mr. Speaker: Show us the money. We want to

know how much we got for those parks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt but

the Mannings were the most qualified for this particular park. Who was the most

qualified for Catamaran, I ask? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the government's

plans are now complete. The parks have been privatised and now politicized. I

wonder when the minister is going to answer the question that was put on the

Order Paper more than a month ago asking her to detail the expenditures on the

parks over the last number of years. Perhaps the minister in her next

ministerial statement, instead of playing politics with all of this, could

answer the questions that were legitimately asked in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Minister, there is no level

playing field between businesses in Western Labrador and Quebec. Consequently,

business in Western Labrador are losing millions of dollars. I ask him: Will

government lower the tax rate on tobacco products that are sold in Western

Labrador to bring the rate in line with the competition across the border in

Fermont, Quebec, where the cost of a carton of cigarettes is only half the

price, about a $25 difference?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

Leader of the Opposition for his question. I want to note first of all that I've

heard from the hon. Member for Labrador West on many occasions regarding this

same issue, and it is a matter of some substantial concern in Labrador West.

We in the Department of Finance have been looking at it over

the last number of years, and frankly it is a problem that is very difficult to

resolve. There are many issues, the first of which is that the federal

government, in order to combat a problem along the St. Lawrence where there was

open smuggling, decided to reduce the excise taxes in the...

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. DICKS: I say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, never

on a Thursday. The problem is that, to start with, the federal government, the

excise taxes vary between the provinces that already reduced their taxes and

those that did not. So even if the Province unilaterally eliminated the tobacco

tax, the price of a pack of cigarettes still would be higher in the Province

than elsewhere.

The second thing is that if we do it in Labrador West then we

have to deal with the problem of the other border areas, including those in

Southern Labrador; and, also, should we not do it in the rest of the Province,

whether it is in the rest of Labrador or elsewhere on the Island?

It makes it difficult, Mr. Speaker. We have looked at a

number of ways to try to implement it. We are concerned that if we reduce the

price in one area of the Province, it facilitates smuggling to other areas.

We recognize that there is a difficulty, but not one that

bespeaks an easy solution. I look for the hon. member's suggestion, in point of

fact.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to what I would do, I say to the

minister. I will give you a solution in due course, before I finish.

Different areas have different needs in the Province, as the

minister is well aware, and this Province should be flexible enough to be able

to accommodate the various needs in different parts of the Province. There are

not too many areas that have borders shared with other provinces.

The minister said there are different options, or different

things they have looked at. I ask him to propose some of the options, or to list

what ones they have been looking at in terms of addressing this problem.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I ask the

hon. member to propose any solutions he might have.

I have posed the difficulties. We have looked at a number of

options. We have looked at whether or not we could institute some sort of

rationing system, whether we do it on an individual basis or by merchants, but

none of these things really bespeak an easy solution. The other thing we have to

consider is the equality of it all. He says, in the border areas of the

Province. That would be along the West of Labrador but, with the highway through

Western Labrador, what about Churchill Falls, and what about Goose Bay and so

on?

Then, the larger issue is that if you effect a tax reduction

in an area that does not now exist for one part of the Province, how do you

defend that in the rest of the Province? I think the issue clearly is that if we

are going to do it Labrador, you soon get to the point where you say, why would

we not do it in the whole of the Province? Then you get to a larger issue as to

whether or not we should be reducing taxes on cigarettes at a time when we are

trying to discourage people, for health reasons, from consuming them.

It is not a simple issue, Mr. Speaker. It is one of fiscal

concerns on the one hand and health and other larger social issues on the other.

But if the hon. member has a suggestion I would certainly be prepared to examine

it. Frankly, it is a difficult solution. We are sympathetic to the businesses in

Western Labrador, but let's not forget that it is people from Western Labrador

who are choosing to go to Fermont, in essence, and buy cigarettes. I think, the

suspicion is, that they also buy other goods while they are there.

Having said that, we are sensitive to local concerns. The

hon. member is well aware that we extended the exemption on Labrador building

materials, and we have also undertaken a number of initiatives in Labrador to

address those concerns. But this one is particularly troubling and -

PREMIER TOBIN: Food subsidies.

MR. DICKS: Food subsidies, the Premier says.

This one has larger policy implications, and to simply do a

reduction in Western and Southern Labrador on cigarettes, I don't think, is as

clear a solution as the hon. member suggests.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the race changed back in Quebec in February of '94

numerous businesses have seen a big decline. They are not only crossing the

boarder for cigarettes but they are buying gasoline, groceries, clothing and

numerous other goods. We have seen businesses lose - twenty retailers have

dropped from $3.8 million to $1 million in sales in that period in Western

Labrador. Now with this loss of business, I say to the minister, to Western

Labrador, there is a loss in tax revenues to the Province. I ask the minister,

has he taken a good look at the numbers that have been crunched by the Labrador

West Chamber of Commerce showing that a decrease in the tax rate from 13.76 per

cent to the 3.64 per cent and a rebounding of local sales would actually

increase the revenues back to this Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

No, we have looked at it and if we reduce the taxes on

cigarettes it will not result in more revenue it would in fact result in a loss

of revenue to the provincial treasury. What we are concerned about is what the

Chamber of Commerce in Western Labrador suggests, in that there is an overall

loss of revenue across the boarder. Now we have attempted to do a number of

things in the last several years to deal with the question of retail sales in

the Province and the most significant of these of course is the GST amalgamation

we have just had which in effect has reduced the sales tax on most goods from 20

per cent down to 15 per cent. Frankly, we believe that it crossed a whole lot of

sectors, not the tobacco and liquor industries but across every other sector of

the Province. This will result in increased consumer activity.

So I don't disagree with the hon. member. There is a concern,

it is one that we share but as I say, we don't have an easy solution. I have

canvassed??? it on many occasions and as recently as yesterday with the Member

for Labrador West who reiterates that concern to me repeatedly but if he can

come up with a workable system that would contain any substantial tax losses,

particularly those from smuggling, we would be prepared to consider it. We have

looked at many things including marked cigarette cartons from the manufacturer,

some sort of rationing system be it with the merchants or individuals, but

frankly none of those are particularly workable, Mr. Speaker, at least in our

view but we will entertain suggestions.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well the solutions put forth by the Chamber

of Commerce I do feel are workable. They are black labelling, I am sure as the

minister is well aware of that. I ask him, has he examined the figures in total

as they relate to sales tax revenue from the sale of goods that are being

purchased in Fermont, along with cigarettes and looked at the total analysis of

all those corresponding sales? Does he realize that in tax sales losses along

from 1992 - 1994, before the big decrease came, even in that period before we

had the drastic change five businesses alone lost $135,000? So would it not be

in the best interest of this Province overall to address the revenue lost by

making the system more flexible and more responsible than to the needs of

Western Labradorians that would not result in less revenue here to this

Province?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Chamber of

Commerce has provided us with some figures that shows the loss on cigarettes

based on reduced consumption. I agree with them that to a point I suspect this

is due to the price differential between Labrador and Quebec. Where it gets a

little more hypothetical is a suggestion that any other revenue losses or

increases in Labrador, which of course we don't have access to the Quebec

government's returns on RST, that because cigarettes are cheaper in eastern

Quebec that people drive across and specifically buy a lot more items just

because they go over to get their cigarettes. It is a supposition, and I suppose

a fair one, but it isn't one that you can quantify as a tax loss to the

treasury. So when the hon. member asks what we are going to do about it and

whether or not it would be tax neutral, you are into an area of speculation. So

that part of it is difficult to deal with.

On the question as to whether or not we should reduce the

taxes to match those in Quebec, I said a couple of things. One is that, first of

all, even if we reduce it the price would still not be equitable since there is

a difference in the federal excise tax. The second thing that the hon. member

may not be aware of is that both the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, because of

increased consumption by teenagers in particular, are thinking of increasing the

taxes back to where they were.

As a point of, I suppose, observation, one of the worst

things you can do to combat smuggling is to lower the prices. That is a matter,

from my point of view, of enforcement. To try to discourage an activity by

pricing your own commodities down to where people can smuggle them in seeks to

avoid the tax law, and I'm not sure that is the right way to approach it. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a very poor

excuse. All we are asking for is a level playing field. If they change their

rates, the Province can move it back to a corresponding level. When businesses

during a period that wasn't even the greatest impact submitted to this Province

$135,000 less in retail sales tax to this Province, that sends a signal, and

that is before the February change in 1994. Right now on a monthly basis about

$8,000 a month -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - extra beyond that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: - being lost in revenue.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister then: Why is he driving

business away from Western Labrador and turning it over across the border into

Fermont, Quebec? Why won't you do something about it?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, we have done quite

the opposite. One of the most significant tax measures in the history of the

Province was the harmonization of the GST and the PST, which in effect has

reduced the overall tax burden on consumer goods down to 15 per cent from 20 per

cent.

I say to the hon. member that the difficulty in having a

lower tax in one small area of the Province on any particular commodity that is

at variance in other areas is very difficult to defend. If we are going to

effect a tax reduction, why would you do it when you aren't applying it in the

entire Province? If the hon. member's answer is that people are inclined to go

across the border and buy something where it us cheaper and in effect smuggle it

back, I ask him if he feels that that is an appropriate response to that thing

that is happening.

I say to him that it is hard to quantify what the actual tax

loss is. You can look at it historically, and I agree that there has been a drop

in the number of retail sales of cigarettes. I'm not sure that any other related

losses are very provable. They seem to be pretty speculative. I agree there may

be some, but it is an area of supposition, and it is hard to quantify what if

any additional revenues there would be to the treasury. I would suggest to him

that at this point we are probably more likely to find that there is increased

shopping in most areas of the Province because of the harmonization at the

retail level of most taxes.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Health. Minister, in light of the announcements

yesterday of cardiac care for out of Province, since yesterday and again today

I've received calls from families around this Province. One of the questions

being asked is: Under the travel and accommodations, will there be any cost, or

will there be anything in there, that would aid the families of these people?

Will it enable them to be able to travel with the person who is going to have

this surgery performed?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The budget that

we have allocated, approximately $60,000, has been allocated for the

transportation of the patient. The plan is that the patient would be admitted

directly into the hospital. There are no budgetary allocations for other family

members to attend with the patient, although we do have the flexibility to

review each particular patient's situation on a case by case basis, but this

policy was made specifically for the patients travelling for surgery. While we

recognize it is very difficult to have to go out of the Province without the

necessary supports, we also recognize, in a more important way, Mr. Speaker, and

responded to the need to try to address the waiting list and to try to deal with

the more elective surgery patients who have been on the waiting list for the

longest period of time. That was our intention and we made it very clear

yesterday and we hope that that will allay the waiting list by fifty to sixty

patients.

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Minister, in light of that and of course, in

light of the cost that is involved in this particular case, can we now look at

ways or means in which instead of January of 1998, is there any way, as

suggested by the cardiac doctor from the West Coast, of speeding up the process

whereby, we can now do these surgeries in our own Province? I think the

projected date right now is January of 1998. Is there any way that we could now

move that up or, put some real speed on there and maybe, have it moved back two

or three months into 1997?

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

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

I look forward to taking the opportunity to give some

information on this question with respect to my hon. colleague as well as the

physician from the West Coast who has some concern about this.

There are some very important and necessary changes that have

to be made, you just can't move a patient into any room when you are doing an

intensive care surgery like cardiac surgery, and as I mentioned yesterday, we

are changing the capacity of the ICU from fourteen beds to seventeen beds.

When you work in intensive care like the Health Sciences

Complex, there is a special training period required for the nurses and that

will be completed. We have to make renovations to 5 South (A), to accommodate

the coronary care unit; we have to make the changes to the coronary care unit;

we are moving as quickly as we can. Sister Elizabeth said yesterday that this is

a temporary measure, our main intention would be to keep these patients in the

Province but I think, out of fairness to the people who are on the waiting list,

if they were given the choice and from what I have been hearing, they would

gladly take the opportunity to go out of the Province. We have given the

commitment, we will move as quickly as possible and by January of 1998, we will

be doing surgery here. If it is finished sooner, Mr. Speaker, we will do them

sooner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Minister, again today I received also calls

from physicians in this Province concerning the cost of course of going out of

Province and I did say by the way, for the benefit of some members opposite

that, we agreed with this policy because it has to be done and the urgency of

it.

What I guess, the question I have for you today is: What will

the actual cost be? We realize there is $60,000 set aside for travel and the MCP

naturally enough picks up the rest, but what will be the actual cost of taking

somebody from Newfoundland and send them either to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick,

having this surgery performed and bringing them back to this Province?

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

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

As you know, with the inter-provincial agreement, the cost of

both the surgery and the hospital services are covered. Approximately you pay

$10,000 for hospital fee, $4,000 for physician fees, multiply that by fifty to

sixty and then add your travel, so we are estimating an average cost of $1,200

per case, and we are hoping that with prior commitment and booking in advance,

we may even get a better rate with the airlines, hopefully as low as $700 to

$800, so that is how we estimate the cost in total. It will not affect the

overall cost because of the inter-provincial agreement that we have in the great

country we have which provides the Medicare system we have today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Yesterday, there was a brief question dealing with Marystown

and what would possibly be announced. Can the minister confirm that on Tuesday

past, May 13, he was supposed to make a Ministerial Statement in the House,

which would announce two fire-fighting dockside tugs I believe for the

transshipment facility, which were confirmed, that they were thirty-eight metres

long, weighed about 650 tons, a $26-million contract for the Marystown Shipyard,

can he confirm that that announcement is still to be made on Tuesday?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have made bids on

significant projects around the world. One of those was the two tugs required to

channel the vessels up the Placentia channel to the Transshipment terminal. We

were the preferred bidder, but we were waiting for a number of agreements to be

signed, including the one that the Minister of Environment and Labour mentioned

yesterday in the House, for the unions, for the special project at the

transshipment terminal at Whiffen Head. We are also waiting for final

clarification on a few other matters. Hopefully, we will be in a position to

have, yet again, some very good news for the people of Marystown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

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

I spoke to people on the Peninsula, as late as last night,

who have some concern. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of the Ministerial

Statement that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a copy, Mr. Speaker, of the

statement, which outlines clearly that the agreements and arrangements between

the union and management were made, that the deal is done. So, the question is

twofold. Is there concern to worry about the contract or is the minister and

this government simply playing politics, Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Another big photo opt for the Premier.

Well, that will not save Roger Simmons, I guarantee you that.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to stage a political event that would

look at assisting and saving the Liberal MP for St. George's, Roger Simmons, who

had nothing to do, I say to the minister, nothing to do with the signing of this

contract?

MR. J. BYRNE: Good question.

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

Technology.

MR. TULK: Who will save that UFO in Labrador?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, this government would not play

politics with good news. To say that would be to ask: Would you deny that the

member from the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Simmons, did not work diligently for the

$43 million Quest project which he and the member for Grand Bank and the member

from Marystown worked very diligently to get, a $43 million contact, for which

he deserves a lot of credit?

Mr. Speaker, would you deny that the Member of Parliament did

not help us in our marketing programs to get a $10 million contract from Ham

International, Mississippi, which is putting people to work? Would you deny the

contract that came out of Brownsville, Texas for another $9 million, which is

happening at Marystown? I should also say that the Member of Parliament was also

brought into the negotiations, and helped us when we were in dire need, to bring

about the rearrangements with the unions and the management down there.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good new story at Marystown and we are

not going to do what the Opposition wants to do and cast a negative cloud over

it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Took the wind out of your sails with that

one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the

minister and government, this is a good news story. Whenever 150 person jobs are

created or 160,000 person hours of work are created, it is a good news story.

The question I have for you, Minister, is why did you not

announce it on Tuesday when you were supposed to announce it, according to your

Ministerial Statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have not issued a Ministerial

Statement, I have not written a Ministerial Statement, I have not given a

Ministerial Statement. Everything will be disclosed in the fullness of time on

this contract. Let me say, if the hon. member wants to talk politics, perhaps he

should go up to Labrador and take the phantom from Ottawa that was parachuted

in. Having lost the nomination for the Conservative Party in Ottawa, he

parachutes himself into Labrador and the parachute did not work.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, a final

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk politics,

this member is too busy putting the hex on Rex in St. John's West, I say to the

minister in all seriousness.

I want the minister to confirm, if he can, that there is

really no need for concern because of the potential delay, or the delay in the

announcement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am, actually.

- that the people in Marystown and the area have no need to

worry about this contract and that it will be forthcoming.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he does not

want to bring politics into it, yet he is spending all of his day's time and

energy with the Sprung triplets, Matthews, Doyle and Power.

I say to him, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. We

are confident about this bid. The management team is competent, this yard is

turning around, there are men and women going to work. And all shall be revealed

shortly.

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

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

I am sorry I do not have a question today for my good friend,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but I do have a question for

the minister responsible for the environment.

Mr. Minister, when more than one company in a given area

expresses interest in becoming the designated drop-off site for a Trash to Cash

program, a Green Depot, what are the specific criteria which are being used to

pick the winning company or contractor?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for

his question on the excellent Trash to Cash program that we have started in this

Province. There are now thirty-six depots operating in the Province, and there

are more to be announced in the near future.

The question of the criteria, NewBRI, which has been

contracted with the Stewardship Board, have a criteria set out and they evaluate

each proposal, and they make the decision. I can get the Terms of Reference for

the criteria, and the criteria themselves, and bring them back to the House of

Assembly.

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

supplementary.

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

Does the minister know whether more than one company

expressed interest in becoming the designated site for the Bay Roberts area? And

if there was a competition, can he tell us who the bidders were, the difference

between the bids, and the basis on which the final decision was made?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question

under advisement and get some details for the member and bring them back, but I

say to him, the program is working extremely well. We have had official openings

for the last few weeks throughout the Province. We are approaching 20 million

units. I think we are going to reach our goal this year.

Even in Labrador, on the Coast of Labrador, we have - I tell

you, it is unbelievable; on the Coast of Labrador, of which some MP hopefuls are

trying to find out where Labrador is, right now, who are working on it. The

Member for Torngat Mountains was telling me the other day about the excellent

efforts being made up there now for the program with the school system. I will

undertake to get the information.

Thank you.

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

supplementary.

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

I would like to inform the minister that I know there was

indeed a competition among the bidders in that area. Will the minister confirm

there was a second bidder who had the space, the equipment, and distribution and

pick-up process, and a twenty-five year history of operation, and proved it

could provide first-rate service if it was chosen the designated depot for the

area? And will he confirm that the individual who won the contract offered to

buy equipment from the second bidder who did not win it, and is also renting

space from a close relative of his Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture? Is that the reason why he got the contract?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question

but, you know, I tell you, with any program I think they would go to any length

to find any problem, even if there were none. In this case, we will check it out

- I give a commitment to the member that I will check it out - but NewBRI has

been handling the applications arm's length from us, and doing a good job of it.

I would say we had well over 100 applications from the private sector, from

development associations, from a number of groups around the Province, who are

very interested in this program. But I will certainly check out the details of

the question that was asked, and I will make sure I get back to the member.

Again, on the overall, this program is working extremely

well.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I wonder if the minister would give the House a quick update

on the success of this year's seal fishery: how many seals have been taken; if

we have had any problems marketing the meat; and if there is any extension, or

if there is going to be any extension, to this year's quota.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by first saying we

have not taken enough. That is the one thing I will say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The quota this year was 283,000. There is

about 35,000 left to take. Most of it is on the small boat hunt, 2,000 left on

the personal use and about 7,000 along the Labrador front. Is there going to be

an extension? We have asked Ottawa to give us an extra quota. We do not have a

final answer back yet but the long-liners are gone back to the hunt. They asked

to have an increase and they have increased them from 125 up to 200 seals. They

are waiting for another week for the conditions to get right to go out but it

looks like this year that the complete quota will be taken with very little

problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: And DFO has also agreed that at the small

boat hunt they will not be watching them day and night to worry if they are

going to take the exact number. There is some flexibility in the hunt this year.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, the Fishermens' Union President suggests that the

seal hunt should be managed on the basis of an allowance rather than a fixed

quota. This allowance system would take long-term and short-term catches into

consideration and fishermen would benefit the following season if quotas were

not reached the year before. Mr. Minister, this certainly makes sense to me and

I ask the minister if he agrees with this particular suggestion?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, they were given

approximately - close to $50 million, they should have studied it and seen

exactly what was out there and what the need was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the one thing that we are

concerned about in the seal hunt, apart from the total herd and the populations

out there is that in order to have a seal hunt, an allowance or whatever the

term we will be using in the future, we have to make sure that we have the

markets for total utilization. Their markets are increasing tremendously, year

over year. They were excellent last year, they are good this year and they will

look even greater next year. We will be working with DFO as we have been for the

past two years and again over the coming months. In fact, we have a meeting set

for next week to discuss what the proposals are for next year. Everybody is

interested in getting as many seal hunts as we possibly can as long as the

markets can sustain the hunt.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

Treasury Board.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Insurance

Companies Tax Act." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for St.

John's East raised some questions about lock downs and drug searches at the

Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre. The member admitted that he was acting

on suspicions and rumours. As a result of the concerns raised by the member I

had officials of my department get in touch with Mr. Duffett, the administrator

at that facility.

Mr. Duffett says that: In line with the philosophy and

purpose of the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre safety and security of

residents and staff are paramount. As a result, polices have been developed to

effectively deal with situations in which contraband materials have been

discovered and/or suspected to exist within the facility.

He goes on to say: In an attempt to deter smuggling of

contraband materials and consequently protect staff and residents, surprise lock

downs are periodically carried out, during which times residents are confined to

their rooms and a complete cottage search is conducted.

Mr. Duffett says that: Two of the most recent such events

occurred on April 26 and April 29 when a number of pills were found and we

discovered some cigarettes. He says: Given the nature of our operation, we are

always conscious of and concerned about the possibility of contraband on the

units and the danger they pose to residents and staff. Then he goes on to say:

The frequency of such actions, in concern to the lock downs, would vary

depending on the circumstances. Here is a key word: But there have been none

that I'm aware of over the past two months that I would consider to be untoward

or exceptional.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the issue which the hon.

member raised was purely based on rumour and suspicion. You know, members of

this House have a responsibility to the residents of that institution, and to

the parents, that when they raise an issue they have concrete under their feet.

The hon. member raised an issue which impacts on the credibility of all of us in

this House, because when one shouts "Fire!" there should be a fire. You should

never shout "Fire!" unless you have your facts.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: (Inaudible) I mean, the reference is

given by the hon. minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the reference is made and

certainly presented in this House by the hon. minister that there was no

foundation to the question that was asked and that it was completely conjecture

or completely rumour. I question this statement that is made by the hon.

minister. The admission that has been made in and of itself by the hon. minister

in fact admits what was being alleged in the question yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

No point of order.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege

to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of Labrador West,

and it's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) member?

MR. SULLIVAN: The member? I'm not sure. A lot of people

asked me that question I would say when I was in Lab West.

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

and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents

of Labrador West ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

Whereas the Province of Quebec has lower taxes on gasoline and tobacco products

than the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that our government lower these

taxes in border areas to permit a level playing field for businesses and

consumers.

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce has taken the time and

effort to submit to this government an opportunity whereby people in border

towns in this Province - and there are not very many - can have a level playing

field where they are losing millions of dollars a year in business across the

border. I don't see why we should be subsidizing business in another province to

the detriment of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in this instance,

Mr. Speaker, they are businesses in Western Labrador.

They have provided information whereby they are showing in

the hundreds of thousands of dollars what this Province is losing in sales tax

revenue or HST, call it what you like now, because this government has not shown

the flexibility to be able to give a level playing field to the businesses that

are struggling in Labrador because of taxation levels between provinces.

There are many parts of this country that recognize the

flexibilities that needed to be used in establishing tax bases in border towns,

but it has not happened in Labrador West and I am sure the Member for Labrador

West passes the concerns and I certainly hope he would have the same concerns,

that when you lose millions of dollars right out of the pockets of people in

Labrador City and Wabush and the surrounding areas, some of it impacts in

Churchill Falls and elsewhere but particularly on the border in Labrador City

and Wabush and Western Labrador. Those impacts they are having are significant,

and even the minister's own department, his own figures indicate that even

before the February 1994, big change in taxation rate on tobacco in Quebec,

there was $135,000 less sales tax coming into this Province from those

businesses during that period.

Now that is pretty significant when you look at five local

retailers submitting to this Province $135,000 less in sales tax, it is pretty

significant. We are talking about millions of dollars worth of business and it

is not just tobacco. Some people might argue well, isn't that going to promote

smoking? Look, people are going to get their cigarettes in Fermont as opposed to

getting them in Labrador City and Wabush. The health issue has been a factor

black-labelling the cigarettes in there, they will have a different label, it

can be used then and if used in other parts of the Province, it would be

illegal. They may counter and say: What, if they are mailed? Well, you can mail

them from Quebec now at the lower rate, you still can do it so there should be a

black-labelling of those cigarettes where they could be identified because when

people go across to Fermont to pick up cartons of cigarettes, they pick up some

groceries, they get gas, they buy some alcohol; in fact, the lottery sale of

tickets has gone down. They even buy lottery tickets there and all this is

having an impact on the local economy and this government has to have the

flexibility to do something about it.

I made a suggestion to them, I support the Labrador West

Chamber of Commerce - the figures speak for themselves. We can have a net gain

in revenue as a result of this but the minister said: it is speculative. Sure, a

budget speculates, taxation levels speculate of course they do, but the facts

are here before the February change in 1994, these five local retailers alone

submitted $135,000 less revenue to this government in sales tax -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. GRIMES: Is this the first time you heard of this?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, any time I am asked to present

petitions on behalf of constituents anywhere in this Province, I am going to do

it and the Minister of Education will not tell me not to present petitions for

the people of Labrador West, I will do if asked I say to the minister.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will do it if I am asked and I will take

great pleasure I say to the minister. You sit around the Cabinet table, you

participate in Budget decision-making and you will not appreciate the hardship -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - establish a level playing service between

the parts of this Province.

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

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised today that the petition

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward has actually been

introduced to the House today. I had talked to the people in the business

community in Labrador West and they were putting together this petition and I

had committed to them that I would indeed present it to the House when they had

finished it, but perhaps, that it is here today is okay, but I say to the hon.

the Leader of the Opposition, this is not the first time I have heard of the

issue. We have been working with the business community in Labrador West to try

to find some resolution, to try to find a situation that would allow the tobacco

tax to be reduced in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is a

difficulty. The issue of having a black label has been looked at. We are

continuing to look at that. I am continuing to talk to the Minister of Finance

and the people within the Department of Finance to try to find a resolution that

is workable and able to do the job that we want it to do.

As far as I am concerned, this is, today, just a stunt by the

Conservative Party. They know that the federal campaign is on the go. They know

that there are a few days left in the campaign before this House closes. They

will take it upon themselves to raise issues pertinent to any riding, just to

make cheap political points.

Mr. Speaker, I am more interested in finding a resolution for

the people of Labrador West. We have worked a good many scenarios trying to find

a resolution that will be workable, that will be enforceable. The fact of the

matter is that tobacco tax raises some $70 million in this Province per year

that is used to provide services to the people of our Province. If you take a

look at what the Conservative Party has said, they have said two things. They

have said that they would balance the books in four years, and they said that

they would reduce to zero the payroll tax.

Mr. Speaker, the payroll tax provides $70 million or $80

million a year to provide opportunity for the people of this Province through

the services we provide, whether it is health care or education. The fact of the

matter is, there is not a soul in this House who agrees with the payroll tax, if

we had revenue that could offset it, but I agree more with providing health and

education services to our people, that is appropriate and able to do the job

that our people need, before we get rid of the payroll tax.

Let me say, the issue here is: How do we provide a system for

the people of Labrador West and a system for the people from Red Bay to

L'Anse-au-Clair that prevents a conduit, prevents opportunity for tobacco to

flow to the rest of the Province whereby the rest of the Province would see a

loss of revenue that is used to provide education and health resources to our

people?

Mr. Speaker, it is an important and challenging issue. We are

working on it. We will, I believe, find a resolution in due course, but it is

not going to be found here during a federal election campaign, across the floor,

trying to make cheap political points. It will be found in the profound

discussions I have had with the Minister of Finance and other ministers of this

Crown, trying to find a way that is workable, working with the business people

in Labrador West who know that I have committed myself to trying to find a

resolution to this.

It is not about the Leader of the Opposition travelling up to

Labrador West, meeting with his Conservative friends and the defeated candidate

of the Conservative Party last time, to walk back here to try to defend a

parachute candidate from Ottawa that is up there trying to bandy about now to

find a few votes, talking about how opportunity is lost to Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we will find a resolution to this tobacco tax

issue, but we will do it the right way. We will do it the way that is

enforceable and responsible, and meets the need of the business community and

the citizens of Labrador West.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I cannot believe what I have been hearing in the last few

minutes. First of all, the Member for Labrador West says that he is against

reductions in the payroll tax. He thinks that is a great tax. Therefore, what he

is saying is that this is an appropriate tax to be charging on business firms in

Labrador West and throughout this Province. That is what the member has just

said. Then he says that when we bring up this matter, because he is offended,

because he is turned off - and there are other words I could use to describe his

commentary - therefore he stands in his place and says: I am really peeved off

with the way that this petition got presented to the House and I am going to

stand here and accuse the Leader of the Opposition - to use his words - of a

`stunt'.

Mr. Speaker, we take these responsibilities very seriously.

We listened to the Member for Labrador West in the last few days quoting the

Blue Book. We wonder, who is pulling the stunts around here?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member: Make up your mind. Are you

for or against the payroll tax as is charged against the business people and

other people in Labrador West? Say to yourself: Are you for that or against it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, when we talk about stunts, the

biggest stunt ever perpetrated on the people of this Province was the Blue Book

- last time it talked about balancing the budget in four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of

order.

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

All we have seen in the last few minutes, is the member for

Labrador West rising on points of order so that the transcript for this

particular exchange will look a little better when he shows it to his

constituents. Mr. Speaker, we know the member is trying to make recovery. He has

just said, he is against the changing of the pay roll tax, he is against

cancelling that, he is also accusing people on this side of the House of pulling

a stunt. We are taking

part in this debate and supporting this petition because

it is a reflection of the wishes of the people who sign the petition, that they

signed it with sincerity. We accept it with the sincerity with which it was

signed. We support it on this side of the House and encourage the Leader of the

Opposition in his pursuit to try to get things changed for the betterment of

Labrador West.

Thank you very much.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a petition by a number of residents of the

Province who are asking the House of Assembly to direct the government to

establish a universal comprehensive School Lunch Program for every school in

Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and to give our children a

better chance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an important and significant issue.

The problem has been identified by the Canadian Council on Social Welfare in

terms of the increase in child poverty in this Province. Not an NDP group, the

has a representative from Newfoundland in the person of Mr. Calvin White. They

do annual reports on poverty across the country with comparisons by province, by

age type and family grouping, and they have disclosed in their most recently

published report in the spring of 1997 that the poverty rate in the Province of

Newfoundland for the last year of which they have statistics, 1995, was

twenty-six per cent. This represents some 360,000 children in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, an increase of more than fifty per cent

from 1989.

Now, 1989 was a significant year. Members opposite may think

it was significant because the Liberals gained power in Newfoundland after

seventeen or eighteen years in the wilderness, but it was significant for

another reason, because in 1989 in the House of Commands, the Premier and other

members of this federal caucus, along with the New Democratic Party caucus and

the Tory caucus in Ottawa, unanimously supported the resolution presented by the

hon. Ed Broadbent, who was then leader of the New Democratic Party and that was

a resolution which was to commit members, all parties and all members of the

House of Commons to a program to end child poverty by the year 2000.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are only a couple of years away from

the year 2000, and the sad reality is that child hunger and child poverty in

this Province has increased by 50 per cent since 1989 - a 50 per cent increase

in a country that committed itself to ending child poverty by the year 2000.

Mr. Speaker, those figures are not NDP figures, they come

from the Canadian Council on Social Welfare. Other figures that were used

recently by Dr. Patricia Canning in her report made to the government last June

and released last fall, used similar figures, I think, 38,000. It is well-known,

these figures are not manufactured, they are not speculation, these are figures

resulting from independent evidence-based studies done by academics, done by

knowledgeable people, done by statisticians, done by Statistics Canada, done by

those who know what they are talking about and are not saying things for

political purposes, but because they have an obligation as part of their

academic calling to present the facts as objectively and accurately as possible.

It is unfortunate that one has to underline this, Mr.

Speaker, because we are talking about hungry children here. We should not really

have to prove the point. The point is, Mr. Speaker - and it is very clear and

has been recognized most recently by the Social Policy Advisory Committee which

identified nutrition and food security as the number one key issue for children

in this Province. Number three on that list of key issues for children was the

need for school meal programs for all schools in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the sad figures given by the Minister of

Education yesterday was that there were thirty-two existing school lunch

programs in 432 schools and it was his hope that with the few dollars that

government gave them they were going to have another forty or fifty within a few

years. Even if that were true, Mr. Speaker, that would give a grand total of

eighty out of 430 schools. I will guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that those

programs will not be in the most needy schools, because the most needy schools

or the most needy children are in areas where the social infrastructure is less

able to deliver a volunteer-based program.

I want the minister to understand, as well, since he did not

understand the number of school lunch programs or school meal programs, he

probably does not understand that the existing thirty-two programs are under

threat, that they cannot make it, Mr. Speaker. They will need further subsidies

for a long time to come if they are going to continue to deliver those programs.

So the thirty-two programs that exist are at risk -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and there is a need for a universal school

lunch program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise again today to support the petition put forward by my

colleague the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Mr. Speaker, I was very

pleased the other day when I heard the Minister of Health say in one of her

first statements as the new Minister of Health that she believed in

evidence-based decision-making. Mr. Speaker, we commend the minister for saying

those words but in terms of child poverty and what it means, we have to say to

the hon. House that evidence based decision making needs to be applied to the

child poverty problem.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before in the House, looking at all

the evidence that is presented, at the history of child poverty in this

Province, the efforts of the government, the churches and other community

agencies to try to address the issue of child poverty, we should be further

ahead than we are. But this year there are more children who are poor in this

Province than there were five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, we need to look again at what child poverty

means to individual families, what it means to children in the classrooms and

the impact it is having on their performance and for the impact it is going to

have on their lifetime career goals and their lifetime potential.

Mr. Speaker, we had studies done by the Department of Health,

by the Department of Education, by the Department of Social Services, by Dr.

Patricia Canning, and by the committee that I was a member of, the Childrens'

Interest Committee of the Legislature. The issue of child poverty was a

prominent issue that was talked about at that time.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not saying here that government is

not sensitive to what we are talking about. In fact, I was very pleased the

other day - and I made mention of it - when the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture stood in his place and talked about when he was Minister of the

Department of Social Services, how he visited the schools and how he did a

follow-up visit and talked to teachers following the initiation of a program of

school lunches.

Mr. Speaker, we know that children who are hungry behave like

adults who are hungry. They are lethargic, they get headaches and they cannot

concentrate. All of the things that everyone else has happen to them when they

are hungry, happen to children. So we cannot say to a child, `would you please

concentrate on your school work' when that child's main preoccupation is with

the fact that that child has not had sufficient food for that particular day,

or, for that matter, it might be some days since the child has eaten an adequate

and nutritious lunch.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to members in the House that we

need to do a little more. We commend the school lunch foundation, we commend the

agencies that are out there supporting these programs, but we have to do a

little more. I would like to challenge the Minister of Education to stand in his

place today and say that between now and September he is going to take it upon

himself to try to address this issue to see if we can find some more money, to

see if we can take it as a priority. Because we cannot wait until the Federal

Government money comes in in 1998. I ask the minister if he would stand today

and say that he is going to examine this issue again, bring it back to his

Cabinet colleagues, and see if we can take some money - even if we take it from

the emergency contingency fund. There cannot be a bigger emergency than 40,000

hungry children.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, this is a very

significant issue. We have continued to bring it forward all this session. As

long as there is, shall we say, 30 per cent of our school population going to

school hungry then we shall continue to pursue it. Because the resolution is

there. We will never ever have an occasion where we will have hungry children, I

suppose, down to zero in this Province, but we can certainly do a lot better

than we are doing now. We would like to have it down to the point where we can

say there is no such thing as a hungry child. But there are certain realities.

So we want to say to the Minister of Education, would you

please take it back to your Cabinet colleagues and would you endeavour to do

what you can? I know there are some ministers who are sensitive to the issue,

and maybe together we can see some new and bold initiatives before the beginning

of the next school year.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments with respect to the

petition, because it is a very important issue and it has been a priority for

this government for some considerable time.

The only difference of opinion, I guess, that we have

fundamentally with the idea presented in the petition by the hon. member, and

supported by the Opposition House Leader, is the notion contained in the

petition with respect to a universal program to be available in every single

school in Newfoundland and Labrador. The whole concept, as we understand it, and

our hope and wish, would be that we would never get to a circumstance where we

would need to have this kind of a program in every single school in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Because at some points in time we do understand that there

are serious problems, and they are concentrated in some areas moreso than

others. I think it is a little bit - unfortunate, I guess is the phrase I would

use - when we quote some statistics from certain reports, certainly,

nationally-based reports, that deal with the national scene, and largely reflect

the issue that is much more serious than it is in Newfoundland and Labrador in

the inner cores of the large cities of Canada where there is real poverty. We

know there is a range of it in different regions. We know there is a range of it

in different parts of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is some poverty amongst

children even in very rural settings.

The findings and the studies always done here seem to show

that the children in Newfoundland and Labrador who have the greatest dependence

and need on programs like this from the government, because there are no family

or extended family supports to help them, are in the inner city of St. John's.

When many people think of a situation like this, they think that in the smaller

rural communities there is rampant poverty. There is not great wealth, but in

the meantime, because of the kinds of supports that are present there that are

not present with people in the inner core of a city like St. John's, the

difficulty for the child is actually exacerbated here moreso than in other

areas.

What we have done, in fact, is to support a well-established

program that is in the Province now, as we indicated yesterday, in some

thirty-two schools. They have the capability of reaching out to another fifty.

There are some requests that are being analyzed now and will probably be on

stream in September 1997 as schools open again. The financial capability, thanks

to the contribution from the Provincial Government of $125,000, and from

corporate sponsors like Petro-Canada of their $200,000 - the provincial school

lunch foundation has the ability to handle another fifty programs if needed.

What we have indicated clearly, and the hon. the Opposition House Leader

challenged: Would we get up and say we will take this under advisement and that

we make a commitment? They already know we have made a commitment, that if in

fact there are another fifty programs up and running because they are needed and

because the local people support them, and because they are sustainable and they

are the right thing to do, and they run short of money and they have another

fifty requests, then we will stand behind them.

At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, the government does not

see the need in the Province and the merits of the case of establishing a

universal school lunch program in every single school in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We believe we are meeting areas of critical need where communities

themselves have identified a problem, like in my own district. Two community

groups came forward this year, identified that they were having some difficulty,

that there were a number of children going to school hungry. They are now

organizing on a pilot basis in one community a school lunch program sponsored by

the provincial foundation. The other community is getting involved in organizing

itself. If, in fact, it is necessary and seen to be the appropriate thing to do,

it is likely to occur next September. That is the kind of assessment that is

going on.

In fact, the issue is very serious, and we are delighted that

we have been able to make a contribution to it. We are delighted that the

support is there from the corporate community, and we appreciate their raising

the issue, and we know that it is being well taken care of to the best of the

government's ability at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition containing 1,634 names.

It is from schoolchildren and adults. The petition is from Catalina Elementary,

St. Catherine's in Port Union, Discovery Collegiate, Bonavista, St. Mark's at

King's Cove, Eastern Community College, Bonavista campus, and Matthew Elementary

at Bonavista.

The petition reads: To the hon. the House of Assembly of

Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Bonavista South, school pupils and adults.

It goes on to say: The previous recycling program in our area

involving the collection of paper products was terminated after the

implementation of the current recycling program involving the collection of

beverage containers. After lobbying correspondence dated February 10 1997 from

the Department of Environment and Labour, it indicated that paper products would

be collected from the depots if the depot operator agreed, but no fee would be

paid to anyone for paper products. The effect of paying no fee for the

collection of paper products will create an environmental problem, the exchange

of this previous garbage, the beverage containers, for the previous recycled

product paper. Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to establish a procedure for the collection of paper products for

recycling as part of the existing beverage container contract, or, as a new

contract, that a fee be implemented to encourage non-profit groups to resume

collection of or initiate collection of paper products for recycling.

Mr. Speaker, here was a situation where those particular

schools were involved in a recycling program that would collect paper products

and take them to the local recycling depot, or they would be collected on a

regular basis by a collection truck from Nova Recycling. The school children

would be reimbursed, would get a fee, for this particular collection.

One of the groups that took

part in this particular program

was the Girl Guides in Bonavista. In the past four years, that group collected

92,000 pounds, or forty-six tons, of paper, and received $1,050. What did they

do with the amount of money they collected? What did they do with the $1,050?

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they do with it?

MR. FITZGERALD: They donated $250 to the Janeway Child

Health Centre. They donated $200 to the Bonavista Fire Department, to help pay

for a new fire truck. They donated $200 to the Bonavista Memorial Library, $300

to Green Trees Girl Guide Camp up in Trinity, and $100 to the First Guide

Company, for a total of the full amount that they collected of $1,050.

Mr. Speaker, this was a very worthwhile project, where

schoolchildren up in King's Cove would go and collect recyclable paper products,

sell them to Nova Recycling, and they would use it to support their sports

activities in their school. They would use it for all school programs. Then, all

of a sudden, the Minister of Environment and Labour and this government decided

they were going to take

part in a Green project, select certain depots around

the Province where beverage containers could be returned for a profit, and then

those paper products were not of any value anymore. I have to ask the question:

Why? If it was of some value prior to the establishment of those Green Depots,

prior to the value of those beverage containers being worth something, why is it

not worth something today?

Mr. Speaker, what we have done here is, we have taken away an

opportunity for schoolchildren and different youth groups to make money and to

take

part in a very responsible campaign.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that every ton of paper that is

recycled saves twenty to twenty-five full-grown trees. Manufacturing paper from

recycled fibre reduces air pollution by 75 per cent, and water pollution by 35

per cent.

Here we had a group of students carrying out a responsible

recycling program, getting a small return for taking

part in that particular

effort, and carrying out a big responsibility for being stewards of our

environment, as well.

I ask the minister - I am glad he is seated here today - if

he would be kind enough to respond to this particular petition because 1,634

responsible schoolchildren had the interest to circulate the petition, sign

their names, and ask for it to be presented here in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a very worthwhile petition, and I

think it is something that should be initiated again immediately, and allow

those particular groups to be able to collect wasted newspaper, to collect old

catalogues, telephone books, anything else that is there that will ordinarily

find its way to the garbage dump, or out by the side of the road somewhere, take

it to those Green Depots and have some form of remuneration there for the

effort, and to encourage them to continue to carry out this very worthwhile

program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the

petition and say to him that the new program is to encourage and enhance

whatever efforts were already being made out there. A problem we were having was

that there was not enough effort, overall, being made. Another problem was that

we did not believe that, at the end of the day, the value of some of these

materials was enough to get a system set up that would be stable. Still another

problem we had was that there were only a few schools in the Province that were

into it. There were a few schools around, here and there, who were doing the

program, and who were doing a good job of it when they were doing it, doing a

really good job of collecting materials and so on. They were doing it mostly on

a volunteer basis, and the revenue they were getting was limited, but it was a

help to them in doing a number of things.

What this new program is going to do, and the goal of the

program plus the Stewardship Board being set up to oversee the implementation of

this program plus other programs, is to have a stable recycling system first

off, with stable depots operating, of which now we have thirty-six and we are

going to have, I expect, another fifteen or twenty open before the end of the

summer. So we are probably going to be at fifty to sixty depots in the next few

months.

The depot system is also going to be asked to - and are

looking at now, with the Stewardship Board - taking in paper. Some depots are

taking paper, some are not. We have asked the Stewardship Board to work with the

depots that are being set up and advising them to look at taking paper from the

regions. Some of the depots are large enough to do that, some are smaller and

unable to do that yet. So we are looking at, with the present transportation

company that is involved in the transportation system (inaudible) beverage

containers. We are looking at a way to still access from anybody, be it schools

or non-profit associations or development associations, a way to take their

paper and make sure it is recycled.

The value of paper unfortunately has dropped off, the value

of cardboard has dropped off and we are looking at the cardboard in the same

way. So really, the program is just filling out itself now and we are looking at

ways to get other products into the transportation system; we are looking at

ways to get the depots to take more products and that will be evolving over the

next number of months, so for the petitioners, there is really a new opportunity

for the school that the member describes to make much more revenue than they

have had in the past because now, they have a valuable container to recycle for

one thing. So it can help them in their present recycling efforts of paper

products.

Our goal is to get system stable first, which we are now

doing, to have it enhanced and to have many more depots around the Province that

are going to be into recycling and to get our kids into recycling, which the

program now is doing in droves, Mr. Speaker, around the Province. We might have

had only forty or fifty schools in the Province doing recycling on their own,

which is really very positive, but now they have a much expanded reason to do

this.

The Member for Torngat Mountains was telling me only a couple

of days ago that there is a school up in his district where we were having a

difficult time trying to set up a depot system on the North Coast of Labrador -

and that is a challenge, Mr. Speaker, for this program or any program. But he

went to his schools in the area, and one school in particular, Mr. Speaker, has

done a tremendous job and has raised over $2,000 in the last seven or eight to

ten weeks for their school programs, for the School Lunch Program and so on.

So what we are doing is, we are setting up a whole system

which will do beverage containers first. We are working on the waste paper

products for all of those different depots right now; we are also looking at

cardboard and we are looking at milk products, too, at this point in time. We

have been meeting with the milk processors; they have been looking at a

recycling program that they can tap into the present recycling program we have

started.

There are other products coming on stream; waste paper, we

are going to have that dealt with, we are going to have a system either to add

on to the present system or a separate contract for transporting. We will have

that arranged in the next number of weeks or months, Mr. Speaker, and this will

enhance and see much more recycling activity in this Province than we have ever

seen in the past, Mr. Speaker, as we work towards it.

Other provinces that have set up their depots have done the

same thing and what we are doing is stabilizing the depot system, stabilizing

the transportation system so that we can add other products that we may not be

able to get a full value for or a large value. I mean, we are having all these

beverage containers going everywhere in the Province, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the minister's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just

for clarification?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I say to the member that I appreciate the

petition and if he could send a copy to me, I would appreciate that, too, and we

will respond directly to the school and the kids. As a matter of fact, we would

love to meet with them sometime in the near future. If you would like to do

that, it is not a problem. But we will be dealing with that situation, and we

want to add value so that kids will get out there and recycle - that is what the

whole effort will be geared to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today in support of the petition

presented by the Member for Bonavista South.

The petition that he has presented today goes to the very

concern that I had discussions with the minister on some time ago. The

discussions I had with the minister were with respect to a school on the West

Coast that had contacted me shortly after the `Trash to Cash' Program came into

play, and the principal of the school told me that these depots now were not

taking some of the materials that they had taken previously, and it was going to

affect the fund-raising capabilities of that school and other schools across the

Province. Some of the materials they were not taking after this program into

play were: margarine tubs, those plastic containers, crocks for jam; glass

bottles and what have you, that type of material that they were not going to

take anymore. They actually brought it up to the depot and they were turned

away. They said they are not going to accept it anymore because they are only

going to take the materials that there is good money in for themselves. I

checked out other areas across the Province, Gander and St. John's, Mr. Speaker,

and there were materials that at at least three depots in the Province would not

accept. At least three depots would not accept the materials anymore.

What is happening here now goes back to the program itself.

It really was not a very well-thought-out or well-planned program. The intent of

the program was to keep materials off the garbage dumps in this Province. In

actual fact, there are more materials now going back to the dumps. So one

situation was offsetting the other. It was defeating its own purpose, Mr.

Speaker.

The Member for Bonavista South made a point that the schools

or that particular school would not be able to have the same fundraising

capability that they had in the past. When I addressed this with the minister

before, he told me there would be policies put in place so that this would not

be permitted to happen. Here we are now, some months afterwards, Mr. Speaker,

and it is still happening in the Province. We have materials going to the

landfills in this Province that were not going there before. They are going

there now because of this very program, the `Trash to Cash' Program.

So I would like to say that the petition presented by the

Member for Bonavista South is a petition that goes to the hearts, I suppose, of

a lot of people in the Province. As I said earlier, the intent of the program

was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, when you are up

on this side of the House and looking over there and seeing some of the actions

by some of the people over there, it is hard to concentrate and keep your

thoughts, let me tell you. What is being done over there now, the Government

House (inaudible) would not be able to do it to me.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I support the

petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 6. I say to the

Opposition House Leader, we had intended to call Order No. 5 but the Member for

Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi wanted to first of all confer with, I believe, the

deputy minister or somebody like that, about a certain little thing in the bill.

So I am going to move to, if he does not mind, Order No. 6, "An Act To Amend The

Tax Agreement Act."

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

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

If we could for a moment, I assumed there would be somebody

introducing it (inaudible) the critic who with the Leader of the Opposition

anticipated that we would go with the small claims one first and -

MR. TULK: Later, no you want - let me just say to the

hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, to clear this up -

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

MR. TULK: - before I call it. The hon. gentleman, the

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi wants to confer with another lawyer about a

legal matter that he sees in there where people might be going to jail. I said

to him alright, we will move to Order No. 6, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement

Act."

Mr. Speaker, I would move Bill No. 3, "An Act To Amend The

Tax Agreement Act", on behalf of the Minister of Finance.

What this bill does, Mr. Speaker - and I am going to be very

brief on this - will allow us to retroactively and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Government House Leader speaking to the

introduction of the bill?

MR. TULK: Yes.

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

Agreement Act". (Bill No. 3)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what this bill does - and it is

not very often that you like to do things retroactively, but in this particular

case, I think we are providing a benefit to some people in this Province by

doing it and I suppose in that context, it would be acceptable. If you were

taking away from them I would expect there would be a great hue and cry about it

from the other side. I know if I were over there and you were taking something

away from the people of this Province, then I suspect I would be first on my

feet. But, in this particular case, what we are doing is allowing the rebate for

building materials in Labrador, which is a budgetary item, to be made

retroactively.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no difficulty with making the rebate provisions of the

Tax Agreement Act as it affects Labrador Building Material retroact, but that is

not what the Bill says. It seems to say, that all regulations may under

subsection (1) may be made with retroactive affect and it appears that that may

be including things that are, in fact, taking things away, as the minister said

and not just things that are giving things to people.

So, if the sole purpose and the sole affect of the agreement

is as the minister said, I do not have any difficulty with it, but I am not

convinced that that is the case. The Tax Agreement Act was passed last year and

I would have to have a very close look at

section 6, to make sure that any

regulations under that could have the only affect of any regulations under that

Act would be to be ones that are positive and positive for the people in

Labrador who are going to be advantaged by the retroactive regulations that the

minister has in mind.

I see the Leader of the Opposition is in his place and ready

to address this issue and I understand that he will probably deal with it with

his usual thoroughness and will be able to recite backwards and forwards

section

6 of the Tax Agreement Act and tell us whether it is possible that regulations

made under subsection (1) of subsection (6) of the Tax Agreement Act could be

deleterious, as well as be positive.

I know that the Government House Leader has said that the

only affect of this is to have ameliorative provisions made retroactive, but I

am not so sure that there could not also be deleterious provisions made

retroactive and I am sure that the Opposition Leader in his usual thoroughness

will be able to recite backwards and forwards

section 6 of the Tax Agreement

Act, so that we could all fully understand, when he finishes his speech, whether

or not that is possible, but if the Government House Leader is right and the

only affect of this Act is to provide for the allowances of rebates to be

retroactive, then I will have no problem with it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to

section 6, I thank the member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi for his ringing endorsement of support here.

MR. TULK: He will soon be a Tory.

MR. SULLIVAN: It states here in

article 6 and I am sure

the member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has looked at it, it says: may make

regulations respecting the application of retail sales tax to transactions

relating to retail sales, acquisitions, consumption or use of tangible personal

property or of service in the Province which commences on or before March 31,

1997 and which are completed subsequent to that date. I guess that is with

reference to, I would assume, when the HST came in it probable changed the

provisions then as apposed to a separate RST and a GST that applied to people

and where Labradorians were getting a rebate, now it will impact on their status

under the new fifteen per cent, I am assuming that is the reference date for

that.

It goes on to say, providing for the rebate for tax imposed,

so it says, it provides for the rebate under 6(b), under the retail sales tax,

the builders of new residential homes and new multi-unit residential

establishments where the construction commences on or before March 31, 1997, but

is not complete or is not sold.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I said subsequent to that date.

Now, the Government House Leader, I think, introduced the

Bill on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Is that correct? I did not get to

hear the opening comments on it, but it does provide a

section respecting a

refund rebate or reimbursement and I am not fully clear on what is stated here,

that regulations made under subsection (1) may be made with, it says,

retroactive affect. I am not so sure that is does not apply to the whole

provisions, at all to all regulations. Therefore, I always have great difficulty

anytime we make retroactivity in legalisation, that concerns me a lot. I

certainly agree with the provisions to do what they are trying to do for people

to be able to get a rebate and in Labrador, I do not know why this was not

dealth with before.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder if the government would accept an

amendment making sure that only the regulations with respect to rebates be

retroactive.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, but seriously -

MR. TULK: But Jack you know where the amendments are.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Government House Leader, the

intent of legislation is not always the same and we do have before us here, and

I say to hon. members, we do have before us many pieces of legalisation,

anomalies and errors and so on, many things that came through here that had to

be corrected and many times legislation has put it on the books and we have to

come back and deal with it over again.

So, this to me does not clearly state that retroactivity

applies to rebate only and I am no lawyer, I am no legal expert on it, I had an

opportunity to read that, and the same concern -

MR. H. HODDER: There are twelve retroactivities

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is on Bill 9. The same concern

that is mentioned there - I mean, we certainly know the purpose of the principle

of the rebate to people in Labrador on housing. But the point on making it

universal to the regulation, I'm certainly not convinced that that does the job.

Maybe the Government House Leader might want to be able to come back to it, when

we get to the Committee stage of this. We could look at it when we get to

Committee and take a little closer look in case there is some amendment that we

could put forward to be able to address that and make it abundantly clear

exactly what we are voting on.

That is the only concern I see. I think the Government House

Leader indicated the intent of it. It isn't a problem with the principle of it,

but the actual wording in that may need to be changed on that to more properly

reflect what in principle the intent is. I will conclude my remarks on that, Mr.

Speaker, with that comment.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say quite simply in

closing the debate on this piece of legislation, that as the hon. Opposition

Leader said, the intent is to take care of the Labrador situation. If there is

any problem with it then we can, if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

agrees, and if he doesn't you can hold it up in Committee anyway, you can say

what you want to say, do what you want to do with the bill, in Committee.

Certainly when we get to Committee I will see that the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board addresses the situation.

I would move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Tax Agreement Act,"

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 3)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentlemen wanted

some time - I had intended to go down through the Order Paper, "An Act To Remove

Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law." But I think the hon. gentlemen on the

other side want some time to take a look at that and maybe have some discussions

with the Minister of Justice. We are certainly prepared to do that. I think also

they wanted to take a look at the wilderness and ecological reserves act.

I'm now going to call the next order of business on the Order

Paper, No. 9, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of

Food," Bill 12. I believe that the NDP member in the House also would like to

speak to that bill. I assume he will be around for debate. If not, I would ask

that we hold off to pass second reading until such time as he is back in the

House.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of "An Act Respecting The

Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food," Bill 12.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Good

Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food". (Bill No. 12)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like, to be frank with you

- and I haven't asked my colleague for Humber Valley if he wants to speak on

this, but he was the chairman of the Committee. I know that the Member for

Bonavista South was the person who, and I give him all credit for it in the

world, brought this piece of legislation to the House in the beginning, or at

least the idea for the legislation, to the Legislature. I would sit down and ask

the Member for Bonavista South if he wants to speak, and maybe at that point in

time the Member for Humber Valley might like to address the bill as well, I was

just saying, before the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi came in, that I

understand he wants to speak on this bill. Since he is now in the Legislature I

guess we can proceed as normal.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My comments are

going to be very brief on this bill. It was a bill that was introduced a few

years ago. I think at that time, or two years ago, it was Bill 100. Then it was

brought back into the Legislature. I think it was Bill 30. Now it is back again

for the third time as Bill No. 12.

I would certainly like to commend the Social Services

Committee, the Chairman from Humber East, the Member for Twillingate and Fogo,

the Member for Waterford Valley, the Member for St. John's East, and I think the

Member for Burin - Placentia West, who, I think, were the members of that

particular committee. I commend them for the job that they did, not because they

brought the bill back, but I sat in on the committee hearings and they did a

marvellous job. It was done in a very fair way. They listened and they

questioned. There were some concerns brought forward, but I am certainly happy

to see them recommend this bill. It is a bill that was brought forward and

accepted in five other provinces, in all fifty of the United States. It is not

something that is going to be earth-shattering, or anything, I suppose, that is

going to...

To me, very simply, I guess this bill means that if somebody

does something in good faith then they should not fear the repercussions of

litigation. If I am going to invite somebody into my house, and somebody trips

on the floor and falls down and breaks their leg, then I think, from the pure

act of kindness, it would be very unfair if that person took me to court and

sued me. That is all that this bill says. It removes the litigation from

somebody doing something from kindness and helping somebody else.

We have in excess of 45,000 people who use food banks in this

Province, and of that 45,000 in excess of 20 per cent of them are children.

There is a very real need out there. We are talking about good food. We are not

talking about food that is adulterated. We are not talking about food that is

unfit for human consumption. It opens up the door for people to continue giving,

and make perfectly good food available to the needy and the people who use those

food banks.

I think it is a good bill. I commend the chairman and his

committee for bringing it back to the House, and the Government House Leader for

seeing fit to introduce it in this particular session of the Legislature.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was our pleasure to have reviewed this particular piece of

legislation, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of

Foods". It is a rather simple piece of legislation which essentially states that

if you or I, or a corporation for that matter, were to donate some food to a

group or to a cause and if, through no fault of your own, there proved to be

something wrong with that food, then you would not be held liable.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. Any

corporation that would make any donation of food would clearly make sure, in the

very first instance, that there was nothing wrong with the food.

In many cases what we found, as we did our investigation, was

that the legal beagles associated with the corporations in Canada were giving

advice to people like Kraft Canada and others that: If you do donate this food,

and if something does happen, you will be held personally liable.

As a consequence, as a result of that advice, on many

occasions the corporation simply said: Well, we are not prepared to accept that

level of liability. And they took what was very good, perfectly acceptable food,

and carried it off to the dump - very much of a shame in this day and age in

this country when so many people are going hungry and food is at a premium.

I would report that, as we looked at the various legislation

in different jurisdictions in Canada, we found that jurisdictions like Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Ontario have enacted exactly the same

legislation. As a matter of fact, the Province of Ontario's legislation is

verbatim to the legislation which we are proposing here today. As a matter of

fact, that legislation in Ontario was passed in 1994.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was Premier then?

MR. MERCER: I would suspect it may have been an NDP

government of the day, Mr. Rae, I believe, who was the Premier of the day, so it

was passed by that particular government.

All political parties in Canada of different stripes in all

four provinces, have decided that this is a good thing, and in talking with the

members associated with the food banks in different parts of Canada, they have

said nothing but positive things about this type of legislation. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, we have been told that this piece of legislation has

dramatically increased the amount of food which has been made available to food

banks in each of the Maritime Provinces and in Ontario as well.

There were some individuals who came before our committee,

Mr. Speaker, who indicated that they thought perhaps this was not a good piece

of legislation; there were others who thought just the opposite. On balance, Mr.

Speaker, when we reviewed the information available to us, the committee

concluded, unanimously, I might add - all members of the committee both members

from the opposite side and this side, unanimously agreed that this was a good

piece of legislation and that it should be brought back into the House for

passage.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that there

is nothing in this legislation that we could find that would be to the detriment

of those who would receive the food. When we talked to people at the food banks

here in St. John's, they also concurred on that. We talked to a gentleman at the

food bank up on LeMarchant Road, I believe it was, and the Salvation Army on

Adams Avenue and both of these individuals indicated that they thought the

legislation was a good idea, and based upon that and all the other information

which was available to us, we thought that we should bring this back in, and

that is what is being done here today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in opposition to Bill No. 12. I have not had

the opportunity in this House to speak to this legislation; it seems to be

brought before the House when I am not around. But I managed to hear upstairs

that the bill was called and I rushed down here to be here.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The orders seem to have changed around, Mr.

Speaker, after I left the room.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The Opposition House Leader and I both agreed

that if the hon. gentleman was not in the Chamber when we introduced this a few

minutes ago for second reading, that we would not close debate on the bill until

the hon. gentleman came back.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. members were engaging in debate and the hon. the

Government House Leader gave further clarification on the issue.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I accept the explanation of my colleague, the hon. the

Government House Leader. I left the House to attend to a matter and was of the

understanding that we were following a certain order. I just overheard the

matter being called and I rushed to the House. I did not hear the comments that

would have been exchanged back and forth between the Government and Opposition

House Leaders, so I accept that and I apologize for any implication that would

be in my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

I am interested in this legislation because it does what I

think is abhorrent in legislation and sets two standards in this Province for

the protection of health in the area of food distribution.

We have one set of laws and rules and protections from the

law for people who buy food from a restaurant or from a store or supermarket,

and there are standards for the protection of the public that are in the law

and, in this case, in the common law, because we are talking here about the

common law.

This cannot undo the Criminal Code, but we are talking here

about the common law standards of negligence, Mr. Speaker, that apply to

restaurant owners, that apply to caterers, that apply to the Salvation Army when

they are holding a banquet for their members, that apply to the Canadian Legion

when it is holding a banquet to raise money for a charity; that apply to the

Lions Club, that apply to the Kiwanis Club and that apply to anybody who is in

the business of distributing food for consumption, whether it be for profit or

not, in circumstances where negligence can cause harm.

There are standards that apply, and people who are involved

in the distribution, preparation, storage and transportation of food are

required to meet general standards of good care based on the law.

What we have here is a bill that establishes a different

standard for people who are poor, for people who are forced by the economic

circumstances that government has allowed to exist, who are forced - as the

Member for Bonavista South said, 45,000 people going to food banks - to accept a

lesser standard, have a lesser standard imposed on them.

I have a serious question as to whether or not this bill is

constitutional. I have a serious question as to whether or not it would

withstand a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees

people equal protection under the law. It seems to me a category of persons does

not get equal protection under the law because of this legislation, and they

would be poor people. They would be people who are subject to unequal protection

under this legislation, I believe, contrary to

Section 15 of the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees to all Canadians equal protection under

the law, and equal protection of the law. It seems pretty clear that the full

intention of the Act is to lower the standard when it comes to donated food, in

the case of food banks. It is designed clearly to provide for an exemption from

the standards of the law.

Mr. Speaker, I attended the hearings, as well, and listened

to the presentations that were made. The representative of the national

anti-poverty organization spoke quite eloquently against the bill, felt insulted

by the legislation, felt that the legislation was treating poor people with

disrespect and treating them with contempt by subjecting them to a different

standard in food banks than people would get buying food.

I challenge the suggestion that this is something that is

unanimously accepted in five or six different provinces and all fifty states of

the United States. I do not think that is true. I think there are various bits

and pieces of legislation of some similar effect in other places. The bill looks

very similar to the one in Manitoba.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) passed in Ontario.

MR. HARRIS: There are a few words changed. In fact, I do

not care where it was passed or who passed it. I do not care if Bob Rae passed

it. I do not care if Pierre Trudeau passed it, I do not care if Jean Chrtien

passed it. I do not care if Bob Rae passed it three times! It does not bother me

in the least, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to it! I am opposed to it because it

discriminates against people who are forced to rely on food banks. I will say

one thing, that when Bob Rae was Premier of Ontario, there were far fewer people

going to food banks than there are now under the Conservative Government, and

than there were before under the Liberal Government of Petersen. There were far

fewer people going to the food banks before and after Bob Rae than there was

during the Bob Rae Government, I guarantee you that. I think that is something

that can be demonstrated by evidence, if necessary.

I guarantee you that this is a bill, whether it is passed by

anybody else in any other state of the union of the United States of America or

Canada or France, I do not care. I am opposed to it on principle, because the

principle behind the bill is wrong. I believe that people who - the only people

who came to the Committee who were users of food banks were opposed to the bill!

I am not talking about the volunteers, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the

corporate donors and their lawyers and all these people. I am not interested in

them. I am talking about the people who use the food banks, people who require

use of the food banks. They are the ones, Mr. Speaker. When they came before the

Committee, they said: `Look, I do not like what this is doing.'

The Dietetic Association came and strongly opposed the

legislation, Mr. Speaker. Representatives of the Dietetic Association talked

about the problems with food. One expert, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose the only

expert, really, who appeared before the Committee, Dr. Mary Alton Mackey, who

appeared before this Committee, a dietician, brought with her a number of

samples of food and outlined to the Committee all the difficulties with the food

in those containers and showed the Committee how the food could be - if there

were not proper labelling on the food, if the containers were dented, if they

were not used properly, they could, in fact, provide serious problems for people

using the food and emphasized to the Committee the need to have standards.

The fact of the matter is that the corporations or the people

who have this food and are donating it, they abide by the standards. They are

the trained people who abide by the standards. The only problem seems to be, Mr.

Speaker, and I think the chairman of the committee acknowledged this privately,

that although there was a lot of talk about increases in food being available to

food banks, it appears that the increase in food available to the food banks is

in perishable foods - the very area where the most concern arises; not only

that, the very area where the expertise of the people who operate the stores,

warehouses and supermarkets have expertise that ordinary people do not, and that

is who are running the food banks, Mr. Speaker, ordinary people, volunteers, no

special experts, no special training. There is no experience necessary to

volunteer at a food bank and to pass out food which may or not be harmful to

people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one suggestion was made as to the concerns

in particular about perishable foods, that if the government really wanted to do

something about the availability of food in this Province, particularly

perishable food, Mr. Speaker, it would be to lower the cost of perishable foods

by guaranteeing some priority of access on the Cabot Strait ferries for

perishable foods. I am told that thousands and thousands of dollars worth of

perishable foods actually perish sitting in trucks waiting to get on the ferry.

This drives the cost of food in St. John's - and I am sure Carbonear higher -

but drives the cost of perishable food up some 25 per cent in this Province as

the result of not having special access to the ferry for perishable foods.

Now, if someone wanted to improve the food supply in this

Province, lower the price of food so that people would not have to go to food

banks, that seems to me to be a far more useful project to undertake than

somebody who lowers standards and does not do anything to improve the quality or

access to food in this Province at all but, in fact, provides a worry-free dump

for Sobeys and Loblaws of their perishable foods.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) getting it from the food

bank.

MR. HARRIS: Well, if the supper is coming from the food

bank, I am not so sure. It depends, if the Act is not passed by then, I will go

along with that. If the Act is passed, I will pass on the offer of supper from

the member.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a piece of legislation that I have

opposed on principal. I have made my voice clear publicly. There has been some

public debate on this issue. There has been some debate, publicly - there has

been more public debate than there has been in this House. I know the Committee

heard a number of submissions and, in fact, heard both sides of the issue. The

Committee may have been unanimous, but the submissions certainly were not, not

the ones that I heard, Mr. Speaker, they certainly were not unanimous in their

support for this Bill.

There were a couple of people from the food banks who

supported it and they did so on the basis and the impression, as least, and most

of it was impressionistic, that they might get more food to distribute if they

had this piece of legislation. But there was not very much evidence that this is

a particular problem with this Province.

It may be an excuse that some corporations are giving, not to

donate food, but if this were a real problem - the Province of British Columbia

does have such legislation, and they have a problem with donations to their food

banks. But it is not because of the absence of legislation, it is because of the

absence of the very many food processing or manufacturing operations in the

province of British Columbia.

So, guess what has happened, Mr. Speaker. One of the major

transport companies in Canada, I think it is CP, have offered to transport, free

of charge, food from Ontario to British Columbia for distribution in the food

banks in British Columbia. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is to a province that does not

have any legislation protecting them, and their food supply is increasing

because a company, Canadian Pacific Transport, has made available free

transportation half-way across the country from Ontario to British Columbia to

provide food - in the total absence of any legislation such as this.

Mr. Speaker, I know how this came to be; it was a suggestion

honourably made by the member for Bonavista South, honourably made, and picked

up by the Premier a few days before Christmas, then in the expectation that it

could be whipped through the Legislature.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Before Christmas, the Committee after

Christmas, in the expectation that it could be passed quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: No room for public input, that did not

happen on a lot of important pieces of legislation here, I can tell you, a lot

they did not put to Committee.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there has been public debate on

it, there has been varying opinion one way or the other. It appears that the

majority of the Committee, at least, I do not know about the members of the

House in general, are supporting the legislation and it appears that they are

willing to see a lesser standard for food banks and for people who use food

banks, than they are for people who can afford to buy food at a restaurant or

take-out or at a hotel, and allow the poor people in this Province to be

regarded as having lesser rights than others when it comes to food.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to criticize the Member for

Bonavista South, but he used an example. He said: If I invite you to my house

and give you a meal, I do not expect to be sued if you get food poisoning. Well,

that maybe the case, but I tell you something: if somebody wanted to sue me for

food poisoning, if I invited them to my house, they could. If my negligence

caused the food poisoning and I was responsible for someone being poisoned, who

I invited to my house, that person could sue me, whether I expected it or not,

whether that person was my friend or not, I could be sued.

That analogy is not what we are talking about here. That is

not the analogy. That is the sentiment, but we are not talking about that. We

are talking about a concerted program that is a very important part of the food

supply of individuals who have to rely on food banks. We are not talking about a

casual meal here. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is a form of

survival. This is survival for people who are not receiving enough money from

the Minister of Human Resources and Employment to feed themselves. That is what

we are talking about here. We are not talking about some charity luncheon. We

are not talking about a turkey dinner at Christmas time. We are talking about

people whose basic food supply is dependent upon food banks, because the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the government does not give

people enough money to be able to feed themselves without going to a food bank.

That is the problem. That is the issue we are talking about here. We are not

talking about, `Brother can you spare a dime?' We are talking about people who

rely, on a constant, ongoing basic, more and more each month, more and more each

year as the poverty level rises and conditions worsen. We are even talking about

government employees.

I had a call last year from a family where the husband worked

full time at the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, and they lived in subsidized

housing. They had three children, and in order to feed their family they had to

go to a food bank. So we are not talking here about a casual meal offered to

somebody as a `Come over to my house and sit down and have a pork chop', or have

a grub job, as they call it. We are talking about the basic food supply for so

many people in our Province; 45,000 is the figure used by the Member for

Bonavista South. That is approaching 10 per cent of our population who rely on

food banks, and we are talking about institutionalizing food banks as a regular

feature of the food supply in this Province when we know full well that people

on social assistance are not given adequate money to feed their families.

Forty-five thousand is nearly half the number of people on social assistance.

Nearly half the number of people on social assistance are going to food banks,

and some who are working are going to food banks.

We have institutionalized poverty in the Province. It is

prolonged; it is not changing. It is getting worse, and we are now providing the

legal underpinnings for this ongoing situation to supposedly make it easier to

continue to have food supplied to people by donation as opposed to as a right. I

think we should be passing a Bill of Rights for poor people, a social Bill of

Rights, a social charter for poor people, not a legal charter for corporations,

not a legal exemption for corporations. We should be passing a social charter

for people, for poor people with the right to enough money, the right to an

adequate income, so that they can buy food. That is what we should be passing

here in this House, not a Bill of Rights for corporations, letting them off the

hook if they are negligent.

I know, Mr. Speaker, you are listening and you care, but I

don't know if the other members are listening to that. I don't know whether a

Charter of Social Rights for poor people is more important than a bill that

provides an exemption for a corporation for negligence. We are approaching this

the wrong way. We are approaching it from the wrong end of the stick, as they

say in some places, the dirty end of the stick perhaps, and I know who is

getting the dirty end of the stick with this bill. It is people who are forced

to go to food banks.

MR. SULLIVAN: The people who are getting no food are

getting the dirty end, too.

MR. HARRIS: The people who are getting no food... Mr.

Speaker, I don't see the Leader of the Opposition on his feet every day

demanding that the Department of Social Services increase the welfare rates. I

don't see anybody in this House getting up and saying: Where is the Charter of

Rights for poor people? Where is the guarantee of this government that people

have adequate income so they can feed themselves; complaining about the fact

that there are 45,000 people going to the food banks. That should rest on this

government's head. They are the ones who, since 1989, have not raised the basic

social assistance rates. Since 1989 they have not raised the basic social

assistance rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can try and

personalize this all they want. Whenever I hear them say that, I know that they

are not on very good ground. They are very worried because their conscien