December

9, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 47

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings for the day, I would

like to welcome to the gallery today twenty Democracy and Canadian Law students

from E. J. Pratt High School in the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde, and they

are accompanied by their principal, Mr. Richard Knapman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during this past summer and fall, my department

has been involved with a project to study all aspects of cod farming, from

harvesting and growing to processing and marketing. This project, funded under

the Aquaculture Component of the Economic Renewal Agreement, was a joint effort

of the FFAW, harvesters, and the federal and provincial governments.

The objective of this program was to evaluate the commercial

viability of small scale, cost-effective farming enterprises operated by

harvesters. I am pleased to announce that we are well on our way to achieving

our objective.

As hon. members are aware, cod farming is based on the

commercial harvest of cod. Cod harvested from traps are transferred into

aquaculture cages and fed the traditional diet of caplin, herring, or mackerel.

After a three or four month period of regular feeding, farmed cod double their

weight. Since the cod moratorium was announced in 1992, cod have not been

available for farming. With the opening of a limited cod fishery in fishing

areas 3Ps and 4R this year, cod were once again available, although in small

quantities.

In this particular project, eight licensed aquaculture sites

were selected to establish small scale cod farms. Of these, four were located in

Trinity Bay, two in Placentia Bay, and one each in Norris Point and Noddy Bay on

the West Coast. Approximately 67,000 pounds of trap cod were obtained from the

commercial trap fishery and distributed among the eight farms. These cod were

very small and would not fetch a good price on the market had they been sold at

the time when they were taken from the traps. I should also point out that the

farms in Trinity Bay received cod transported by tanker trucks from Placentia

Bay, successfully proving that this can be done with very little cod mortality.

Mr. Speaker, there are also other very successful results

from the grow-out phase of this project. Not only did the cod more than double

their weight from July to mid-November, but the cod were of extremely good

quality. Furthermore, feed costs were reduced by using locally caught species in

fresh form and in frozen form when out of season. An added bonus is that some of

this feed was male caplin which in the past would have been discarded.

Mr. Speaker, to be successful, cod farming must also be

marketed at the highest possible price when the demand is highest, so that the

harvester can be assured of a profit. The cod farmer must be better off

financially than if the fish were sold during the traditional trap season when

markets are depressed and prices are lower.

To determine if this will be the case, test marketing is

being conducted. Eighty percent of the farm cod have been shipped to United

States companies with the remainder being marketed locally. Reactions from both

local processors and the U.S. companies have been extremely favourable and

prices discussed are encouraging.

Mr. Speaker, while the final results of this marketing effort

are not yet available, all indications are that the price for this farmed cod

will be 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher than what harvesters would have

received had they sold the cod in June or July straight from the cod trap. By

harvesting trap cod in early summer, growing it for three or four months,

feeding it locally caught species, and selling it at a time when the quality

product fetches higher prices, a harvester can potentially receive three to four

times the price of cod sold from the trap.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that with the success obtained by

the eight harvesters involved in this project and the anticipated re-opening of

the cod fisheries in 3Ps and 4R, there will be dramatic increases in cod grow

out in 1998 and beyond. My Aquaculture staff will provide all necessary

information and technical assistance to harvesters to become involved in an

activity that will lead to increased prosperity for fishermen and their

families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his news

release.

This is certainly not anything new. Cod farming has been

around this Province for many, many years I say to the minister, but it is

certainly an opportunity for a lot of people in our rural areas to be able to

access a business and to live in their own communities.

Down in my district, I know that many people were trained

during the TAGS program to - they were taking

part in cod farming training

programs, and we have many people right here in this Province today trained,

ready to go to work. It is certainly an opportunity where fishermen can take the

small juvenile cod, and over a four-or five-month period, by using such things

as male caplin, herring, mackerel, have them increase their weight by double,

triple, to a size which is certainly marketable and would demand a much higher

price.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is down on the Southern Shore, you

named the places where those farms are presently being operated, but there are

many, many places around Newfoundland with sheltered inlets, sheltered bays,

where we can go and take

part in cod farming.

The only thing I say to the minister is, there has to be some

financial help given to those people to tide them over from the time they

purchase the juvenile cod until they can put it in the market. There has to be

some financial help provided to those people. It certainly is an opportunity and

something I think many of our local people could take advantage of.

Thank you.

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

Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to

members of the House that our department has doubled its enforcements presence

by upgrading the training officers in the field. Our 150 conservation officers,

located throughout the Province, are now trained to enforce all forestry,

wildlife and inland fisheries legislation. Mr. Speaker, these men and women are

dedicated to protect those resources from poachers and abusers.

Mr. Speaker, conservation and the protection of the forest

and wildlife resources of this Province is a priority for our government. We

have taken on the challenge of developing an ecosystem approach to managing

these resources and these management objectives are meaningless unless they are

implemented in the field.

Therefore, we are making this strong commitment to compliance

and enforcement to ensure that everyone obeys the laws of the land. Mr. Speaker,

poaching will not be tolerated and those who choose to disregard the legislation

that has been enacted to protect and conserve our ecosystem will be investigated

and held to task for their actions. Our officers, who were traditionally

responsible for duties only within their specific disciplines of wildlife and

forestry, have recently completed the necessary training to perform integrated

resource management enforcement.

This fall of 1997, 150 officers have completed the three

essential phases of training to be able to operate confidently and effectively

in the field. First, they have an overview of the integrated approach to

enforcement adopted by this government. Second, they have completed

comprehensive training in the legislation and Acts and enforcement procedures

appropriate for both the forestry and wildlife areas. Third, they have completed

the officer safety training that enables them to handle confrontation situations

with violators in a safe and effective manner.

To provide an overview of the scope of these

responsibilities, these conservation officers are now able to enforce both

wildlife- and forestry-related statutes and regulations, including wildlife

regulations, wilderness and ecological reserve regulations, all-terrain use

regulations, federal migratory bird convention Act, the recreational trout and

salmon regulations, as well as the enforcement concerns contained in the

forestry Act.

While the regional offices are located in Gander, Pasadena

and Goose Bay, the district and local officers are scattered geographically

across the Province. This allows their presence and authority to be felt

immediately in the field. Their presence at a district level also provides an

enhanced level of service to the public as routine matters such as inspection of

issuing licences can be done more conveniently at these local offices.

We would also like to announce today the official uniform for

the new conservation officers. The new crest that is worn by each and every one

of the 150 officers is a symbol of our pride in the new duties and

responsibilities that our conservation officers are now performing throughout

the Province. This crest depicts the forest, inland waters, and wildlife

resources of this Province, encircled by the authority divested to the

conservation officer to protect them from illegal abuse and poaching.

I would like to encourage the members of this House to

congratulate the conservation officers for their continued dedication to the

spirit of conservation and protection of our forest and wildlife resources. I

believe that the role of these professionals is critical to ensure the

protection of this Province's abundant natural resources for future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would have appreciated a copy of the statement. The

minister was halfway through before I realized what he was talking about. I will

make a response to it anyway.

We are all for enforcement in the Province. All too often in

this Province, our environment, protection of our wildlife, fisheries and so on

- it is good to have regulations in place, but the regulations are no good

unless they are enforced. Of course, nobody in this House or in this Province

would like to see an increase in poaching and so on around the Province.

What we would like, I say to the minister, is that in the

next few days, we take this statement and look it over and see the specifics of

it to make sure we are covering all the bases, that jobs are protected in this

particular enforcement agency, Mr. Speaker, and that we do protect our

environment and our wildlife.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister

of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will check and see whether

that statement was sent over. Last week one of the members made a reference to

that, we checked, and it was sent over two hours earlier, plus e-mailed. I will

check again, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I had

conversation last week with the hon. the minister relative to that point and

having checked our e-mail, and our office has checked our fax machines, we are

still waiting for the information to be sent two weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to follow up on a December 4 question from the Leader

of the Opposition on Government's future provision of passenger and freight

services to coastal Labrador.

As hon. members are aware, responsibility for this operation

was transferred to the Province through a comprehensive federal-provincial

agreement last spring. Given the timing of the transaction, Marine Atlantic

continued to operate the service under contract to the Province for the past

season.

On December 15, title to Marine Atlantic's coastal assets

will be transferred to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This

significant array of infrastructure includes the car ferry Sir Robert Bond ,

the coastal passenger freighter Northern Ranger , and all freight handling

components and office equipment at the company's facilities in Lewisporte and

Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, we are at a pivotal point in our Province's

transportation history. In addition to the infrastructure noted above, the

comprehensive $340 million transfer agreement signed with the Government of

Canada last spring puts us in good stead to provide a quality marine service to

coastal Labrador residents, while also achieving a greatly enhanced Labrador

road network.

Already we are seeing the positive results of our Labrador

initiatives and this $340 million fund, as evidenced by my announcement last

week, of a further $28 million in tenders for Labrador road construction and

upgrading.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many times are you going to talk

about that?

MR. MATTHEWS: We will keep telling you until you get it

in your head.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: As mentioned at that time, this will bring

our 1998-1999 Labrador road expenditure to $36 million.

However, government's road initiatives in Labrador will not

be carried out at the expenses of coastal Labrador residents and their marine

requirements.

This past summer, the consultants SGE Group carried out

extensive consultations with coastal Labrador stakeholders on our behalf,

seeking their input into our service plans for 1998 and beyond.

Government will continue to provide a quality level of

service to coastal residents as our road projects evolve, and Labrador's road

network grows. There will be no trade-off of Labrador transportation services,

but a balanced endeavour achieving road progress while ensuring coastal freight

and passenger needs are met.

An in-depth business plan for the 1998 season has been

developed by my department, and will be presented very shortly to my Cabinet

colleagues for their consideration.

A great deal of effort and prudent assessment has gone into

our 1998 business plan, and it is our intention that it will be finalized before

the end of this calendar year. At that time, details will be provided to all

hon. members, the public, and in particular the key stakeholders in the new

provincial coastal Labrador service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, it is almost laughable, an announcement that on

December 15 Marine Atlantic's assets are transferred to the Province, an

agreement signed on April 3 of this year. A $340 million transfer agreement was

part of the agreement, road work that he announced in a Ministerial Statement

last week. The questions I asked in the House on December 4, I say to the

minister - and the Premier said he would answer every single one of the

questions by the Leader of the Opposition.

I asked questions on: What are the options for people out

there today - the individual I spoke with last week - who, on Monday of this

week, December 15, no longer employed by Marine Atlantic, has to leave for North

Sydney from Lewisporte, with a family, and move, when this government knew for

over eight months and they wait until December when the agreement is up to tell

people what their future is going to be. I say it is irresponsible. Over eight

months ago, I say, these people knew.

I ask the minister, and I asked the Premier that day: Could

he tell the House if he is going to have Marine Atlantic continue? We know they

are there until December 15. That is in the record. That has been established:

If the government is going to operate it themselves? If they are going to look

at going out to private contractors and proposals?

None of the questions I asked on December 4... A waste of

time to stand up with a Ministerial Statement today in response to questions by

the Leader of the Opposition. If he going to respond to it, I would be delighted

to give him time to respond to the questions, but he has not answered any of the

questions. In fact, he has regurgitated announcements he made in the House last

week and that have been made since April.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to welcome to the

gallery today, two individuals from the James Hornell Boys and Girls Club in

Buchans and they are: Mr. Gary Noftall, Executive Director and Mr. Noel Rowsell,

Chairman of the Board of Directors.

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 Works, Services

and Transportation.

I did have important questions for the Premier I must say but

I will ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation some questions

today.

On November 19, 1996, on the eve of the announcement of the

smelter refinery going to Argentia, this government, in Ministerial Statements

in the House - we were almost bowled over with them like we are getting today -

there was an announcement that gave a commitment that the Trans-Labrador Highway

would be paved in ten years, and since that, an agreement was reached with the

federal government on April 3, of this year and that agreement, the Province

accepted responsibility for the Labrador ferry service, a $340-million chunk of

money we received and two boats valued at $25 million.

Now I ask the minister: will he confirm, if that commitment

that was made then, to have a Trans-Labrador Highway completed and paved by the

year 2006, will occur? Does that commitment still stand?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commitment that government has made for the next

five-year period with respect to the Trans-Labrador Highway, is to do what we

have outlined a number of times, and despite the hon. member's assertion that we

are repeating it too often, he still does not get it - he still does not get it.

His hearing has failed or his retention span has been constricted or something

is happening to him.

What we announced, Mr. Speaker, in April, is that we had a

$340-million cash arrangement with Ottawa plus the acquisition of two boats in

return for taking over Marine services as of April 1, of last year on the Coast,

and to build two specific pieces of highway in Labrador. One was to reconstruct

the piece of highway from Lab West to Goose and bring it up to a Class A

gravel-road standard and the second commitment was to do phase two which was to

build a road from Red Bay to Cartwright.

The total cost of those two projects, Mr. Speaker, were

estimated at that time to be $190 million. We are living and working within the

parameters of that announcement and we fully expect that next year, we will be

ahead of

schedule in terms of the redevelopment of the piece of road from Goose

to Lab West, because we have done more this year, frankly than we thought we

were going to get done and secondly we hope to be doing some work

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - on phase two by late next fall.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister is not in the portfolio very long; he is

only there very recently and I would ask him to refer back

AN HON. MEMBER: Too long.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, that is debatable, whether it is too

long. I will ask him to refer to the November 19, Ministerial Statement, in

1996, that there were three phases announced and the Member for Labrador stood

in his place and the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Go

back and read the records and you will find out what was said in the statement,

I have checked it.

We have heard the minister responsible for Labrador, the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has repeatedly talked about phase

one from Lab West down to Happy Valley - Goose Bay; we have heard them talk

about phase two from Cartwright to Red Bay continuously, and we have heard the

Premier say publicly that, those two phases will cost $190 million, $60 million

and $130 million respectively and the rest will be needed the Premier stated on

April 3, to maintain and operate that ferry service. I ask the minister, in

light of today, will he now confirm if those figures that the Premier stated on

April 3, are still accurate figures or, has there been any revision?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, the announcement made in April and the figures that we

laid out as being the approximate cost of doing road construction and running

the service in perpetuity are still the figures within which we are working.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly agree and certainly felt you were accurate and

that only reinforces what I now want to ask the minister.

Over the past several months the government has omitted, when

it stood in this House for the last few months, and it has continuously omitted

for the last several months to make any reference to phase three, which is from

Goose Bay down to Cartwright. In all previous announcements prior to getting an

agreement with the federal government it announced three phases, the completed

Trans-Labrador Highway. Will the minister tell us now what his department

estimates the cost will be to connect Happy Valley-Goose Bay with Cartwright?

I'm sure they have some preliminary estimates and figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is

correct to this extent. We haven't yet identified the funding to build phase

three. However, we have made a commitment as government, and we did in April, to

find the money, to make a deal, make an arrangement with Ottawa and ourselves in

some fashion so that we can move to phase three as quickly as we can. So that

within the ten-year time frame we will have the full three phases of the road

completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Phase two will be a five-year project and

we will be starting it next year. I can tell the hon. member that I did meet

with the Minister of Transport on Regatta Day, as a matter of fact, August 6. I

remember it well because I wanted to be at the races, being a good St. John's

man. I had to go to work. It was straight time, I would tell him, as well.

In any event, I did meet with Minister Collenette on August 6

and we talked about the phase three funding. We did at that time agree to put in

place a mechanism to start discussions with respect to how we could achieve the

funding for that portion of the road. We haven't concluded those discussions yet

but they are ongoing.

The commitment of this government still stands. Within a

ten-year period we hope to have the full three phases finished, within a

five-year period two phase finished, and by the end of next year, 1998, phase

one from Goose Bay to Labrador West will be fully completed, and there will be a

class A gravel road 9.5 metres wide running clear from Goose Bay to Labrador

West to the benefit of all Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm delighted to

see progress. In fact, I would like to see a complete Trans-Labrador Highway.

There is no talking of paving lately which, granted, a gravel road is certainly

a priority prior to that. I agree. Estimates on that would be in the billion

dollar range.

We received $340 million. We have already stated $190 million

is need to maintain phase one and phase two, to complete them, the rest for the

ferry service. Where is the money, I ask the minister, that is estimated well in

excess of $100 million, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to complete

Goose Bay to Cartwright? How does the government propose to finance that

particular project?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It isn't the first

occasion that the hon. member has been actually the equivalent of a day late and

a dollar short, I can tell you, in terms of putting questions after the answers

have been given. We feel that we are doing very well to answer the questions

after they have been put, but we now have a record of answering the questions

before they are being put.

I can only say to the hon. minister - the hon. member again,

who wishes he will be a minister some day, that the funding is to be determined

at the conclusion of negotiations between us and the federal government. We have

not concluded those negotiations. A process is in place to have those

discussions happen over the next short while. When we get the money, when we are

ready to announce it, we will be the first to make the announcement available so

that the people of this Province, and particularly the people of Labrador, can

have the benefit of not only the information and the expectation, but the

reality of a road that we will build.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this

government has done is given away its leverage. Taking a chunk of money up front

that is only going to complete part of the job. Now you have lost your

bargaining power because the federal government has been relieved of the

responsibility on the Labrador ferry service. You have no bargaining chips any

more. I asked those questions over a year ago, I say to the minister, and I'm on

record here as putting that caution out to the Premier.

Without a highway connecting Happy Valley-Goose Bay to

Cartwright, we are going to see over 70 per cent of the people in Labrador will

be denied access to Southern Labrador and to the Island portion of this

Province. I ask the minister: Is he concerned that Newfoundland and Labrador

businesses now will be disadvantaged because of easier access to businesses and

services in Quebec at the expense of Newfoundland and Labrador businesses?

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, we are not

concerned that Newfoundland businesses would be disadvantaged, on the contrary.

If people who live in areas such as Goose Bay, Labrador become the entrepreneurs

who are bringing product from the mainland, as opposed to businesses on the

island bringing it in over water from Montreal or over road, that is not a

disadvantage in the big picture. It simply means that some of the business

activity here was originating on the island in products going to Labrador, more

of that business will logically now be generated out of Goose Bay as products

come in from Labrador West over the highway. So we don't see that as being a

disadvantage. We see that as being a net advantage, particularly to the people

in the Goose Bay and the Labrador area because they themselves will not only be

the importers but they will be the distributors of product that is needed along

the coast of Labrador.

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

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

My questions are to the Minister of Environment and Labour.

The Workers' Safety Training Report recommends the Canadian Red Cross be

recognized as the provider of first aid training in Newfoundland and Labrador

under the provincial Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Department of

Health legislation recognizes the Canadian Red Cross first aid training program.

The Red Cross standard First Aid Program meets the prerequisites for ambulance

training. I ask the minister, why is the Canadian Red Cross First Aid Program

not recognized under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to deliver first aid

training to employees and employers in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the member for the question. This is not a

new question, Mr. Speaker. In fact, this particular problem was assessed in 1985

under the previous administration. It was assessed in 1989, it was assessed in

1992 and it was also assessed in 1995. I guess for the previous administrations

and probably for this one as well, we have not made the final decision yet. The

St. John Ambulance Brigade has had a monopoly in the Province to do the first

aid training over all of these years and, Mr. Speaker, they have done a first

rate job for the people of the Province. However, I will say to the member that

in a personal commitment that I made to Mr. Blackwood - I think it was a couple

of weeks ago - that we would be dealing with this particular issue before the

Christmas Season. So we will have a decision for the Red Cross shortly.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister that last year his former colleague

also gave a commitment to have this reviewed and it has also been made last

spring. So he forgot the review in '96 and in '97. I say to the minister as well

that the Canadian Red Cross is recognized to provide this training in every

other Province. Just recently, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island were added.

So we are now the only Province in Canada where the Canadian Red Cross is not

recognized to provide this training. Why, Mr. Minister, are we still being the

exception and why hasn't action been taken in your mandate as the minister?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member again that that could very

well be the case before Christmas but I am not making that commitment here

today. I will say to him that I made a commitment to Mr. Blackwood and I stand

by that commitment that we will have a decision, one way or the other, to allow

the Red Cross to participate in the first aid delivery in the Province or to

maintain the excellent program that is being done by the St. John Ambulance but

I want to live up to the commitment that I gave to Mr. Blackwood that indeed I

will have an answer for him before the Christmas break.

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

supplementary.

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

What the Canadian Red Cross is asking for is a level playing

field. They want equal access to provide the training equal to the opportunities

available to the other group. Mr. Minister, I say to you that many people in

this Province believe that the reason why your government is hesitant to give

the authorization is because of the fact that the provincial president of the

Liberal Party is the executive director of the St. John Ambulance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. H. HODDER: I want to say to minister, I want him to

assure us that this is not party politics, petty politics that is influencing

this decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the member, at the beginning when I answered

the first question, I want to tell him that it was brought to the former

administration of which his particular party was there, for seventeen years they

allowed it to happen, they did not see any need to change it then because I am

telling you, it was a first rate program and I am telling you that John O'Brien

was President of the party then, so I must say that you like John O'Brien just

as much as what we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

I again ask the minister to confirm that party politics and

petty politics is not going to be influencing this decision this time around.

So, I ask the minister, will he confirm that the Red Cross

will be given an equal opportunity as that provided to the St. John Ambulance?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take exception to that because I am telling you, since I

have been minister, John O'Brien who is President of the St. John Ambulance has

not visited me in the office, but I can tell you this, that I had representation

from Paula Buckle, Sergeant of the RNC, twice in fact, she was there last week,

so I have had an open-door policy, I am not playing politics with it. I am

telling you we have a good First Aid Program in the Province right now, but I

will say to you that we will have a commitment to the Red Cross before Christmas

as to the final decision.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions today are either for the

Minister of Human Resources and Employment or the Minister of Justice.

On April 1, 1996, at 9:00 a.m., by her own account, Dr.

Inkpen delivered to the government her final report on secure custody for the

youth at the Whitbourne and Pleasentville Correctional Centres. That report had

been commissioned as a result - or in the wake of serious allocations on a

tragic suicide and on October 29, 1997, nineteen months later, the minister

finally released the report to the public.

Why does the government keep withholding reports form the

public and what has the government done to implement one of the key

recommendations of the report and that is to establish an Independent Advisory

Council, one whose only allegiance would be to the young offender to assist with

creating, implementing and monitoring all policies and procedures at the Youth

Corrections facility?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that the

hon. member must have been out of the Province a few weeks ago or months ago,

whenever it was, because we had a press conference out here in the little room,

when that document was made public to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian,

every Canadian, made public to all the world, Mr. Speaker, so I do not know

where the hon. member was. I will attempt to get a copy over to her, because it

is a public document. I believe it might have been tabled in this House, I

think. If it was not, the whole world has it. She must be the only one left in

Newfoundland and Labrador who does not have it, so we will have to try to make

it available to her.

MR. TULK: Now, Chris, be nice to her; she just got

elected.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I know she is a new member, and

all of that, and probably does not know her way around, so I certainly will not

be too difficult with her (inaudible).

The other part of her question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: There were two parts to the question. The

second part was the Advisory Council which Dr. Inkpen recommended. We have been

giving that recommendation a lot of consideration. It has a lot of merit. We

have discussed it with Dr. Inkpen, as to how we will implement her

recommendation.

At one time we did consider using the new community health

boards that we are going to put in place, but on reflection we feel that we

would not want to put that responsibility on these boards too early in their

mandate. We have not even put them in place yet, so we have discounted that; but

it is a serious recommendation. We take it in the spirit in which it was made.

We are considering it, and in due course we will - we are not certain we are

going to go as far as Dr. Inkpen suggested. She recommended a committee, but the

authority which she would have given that committee would have been more the

authority of a board, and there are some decisions for which I believe the

Department of Justice has responsibility. I am not even sure that we can

delegate certain powers that she would give that board, but the whole concept -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is only half-an-hour in Question

Period, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member put

this forward as a serious question, and I think the least that their colleagues

can do is allow me to provide a serious answer to the hon. lady. I think it is

unfair for her own colleagues to do this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that the

concept of the Advisory Committee is by no means a dead one. It is one which we

are seriously looking into, and hopefully in the not-too-distant future we will

be able to deal with that particular recommendation.

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

supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: I find that a lot of recommendations are

either `we are developing', or `this will require'.

This, to me, is a very important recommendation. This agency

would be a watchdog agency, and it would force accountability. I am wondering

why, after twenty months, you have only gotten this far with this

recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that

if she puts forward a question and it is fully answered in the first reply, she

does not have to come with a supplementary. Obviously the hon. member - I dealt

with that in the first question, Mr. Speaker. She should know from now on that

you don't have to have a supplementary. That is only if the question was not

fully answered.

The hon. member, in her first

preamble -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

member -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As soon as the House

quiets down a bit I will continue.

The hon. member seems to be of the opinion that this report

was commissioned because of the tragic suicide. She is wrong on that count. That

report was commissioned before that tragic suicide took place. It was not

commissioned because of any tragic suicide. There were other concerns which

government had, and the report was commissioned long before that.

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

supplementary.

MS S. OSBORNE: It was commissioned because the heat was

on.

The report also said that Pleasantville is a disgrace. Can

you confirm that in the past twenty months this centre has not been replaced?

And can you tell us whether in the past twenty months, despite the report's

unequivocal condemnation of the centre and its demand for a replacement, that

government still continues to hold the young people there?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right

when she says that Dr. Inkpen referred to the Remand Centre as a disgrace. That

was exactly the terminology she used.

We agreed that there are problems at the Remand Centre. It is

a building that was not built specifically for a remand centre. We are trying

our best to operate under the conditions that we are. I have been instructed by

government to bring this issue forward as a priority project during the

budgetary process. We do not have any money in the present Budget to build a new

remand centre, but it is certainly an area that we are very concerned over.

However, I have to assure the parents of the children who end

up in the Remand Centre that there is no need to be unduly concerned about the

safety of the children. The building is secure. It certainly does need to be

upgraded or replaced, and it is a priority item for government. As soon as we

can find the financial wherewithal to do it, we certainly will be attending to

that issue, Mr. Speaker.

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

for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: It has been more than twenty months and

counting. Have the charts yet been computerized that will share information

about the young people at these centres, so that staff will be aware of any

circumstances that may place the young people at risk - for example, at risk of

suicide? If they have not been computerized, when will Dr. Inkpen's

recommendation be heeded and when will they be computerized?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that institution in Whitbourne

is probably one of the best institutions in all of Canada. It is an institution

which I believe has been getting some negative criticism both from the media and

the Opposition that is unwarranted, unfounded, with no basis whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the program that is being

utilized -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are making a farce

out of Question Period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: If they are going to ask questions and not

allow the answer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne,

Section 408 is

quite clear. The minister's answer should deal with the question that is asked,

and it should be as brief as possible. He was asked a simple question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Is it computerized, is it not

computerized? Give us the answer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - and then we will be able to proceed with

the rest of Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is not a point of order.

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

MR. DECKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to get to his answer quickly,

please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will raise a point of order

with your permission, Sir. Hon. members opposite take all the time they require

is necessary to ask a question. When they do it they put forward

preambles, they

make comments in their

preambles, which must be addressed in the interest of

letting the people of this Province know that some of their spurious accusations

have no basis. They cannot make accusations in the

preambles and have them

carried in the media if they have no basis. Therefore, if they are going to

continue with these innuendoes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: - I am going to answer them, Mr. Speaker.

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: As usual, no point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services and

Lands, Mr. Speaker, regarding the on-site septic waste disposal water supply

inspection process. Under the new proposed system, the applicant will hire a

consultant to assess the site, recommend site work, design a system, possibly

install a system, and when the new inspection process is complete, eventually

inspect and approve the system. Will the minister not agree that this is a

potential conflict whereby the consultant is being paid by the applicant?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer is no.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

I would like to thank the minister for that lengthy answer.

Can the minister explain why there was more detailed

technical information required under the new system than is required under the

old system, and will this requisite not require more money to be spent by the

applicant?

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation with the septic tanks, I think there are very

few types of design of septic tanks - I do not know why they would be a lot more

expensive now than they were then. Septic tanks are septic tanks and I would say

to the hon. member that I see no difference in the price now from what it was

before.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

I would suggest to the minister, that before he implements a

system, he at least know and understand what the department is implementing

before he puts his name to it.

I say to the minister, the North East Avalon Towns Joint

Council, which involves thirteen municipalities and the two cities, have written

the Premier of the Province, and I have a copy of a letter dated December 4,

1997, urging the minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question, he is on a

supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if that crowd over there would

only keep it down and not panic every time I get on my feet - trying to protect

the Minister of Government Services and Lands -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary - he ought to get to

his question.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: - trying to protect the Minister of

Government Services and Lands - I could get to my question a lot earlier.

I say, the North East Avalon Towns Joint Council has recently

written the Premier requesting that the government withdraw -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the hon.

gentleman to be brought to order by the Speaker and asked to put his question,

it is another thing for him then to stand and disobey the ruling of the Speaker.

I ask the Speaker to bring him to order, or name him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not need direction from members. The Chair

will -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The Chair will determine when a member has had sufficient

time to ask a question and likewise with the answer.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to thank the Government House

Leader, the biggest abuser in the House, for his lecture.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Will the minister back-off on this new

implementation of the on-site inspection of the water and sewer process as being

requested by the North East Avalon Towns Joint Council, which represents

thirteen municipalities and the two cities on the North East Avalon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In reference to the letter that the hon. member refers to, I

was just informed that the letter was written to the hon. Art Reid. I have not

seen a copy of the letter. I am assuming it is on it's way to my office, and

once I get the letter, we will certainly respond to it, but basically, the

answer is no.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

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

Corner Brook Act,

An Act To Amend The Mount Pearl Act, And The Municipalities

Act". (Bill No. 51)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

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

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

Relations Act No. 2". (Bill No. 52)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools

In The Province". (Bill No. 41)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

MS S. OSBORNE: To the hon. House of Assembly in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned student-parents of

Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the Department of Human Resources and Employment

fostered an atmosphere of confusion by failing to provide clients in

post-secondary institutions with timely information regarding the changes to

policy concerning the issue of the shelter component of the student loan; and

WHEREAS clients, based on inaccurate information, went on to

spend this money on essential items such as food and day care costs, thereby

rendering them unable to repay the shelter component; and

WHEREAS, in response to this confusion, the Department of

Human Resources and Employment went on to claw back this money at such a rate as

to leave people unable to pay for food, rent, heat, light, and other items

essential to life;

The prayer of our petition is that the Department of Human

Resources and Employment change its policy regarding this area and allow the

student-parents involved to be able to pay back this money over a more

reasonable period of time. This policy has stolen the spirit of Christmas for

many student-parents and their innocent children across our Province, and as in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I have some e-mails here from students at MUN supporting this

petition, and also included in this petition are parents who find themselves in

a dire situation, especially given this season of the year. Not only do they

have no money for Christmas, or to purchase boots, snowsuits, or mittens for

their children, but they have no money for food. Let me cite some examples.

There is a single mother with three-year-old twins. Her

social assistance has been reduced to $264 twice monthly, for a total of $528 a

month. Her rent is $495 a month, leaving her a total of $33 for the month to pay

her utilities and buy groceries. As an added burden, her children are lactose

intolerant.

There is another single parent with two children, and, in

this case, the department will not even allow the client any money for rent, let

alone other essential items such as food. This individual has been given half a

month's rent for December, and $150 every three weeks for a babysitter. Food is

not even a consideration.

I have another single mother for whom the department has made

some concessions. Instead of $246 twice monthly, she receives $137, for a total

of $274 a month, to pay her utilities and for food and transportation for

herself and a sixteen-year-old daughter.

If the Department of Human Resources officials were to visit

a home and find that there was no food in the cupboards, they would remove the

children from the home. Yet, this same department has forced people into this

position by refusing to make logical concessions in their claw back of the

shelter component of the student loans. There are not an awful lot of parents

involved, certainly not enough to put any hardship on the Department of Human

Resources and Employment. However, the few families who are involved are

suffering incredible hardship because of this policy. It is unconscionable that

they are allowed to suffer any longer because of a communication problem within

the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise today to support the petition put forward by my

colleague from St. John's West. It follows from a Private Member's resolution

put forward by myself last spring in this House and which was rejected by the

members of the government. They did not like this idea of treating

student-parents fairly and reasonably.

Mr. Speaker, what we have in this Province today is, we have

many student-parents whom we should be supporting and encouraging and saying to

them: We want you to get out of the track you are in, we want you get off the

welfare roll, we want you to encourage your children to establish and the

parents, to establish a learning environment in these homes but rather, Mr.

Speaker, what we have today, we have young mothers out there - and there are

single mothers, most of them are responsible for one or two, and sometimes

three.

I know of one case, four children under twelve years of age

and this mother has gone back to school and all she is saying is: Be fair to me,

be reasonable; I want my family to have an equal opportunity; I want them to be

able to go to school and be able to be treated like all the other children, but

instead, what we have here as we say, the government is more interested in

clawing back money from single parents than they are in promoting education and

we ask the minister: Look at it, because we are not talking about great big

numbers here. What we are talking about is a fundamental change in philosophy.

We are talking about looking at the whole picture and we should be out there

praising those single mothers. We should be saying to them: let us remove all

the barriers we can, let us help you get out of this cycle of poverty that you

are in, let us help you create in your family the kind of learning environment

that will inspire your children to be able to keep in school, be able to do well

in school, instead, what we have, many children are going to school who are

absolutely unable to buy a lunch. In fact, when they get home, the cupboards are

bare.

Just a few days ago, I was talking to my colleague here who

visited three homes and in each one of those three homes, with a single,

student-parent there, the group was talking about all three of them had nothing

to be able to put on the kitchen table that evening.

Mr. Speaker, I say: Good enough. How can we say we are a

caring, compassionate society when we have families out there who cannot put

food on their table, they are trying to go back to school but the government is

more interested in clawing back a few measly dollars from the poorest people in

society, from the people who have ability, they have the wherewithal, the brain

power to be able to get ahead in this world, all they want is an equal

opportunity and the minister should be breaking down the barriers instead of

putting stumbling blocks in the pathways of these parents.

I say to the minister: Review the policy; I know the minister

to be sensitive to this issue and I know that she is listening to what is being

said here, but when the Member for St. John's West tells me she visited three

homes and in all three homes there was nothing to eat, that causes me great

concern and we ask: What is the value of clawing back the money if we are going

to make the children pay for that claw back?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to the members opposite on this issue

in two miens actually.

In the first case, I would strongly encourage members when

they are aware of individual situations and circumstances of clients whom they

feel are in extreme hardship and where there are extenuating circumstances, that

they make those cases known to the department. I have made a commitment as the

minister, and the department has been acting on this commitment, that where

there are extenuating circumstances and certainly where there is extreme

hardship, that we will deal with these cases on an individual basis. However, if

we are looking at the policy overall, I would have to say as the minister, that

we are talking of a different issue here because the policy as it exists with

respect to the repayment of the shelter component is such that it does not incur

any ongoing hardship to these students. They do not receive any less assistance

or funding to be able to maintain themselves and their families over the course

of their studies then existed prior to the introduction of this policy.

The policy, as I had explained before, requires that

student-parents draw down the full student loan that is available to them. The

result is, that yes, student-parents will have larger debt than they would have

had under the existing regime. However, that debt is no different from any other

student who must draw down the full student loan available to them in order to

pursue their studies. So this is a key component because when they draw down the

full student loan and when they return the shelter component they are then

entitled to receive full social assistance, as they have been receiving, prior

to. If there are any cases where this is not the case, where there are

extenuating circumstances, I have committed that we will deal with those on an

individual basis. I repeat again, that for the most part, our clients who are

the student-parents attending post-secondary training in this case have

complied. There are some cases that are still outstanding and we are working

through making arrangements with those on an individual basis. I would also

inform the members opposite that in doing that we have made arrangements to

extend the period of payback that is available to them and in fact, we have

extended that period to the end of the fiscal year, to the end of March 31,

which extends the amount that would have to be deducted over the period of time.

So I would simply say to all members of the House that the

department is working actively with this issue. We recognize that the first

priority is to try and support the students who are receiving social assistance

so that they can continue with their studies. We have been doing that for many

years. We are still actively doing that and we will deal with each individual

case that is presented to us to try and ensure that this can continue to happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to revert back

to, `Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given?'

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

I think it is important to point out that yesterday during

Question Period the Leader of the Opposition clearly alluded to a letter that I

had written to Sister Elizabeth Davis outlining a concern and asking that she

respond to a family member awaiting this concern. The Opposition leader clearly

made the point that this situation left the family waiting for an extended

period of time, leaving the impression that it had not been written when in

fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, when leave was granted it was

granted under the category of, `Answers to Questions for which Notice has been

Given.' However, that is not the category because there was no notice given of

that particular question that the minister is now answering. So therefore she is

not in compliance with the leave that was given by this side of the House in

order to answer the question. However, we are delighted that she is answering

the question but she is in the wrong category and has the wrong type of leave.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentleman that it

is a well used tradition in this House that under, `Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given,' that ministers will rise in their place to correct

some information that might have been given the day before -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh yes, oh yes and that's what the minister

happens to be doing here. She asked for leave. Obviously if the hon. gentlemen

want to withdraw it, just say `leave is withdrawn.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the point of

order; I say to the hon. Government House Leader that we have no objections to

the minister using the time. However, we just wanted to point out that this was

not a question where notice had been given. I say to the Government House

Leader, in my nearly five years here I have never seen this particular use, and

so therefore the tradition is somewhat out of use, if this is the way it is

being used today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand from the Opposition House Leader that the hon.

minister does have leave to proceed to give her answer.

On the point of order raised, the Chair will just review what

the hon. member has said and have a look at that and report later.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

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

there are probably about 4.6 million units of service in our health care system

in a year, and that ranges from a doctor's visit to a surgery, I think I have

clearly located the letter that was in fact written to this family reviewing

with them the very unfortunate circumstances that had occurred, and offering

them not only an explanation but an opportunity to come forward and meet with

the emergency staff in this particular case in a very sensitive way.

I think it is important for the House and the public to know

that in fact the Health Care Corporation did respond and did respond in a caring

way to this family. I think it is important that not only should questions

deserve answers, but they also deserve research before people are left with the

impression that this is not happening, and that the Health Care Corporation and

our doctors and nurses aren't doing what they should be doing in our system. I

now table this letter.

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister

made a statement there. Late this morning I received a telephone call from the

family that received the letter in the mail today. They called me today, late

this morning. They got a letter in the mail today that was dated November.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: They called me today. I want to state that.

She made a statement in the House that was not accurate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and they called me this morning -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - on that letter. So I wanted to

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - state that for the record.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1,

An Act To Amend The

Food And Drug Act, Bill 7.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

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

"An Act To Amend The Food And Drug Act," carried. (Bill No. 7)

On motion, Bill No. 7 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could. Order No. 23, Bill 34,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services

Pensions Act, 1991. I believe the Opposition House Leader adjourned the debate.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last evening when

we were debating this particular bill I had indicated that we on this side have

no objections to the principles that this bill espouses, and I guess the laws

that it creates.

The intent of the bill is that most people who work for Crown

agencies or government-owned companies be allowed to purchase their full time

service for pension purposes. We agreed with that. We do have some concerns that

we don't know, for example, how many companies we are talking about. Is this ten

of those government-owned companies that have been privatized? Is this four? Is

this 200 employees? Is this going to be 2,000 employees? How many employees are

we talking about? There is no financial data given with the explanations put

forward by the Minister of Education yesterday.

We, on this side, would like to say, absolutely yes, this is

a good idea. However, we would like to have some idea from the minister as to

what we are committed here - we are approving the intent, we are approving the

philosophy behind it; we think that is a good principle to follow, that people

who did work for government-owned companies be allowed to purchase their

pensionable service or full-time service while these companies were

government-owned and now that they are not government-owned that they be able to

carry those benefits with them. That makes good sense.

However, we would like for the minister to tell us what

government owned-companies we are talking about. How many employees? What is the

commitment? For example, is the government required now to transfer that amount

of money to some other private firm? If so, is that going to come out of the $10

million that was allocated in this year's budget? Where is the money going to

come from? If it is not coming from there, where else would it come from? What

other monies are we talking about other than this particular total sum?

Maybe, when the minister stands in his place, he might be

able to give us some information, because we would like to make the approval of

this amendment to this bill - The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 and The

Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991 -we would like to make that almost a

unanimous vote of the House. Because we believe that we should be looking after

our employees, not only when they are working for us in the public service, but

after they have left the public service as well.

With these few comments, I believe that we, on this side,

might have one or two more speakers, but we do not anticipate a lengthy debate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, the intent here is to allow employees who were

employees of government-owned companies, whether it be - I guess, Newfoundland

Farm Products, is a example, a recent one now that will be moving out of

government Crown corporations. And, as my colleague indicated, we are not quite

clear, because in the introduction of the bill - I am not sure if the minister

did the introduction on the bill, I do not think the Minister of Finance did, so

there are questions we would like to have answered, maybe, at the Committee

stage, if they don't do it in closing debate, when they get to that on the bill.

Does that mean that this can be carried forward to a company

that is now a private company or if they have not already bought it - I would

assume that people under those Crown corporations now are still operating with

the right to get a pension here, under the Public Service Pension Plan, but

under the Crown corporation, for example, Hydro was always under the Public

Service Pension Plan and they were supposed to establish a Hydro plan, I do not

think that has been done, to this point in time. It was not transferred, I know,

several months back, I guess, a year-and-a-half after the legislation has gone

through. So, I am wondering if that is going to be applied now? Are they going

to be able to do that? Is it for people like Newfoundland Farm Products?

With reference to the Public Service Pension Plan having an

unfunded liability, a considerable one that is certainly not the severity of

some other pension plans, and steps have been taken to correct that and to

alleviate that unfunded liability in the future. I would assume the actuarial -

are they looking at unfunded liabilities or are they just looking at an equal

contributory basis in line with that, and do I gather - although I do not assume

it does - but whether this contribution now can be looked at government service

and then be carried or transferred into another plan with a private company.

Some of those questions we need answered here. We certainly need to have

specifics on those. I am not sure who is handling this bill on behalf of the

minister, probably the Minister of Education. We certainly would like an

explanation, if not we will have a heck of a lot of questions and a lengthy

debate on it at Committee stage, I am sure.

So, once again, the opportunity for people working with Crown

corporations, we do not have any problem with those people having the

opportunity to buy back at the actuarial amounts in their pension plan, but we

need to know what exactly - and how they can be channelled on this pension that

they buy back. I do not know if the minister understands where I am coming from.

Overall, the intent of it is fine. I mean, that is a service

provided to other people. Under this pension plan, too - I think Hydro went

under the Public Service Pension Plan. They have been, I understand, for some

time. It is interesting, too, while we are on this bill, to know certainly what

has happened with reference to that, because that is a Crown corporation.

There were certain liabilities in the Public Service Pension

Plan, and when the deal to have Hydro operating as a separate, arm's length

entity, and they were to transfer their pension plans into a Hydro pension plan,

while it was the intent to have that as a separate funded unit themselves, with

amounts transferred, accepting their pro rata share of unfunded liabilities, we

are not going to transfer an amount that is going to be a burden on the

remaining people in the pension plan; that would be more cost-prohibitive than

trying to correct the unfunded liabilities in that plan.

In light of that, too, and any other Crown corporation, I am

wondering: Is this bill necessitated now by Newfoundland Farm Products, too, in

dealing with this situation? And exactly what impact is it going to have, and

how is it going to be handled?

Those are just some of the things we would like - I am not

sure how many other speakers we have on it. Those are basically my comments.

They are very brief. My questions are more numerous than my comments on this

particular one, so I will sit down now, and hopefully, we will hear something.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the minister speaks now, he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just provide a little bit of information and undertake

that I will check with the Minister of Finance. I will give you my

understandings of it, and check with the Minister of Finance to make sure that I

have not provided any erroneous information to the House so that we can make a

correction at the Committee stage, if necessary.

The intent, clearly, in

Section 8.1 is that basically there

are currently some employees in the government who are now eligible, or are in

service of the government so that they would be eligible under the Public

Service Pension Plan or the Uniformed Services Pension Plan; so they are working

somewhere today as an employee that makes them eligible under one of those two

plans, and some of them previously worked for some companies that no longer

exist, that used to be government-owned when they were in operation.

One old one from some time back would be Newfoundland

Hardwoods. So, someone who was an employee of Newfoundland Hardwoods five or six

years ago and is now employed somewhere else in government where they are an

employee by definition, who are eligible for some service time under the Public

Service Pension Plan or the Uniformed Services Pension Plan, they will be given

an option under this amendment to purchase some time at full actuarial value -

not that they just take the premiums and so on, but they would have to make a

decision if they wanted to purchase that time.

The companies that will be deemed eligible will be prescribed

under 8.1(3), so there is no open end. In each case, there has to be an issue go

to the Minister of Finance, who basically directs the pension plans on behalf of

government.

The indication, though, at this point, is that we expect,

because we know there are some employees in the system - we have been told it is

only a couple of dozen - who were either formerly employees of Newfoundland

Hardwoods, for example, who are now employed somewhere else in government, who

would like to purchase some time and come in - I do not know any affiliations -

and also with Newfoundland Farm Products, particularly with the operation that

closed previously in Corner Brook, and some people who may now not be working

for the private enterprise here, may find themselves in the public service, that

they would at least like an option.

It is a very expensive option for them, as people would know,

because it is at full actuarial cost. It protects the pension plans themselves,

but it does provide a window of opportunity. The companies have to come forward

and will be prescribed under

Section 8.1(3), and then any employees would be

eligible to make a choice to purchase, if the company has been designated as one

that is eligible.

I offer those two as examples, Newfoundland Hardwoods from

some years ago, and Newfoundland Farm Products more recently, that some of those

employees have since found employment in a government sector that would make

them eligible under one of these two plans, and they need at least an option

available to them to purchase at full actuarial value.

I will have it confirmed at the Committee stage that the

information is correct. If there needs to be more questions we will deal with

them then.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Crown corporations?

MR. GRIMES: I will check that with the Minister of

Finance as to others that are being contemplated or have given rise to

discussion of the issue.

With that undertaking, I am pleased to move second reading of

the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service

Pensions Act, 1991, And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," read a

second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.

(Bill No. 34.)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 22, Bill 39, "An Act To

Amend The Memorial University Pensions Act."

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

Memorial University Pensions Act". (Bill No. 39).

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, just a few comments by way of introducing Bill 39 on

behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in whose name the bill stands.

Members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a year or so ago,

there was a detailed set of negotiations between Memorial University and its

employees. Actually, part of it was ongoing, I think, during the last general

provincial election. A number of issues were raised, and part of the settlement

at that time related to a review of some options in the pension plan because

they also exercised an early retirement option for some of the faculty and other

staff at the University at the time. Part of the good news that was disclosed to

the public at the time, Mr. Speaker, is that this pension plan, Memorial

University's Pension Plan is the model plan, really, for the Province in terms

of funding.

At this point, the pension plan at Memorial is 100 per cent

funded, if not a little more than 100 per cent funded; they have more than

enough money in the actual fund itself, because it was funded from day one,

unlike the public service plans where there were some contributions that were

not made for many years at the beginning of the establishment of the plan. It

was a funded plan from day one, it is fully funded, and what they negotiated in

discussions with the University administration, the unions and with the

concurrence of government officials who were represented, was that they would

make some adjustments that were long overdue with respect to spousal benefits

and other types of pay-out that needed adjustment to bring them in line with

provisions of the Public Service Pension plan, The Uniformed Services Pension

plan and others that are in the Province. There had been some that were a little

outdated and needed some review and as well, Mr. Speaker, the fact that there

had been some agreed to changes during the negotiation that facilitated a

successful conclusion to a round of bargaining.

All of these, Mr. Speaker, have been reviewed and vetted by

the pensions division here of the government, even though this is a plan that we

only assist with the monitoring of because of the fact that it is fully funded,

they have done a good job of running it themselves, but because it is controlled

under this Act, The Memorial University Pensions Act, they need the permission

of the Legislature to enact the changes that they have agreed to through a round

of intense negotiations and everybody is assured, Mr. Speaker, that these bring

the benefits in line with the public service benefits where they were out of

line and also, Mr. Speaker, that there is no risk whatsoever to this plan

because it has been very well managed and is in fact - I think the latest update

that we had is that it is funded more than 100 per cent as opposed to say, less

than 20 per cent for plans like the Teachers' Pension Plans and so on that are

in severe difficulty.

So what we are being asked to here, Mr. Speaker, and we

invite full investigation of it by the members of the House in debate, is to

facilitate those changes that have been agreed to through the bargaining process

at Memorial University, with the assurance that it is no threat at all to the

plan. These are changes that should occur, some of them, Mr. Speaker, bringing

in line with the national federal revenue stipulations and others, Mr. Speaker,

bringing in line with the other public service plans in the Province.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate on

this particular bill.

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

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

We, on this side, again, understand the background to the

amendment that the minister is still trying to get us to approve this afternoon

on the University Pensions Act. We have general approval; however, there are

some issues relative to this particular amendment that we would like to bring to

the minister's attention. One of the things that we want to talk about first of

all, is the relationship between the University, the Minister of Finance and

this Legislature and the Public Accounts Committee.

One of the difficulties we have is that the philosophy of

this government is that, the University operates at arm's length. In fact, when

the former government, of which the Minister of Education was a member a few

years ago, under the Premiership of Clyde Wells, we had a bill put into this

House which said that the University would not have to respond to this

Legislature in a direct way through the Public Accounts Committee because they

were above the rules that every other group has to live by in this Province who

access monies from the public Treasury. In fact, we have a situation in

Newfoundland that is somewhat unique in Canada, not exclusively different from

some of the others, but different from Ontario. The universities in Ontario -

and there are many more universities in Ontario than there are in Newfoundland -

these universities must be accountable directly to the Legislature, to the

Public Accounts Committee and to the Auditor General for expenditures of public

money.

So, we say to the Minister of Education - and we recognize

that under the scheme they now have, he is supposed to have all the information

relative to the financial affairs of the University, and he is supposed to be

answerable to the Legislature for affairs that arise from time to time affecting

the University. However, when it comes to the expenditure of public money we

recognize that this government, through its transfer payments, makes available

around 80 per cent of the funding that is necessary to fund Memorial University

of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, the Auditor General of this Province,

when she wishes to audit the University's books, finds that the doors are

closed.

Now, one of the things that we need to take on face value is

the fact that the minister says the Memorial University pension plan is in real

good shape. Well, I would assume the minister knows what he is talking about -

and that is not always the case here, but we assume the minister knows and has

his facts straight - that Memorial University pension plan is indeed in good

shape and is on solid financial footing. But we ask the minister: How can we

really respond to affairs as they affect Memorial University, when the

University itself is not answerable to the Auditor General? That causes a great

deal of frustration for many people in this Province. We believe if the

University accesses public money, the University should be subject to the

Auditor General. As a consequence, we question again here, on this side of the

House, why the University is treated the way it is?

Now, obviously, the minister, when he was a member of the

former government, bought the arguments put forward by the University that

somehow, if we were to ask questions in this House about the spending at

Memorial, somehow that would infringe upon academic freedom. Now, that is a lot

of nonsense, a lot of garbage is the way to put it. Because we are talking here

about information relative to pension plans or information relative to whether

the University abides by the Public Tender Act. We are talking about how much

money is spent on entertainment and travel by the president or by all of the

vice-presidents, that kind of thing. We are not infringing on academic freedom.

All we are saying is that the public's money should be spent in a manner that

makes it directly accountable. In Newfoundland and Labrador the way that things

are made directly accountable is through the Auditor General but of course, as

we know, this University has been set up in such a way that it is an ivory

tower. That is the way it is.

It was set up as an ivory tower by the now Minister of

Justice who was the Minister of Education at that time and who supported the way

that the structure is now set up. So we say to the Minister of Justice that he

should be hanging his head in shame that he has barred the door at the

University to the Auditor General. What he is saying is that there is an elitism

when it comes to institutions. Not only is Memorial University gradually

becoming an elitist institution as far as students who can study there is

concerned, but even the whole institution itself is treated in a way different

from other institutions in this Province.

What we say, on this side, is that one of the things we will

be doing, that we will commit now to do, is that when this group on that side

are sitting on this side, and this party is over there, then Memorial University

should know right from now that we will be changing that to make it reflective

of what it is in other provinces. In other words, there is no reason why, there

is no logic to the academic freedom argument that the Auditor General of

Newfoundland and Labrador should not be able to go into Memorial University with

certain guidelines set down that would protect the real academic issues. There

are to be no arguments put forward that would say to the Auditor General: You

cannot come in here and you cannot audit the books of this institution.

We would say to the university: If you are going to spend

public money, then you have to be accountable in the public forum. That is the

way it should be. That is the philosophy of this party on this side of the

House. It should have been the philosophy of that party on that side of the

House, but they were huddled and cuddled, they were wined and dined, they were

taken, shall we say, to the ivory towers and they were, shall we say, persuaded

by the powers that be that the university somehow needed to be excluded from the

Auditor General's Act.

We know that the arguments have to be somewhat, shall we say,

overpowering, but we met with the president at the time. We never found any

overpowering arguments. The arguments put forward by the president to the

Liberal Party and the Liberal Cabinet had to be a lot different from the ones he

put forward to our party at that time. Because the arguments he told us about

issues, afraid that if the Auditor General came in there might be some

infringement on academic freedom, that perhaps they would ask questions about

why a course is being offered or why a course is not being offered or that kind

of thing; or how much money is spent on research in this particular division, or

not spent on research, and the results and all that kind of issue that was

brought forward.

We, on our side, at that time said: that is not what the

Auditor General is going to be doing. The Auditor General is not going to be

doing that. Therefore, what we want to say to the government today is, we

support the general principles here, because the university pension plan is in

good shape, as the minister has said. We, however, have no way to confirm that.

We do not have the option of asking the Auditor General: Would you give us a

confirmation of that particular statement? We cannot say to the Auditor General

under the Public Accounts Committee: Would you go into the university? If we

were to say to the Auditor General today through the Public Accounts Committee

chairperson: We want you to go to Memorial University to do an examination of

the university's expenditures, what would happen is that the President of the

university would call up the Minister of Education.

He would say in frantic tones: I have to get hold of the

minister because the Auditor General is at the door and the door is barred and

locked, but she is out there banging on the door; she wants to get in. He would

say: `Roger'! Would you come down here and haul off the Auditor General from our

steps? We cannot let the Auditor General come in here because we do not want to

show her the books. Therefore, we know what chaos that would cause in

government, if the Auditor General turned up and was turned away, thrown off the

front steps, because she has no authorization to be there.

That is the law of this Province. It is a law that protects

the hoity-toity and those in ivory towers. It protects those people from being

accountable to the public Treasury. We say that is not the way Newfoundland and

Labrador should be run. When we can send the Auditor General to Pouch Cove to

find out what is wrong with the accounting procedures in Pouch Cove, we can send

the Auditor General to Conception Bay South, we can send the Auditor General to

examine a school board in Central Newfoundland or to examine a school board here

in St. John's, or to look at the Health Care Corporation, but we can't send the

Auditor General in to examine the books of Memorial University.

Where what we say to them is: We are going to give you $100

million. One hundred million dollars we are going to pass over to the

university, and then we are going to say to the university: That is okay, just

let us know how you spend it. Come back to us. We will take your word for it. We

aren't going to ask any tough questions or anything like that. Don't have any

worries about it, because the laws say the Auditor General can't come in to

examine the books.

We ask ourselves, is that a reasonable way to run a province?

Is that a reasonable way to expend public money? Is that the way we would want

our own money spent? In reality, this government says: Yes, that is okay. We

approve that. In fact, we were so anxious to approve it we introduced a bill

into the Legislature three or four years ago to make sure that the doors were

barred to the Auditor General.

That is what we have difficulties with in our appraisal of

this particular piece of legislation, because we don't know exactly what, shall

we say, the university is doing with the money we give it every year. These are

the main issues we want to raise at this time. I believe a couple of my other

colleagues on this side will have a couple of other issues that they would want

to raise.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise

on Bill 39 to make a few comments, and to deal in particular with some of the

comments made by my colleague for Waterford Valley.

As the Minister of Education is fully aware, the former House

Leader of this House is now the Chair of the Board of Regents, I understand; a

logical choice and a legitimate choice. I have no necessary qualms about the

former Government House Leader and former Member for Naskapi being appointed. No

question about it. Certainly this member is not going to impugn that past

member's credibility.

It is a fact today, undisputable, undeniable, that the Public

Accounts Committee of the Province has the power to subpoena any minister before

it, including the Premier, to account for the proper and appropriate expenditure

of public dollars according to the acts and legislation we all are governed by

and we all live with. That is a reality of the place we live in. Within the

Auditor General's purview of what the Auditor General can look at, within the

scope of her mandate as Auditor General and the power enshrined to her under the

Auditor General's act, she can go into some 200 agencies, Crown entities, or

departments with a particular viewpoint. Not one that questions government

policy, but clearly one that sees that where public expenditures have been

expended that they are done so according to the laws of the land we live in.

Such as the Public Tender Act; it is what you would call a

forensic or legislative audit. It is not something like a private auditing firm

goes in, like Coopers & Lybrand, would sift through the receipts or the books

and say; Okay, x number of dollars was set to be spent, $1.2 million on that.

They will look and they will follow the money trail and follow the cheques and

they will see if $1.2 million was spent. That is what they account on, that is

what they report on. They do not report on: Was in fact public money spent

according to the laws and regulations that govern all of us?

In every other jurisdiction in Canada such an audit by the

Auditor General of Memorial University, or on universities in general, it

varies. In about six jurisdictions, it is my understanding that provincial

auditor general's have the right to go in and request an audit of a university.

AN HON. MEMBER: How far back do you want them to go?

MR. E. BYRNE: How far back? I would say to the minister

that the first thing we have to do is to ensure that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister?

MR. E. BYRNE: - the Auditor General has the - or to the

member, soon to be minister, that the Auditor General

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That wasn't nasty, I say to the Government

House Leader. The first thing that has to be done is that we have to ensure the

right that they have to go in there. The Minister of Energy and Mines who was a

member of the Public Accounts Committee in 1986, asked a question in this House

related to that very matter, that the Auditor General should have the right to

go into the university.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never answered the question.

MR. E. BYRNE: How far back?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) go in, how far back do you

want her to go?

MR. E. BYRNE: My own point of view, and it is clearly

only mine, is that it should be within a contemporary time frame, within the

last, say, budget year or two.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, that would be a point of view that

would be open to the committee, I guess, or to government.

The reality is that the arguments that have been put forward

are mainly coming from the academic and administrative community - not

necessarily the academic community, because I would like to deal with that point

in a moment, but from the administrative community, that they would not want to

see the Auditor General come in and comment on the basic courses. So, would her

courses are made available? How many biology courses?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And the priorities.

Mr. Speaker, clearly that represents a non-informed view of

what the Auditor General's office is about, and from my point of view I think it

is a complete red herring in terms of throwing that argument up.

The fact of the matter is this: Last year government expended

$105 million. Right now, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee which

represents all sides of the House, which is a non-partisan committee that deals

specifically with public expenditure - and I cannot speak for other committees,

but I can speak for the present one, and I will speak clearly for it - that

every issue that we have looked at so far this year has been by unanimous

consent. Every issue that we have gone beyond the Auditor General's Report, to

request the Auditor General to go in and have a look at, has been done by

unanimous agreement amongst all committee members on both sides of the House. So

I think that adds weight to the point I just made in terms of this committee,

this Public Accounts Committee and its membership, and the type of work they are

doing in terms of what we would like to see.

We have looked at the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Care

Commission. We have looked at the Western Health Care Board. We have looked at

the St. John's Health Care Corporation. We have looked at the Cancer Clinic. We

have looked at the Department of Social Services in terms of an integrated

delivery system. We have looked at the Department of Industry, Trade and

Technology in two respects, EDGE designation and the former SIID agreement. We

are about to look into issues arising that came out of the Auditor General's

Report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Marble Mountain.

MR. E. BYRNE: Marble Mountain is another.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pouch Cove.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pouch Cove.

AN HON. MEMBER: I did a good job (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And it came out that you did, that those

who were involved with it... Mr. Speaker, the point is this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is the matter with the minister's

nerves?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Minister, what issue do you think we are

debating here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) pension fund.

MR. E. BYRNE: Have you read the bill from start to

finish? Has the minister read it from top to bottom?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Every bit of it.

The minister should know that on any finance bill that comes

before this House - on any finance bill - we can speak to the issue, and what I

am talking about is Memorial University and the inability of the Auditor General

to go in and look at the pension fund, and every other issue; so it is a very

relevant topic, I say to the minister. If your nerves are that bad, you can

always leave the House while I am standing and speaking and come back some other

time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? Don't tempt you? Sure, go ahead.

Go ahead.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that in terms of the academic

community at Memorial University it is clear. During the last employer/employee

dispute - and I can table it; I can table the information at an appropriate time

- even the MUNFA executive, the very things that an Auditor General would look

at, the academic community's union, itself, requested the very things that this

House should be concerned about. It requested financial information from the

administration of the university, which this House should be concerned about,

and which the Public Accounts Committee is concerned about; such things as

pensions, which we are discussing in this bill, a fully funded pension; such

things as administrative expenses; such things as bonuses paid to university

administration; such things as interest-free loans that may be occurring. Those

are the issues that are fundamental to an entity that comes under the

jurisdiction and legislative control of this House that we have a responsibility

to see where the funds are going.

Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to the Auditor General,

there is sort of a cute argument that has been made that is coming from

Memorial, from its university relations department, that the Auditor General has

every right to look at what is happening at the university and they put it on

this line, that the Auditor General has the right to look at the audits that

come from the University's auditor's and if they have any questions, they can

ask them.

That is not the point, again it is a red-herring, part of a

red-herring argument I submit has really no bearing on what we should be looking

into it comes to the University. There is no one in this Legislature, I would

submit, that would suggest or ask the Auditor General to go in and look at

offered at the university or history courses or Newfoundland studies courses or

engineering courses, nobody, Mr. Speaker, in fact is asking that. What we are

asking for and it must be understood, that the University itself, the community

is governed by two separate bodies. The Board of Regents is concerned primarily

with the financial affairs of the University, the administrative running of the

University, that is what the Public Accounts Committee should be concerned

about, that is what this Legislature should be concerned about.

The separate wing of it deals with academic accreditation,

granting of degrees, convocations, academic averages, grade point averages,

readmissions, with a whole host of matters surrounding the academic community

and that governing body, Mr. Speaker, for anybody who knows is called a senate,

the university senate. Nobody is suggesting or would suggest that the Auditor

General go in and look at what the senate does, because clearly that is not what

the Auditor General would look at. The Auditor General goes in does an audited

statement on legislative compliance, how public monies were spend, were they

spent in the fashion they said they were going to be spent in and, if not, why

not, and reports back to each and every member of this House.

To have a community or agency that is enshrined - its very

existence depends upon

an act that was enshrined and voted upon by this

Legislature, to fly in the face of such a fundamental principle, Mr. Speaker, I

find personally revolting and I do not buy the University's argument that they

put forward, but the issue is not dead. I say that for the purpose of the

record, that we will be dealing with it in due course as a committee. How we

want to deal with it, which way we want to proceed, certainly will become more

obvious as time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, with this I will conclude my remarks with

respect to Bill No. 39 and take my seat.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some comments too on Bill No. 39 to amend The Memorial

University Pensions Act and in particular here what it attempts to do is to, in

one clause, clause 2 of the Act,

section 11 of the bill is to take away and to

lessen, reduce the Auditor Generals ability to be able to audit the pension fund

of Memorial University. That is what it does. It allows for someone other then -

even in the explanatory note is says, `It would enable an auditor, other than

the Auditor General, to audit the pension fund and to issue a report'.

I do not see anything wrong, Mr. Speaker, with allowing the

Auditor General to examine the accounts of any expenditure of public funds

within government, within Crown corporation or within any particular agencies of

this government that are funded out of public funds. I think it should be the

right of the Auditor General to be able to do that.

Just a couple of years ago, back in 1993, I am not sure when

it was proclaimed, but around there, this Legislature took away the right of the

Auditor General to have access to the books of Memorial University and to

examine it for public accountability of funds given to the University. That

happens in other universities in this country - are permitted to allow their

Auditor Generals to go in and do an examination of the wise expenditure of

public funds within their respected provinces. I do not see why it should be any

different here.

I do not expect the Auditor General to pass judgement on the

academic freedoms that universities would want, their selections of course

offering in facilities or if they want to specialize within certain specific

areas.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: There are certain basic academic freedoms a

university should have unencumbered by government legislation, but the Auditor

General should have a right to go in and to make a determination of the value

that we get for the peoples' bucks in Memorial University and this Legislature -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: This Legislature roughly three years ago

took away that right and this legislation today in

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: -

section 11 of this Act, in clause 2 of

the bill is reducing the Auditor Generals ability to be able to audit the

pension funds of Memorial University and since Memorial University is an

institution that is funded by public dollars, I feel the Auditor General has the

right to look at this account and any other particular accounts that they may

have.

There are positive aspects and as the minister in introducing

the bill indicated, it is fully funded, which I feel all pension plans should

be, fully funded pension plans and at Memorial University, if the service is a

model, it is an appropriate way to go, we have to pay the price sooner or later

and pay as you go is my concept of the way we should do business and the way we

should have pension funds. I agree, we can't expect future generations, our

children and their children, to pay the price for our expenditures in this

particular generation. There is talk now about retired people out there in

pensions making them pay extra when they take retirement options. We have to

look very closely at the pension issue, at whether we should tell people who

retire at an earlier age on a certain pension, to tell them now they have to pay

a price. Had they known those things and those circumstances, they may have

chosen to stay working. They may have chosen to stay in the workforce to draw a

higher pension; to pay those premiums over a longer period of time and get a

higher pension.

So you cannot turn the clock back on one issue and not turn

it back on the whole thing. You cannot be selective in doing that. It is unfair.

What is wrong with the public examining whether Memorial University has

appropriate accounting procedures in place to safeguard the expenditure of

public funds? What is wrong with the Auditor General being able to do that? Why

are we just opening it up to other areas? Why do we prevent the Auditor General,

who is supposed to be a watchdog on public expenditures, to ensure that dollars

are spent wisely? People entrusted with hundreds of millions of dollars -

overall with Memorial University we are talking about over $100 million - direct

of expenditures, payments by this government, where in the opportunities fund we

are going to see another $25 million overall, on top of the regular, I think it

is going down to $104 million roughly over the third year of a three year plan

to have access to that and they should.

I think Memorial University has a right to get a three year

budget plan, a three year commitment from the Province to know where they are

going from one year to the next. They can't keep adjusting budgets in

mid-stream. You have to have a sense of where you are going to be. This

government said they have a three year plan. It only took up two little pages in

the Budget but Memorial University asked for a three year commitment on what

they are going to be given and they should be given it. They should be given a

commitment and they should know so they can plan ahead and not ad hoc decision

making from one year to the next and have to drive tuition through the ceiling

because government did not let them know what their contribution was going to

be. Those types of things I think are fundamental. In long-term planning - a

word that has not been high on the agenda of this government - long-term

planning has been ad hoc, ad hoc spontaneous decisions to address critical

problems that should have been addressed earlier so they would not have been

critical problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, are you afraid of (inaudible)?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am afraid of nobody, not even you. I am

not afraid of you. You can pick the match of your choice, the weapon, the matter

of combat and I will be ready for you any day. We will even put on a display

outside the House if you want to. You can pick guns, you can pick swords, you

can pick wrestling, boxing, running or jumping. You name it, I will take you on

any day, I say to the minister. You name it. If you pick boxing I hope you are a

good runner.

AN HON. MEMBER: I heard you were a (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, indeed I wasn't - with my fist

probably. The gloves came off before the stick went up, I say to the guy who put

the Port aux Basques Mariners into deep bankruptcy. Actually it is a matter of -

well it is a good price to pay I suppose to win a herder. Everybody does it at

times. It is a little unrelated to the issue at hand now but we have seen it

right back to the days in Buchans and today in Port aux Basques and all over the

place, in La Scie everywhere; we seen that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I can tell you, I went three years

without getting one penalty. You can ask the Minister of Health's brother who

played on the team there for awhile with me. I'm a pretty clean player, I never

got a penalty.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is, I agree. The best one in the

family. Yes, I will agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well he is not in my family. I can't speak

for him but he's a good man that George Faulkner. I followed him from his early

days. I am a Montreal fan, too bad Montreal drafted him, he might have been NHL

- George Faulkner -

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be in the House of Assembly soon.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: He is the guy who is going to take charge

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: He makes wise decisions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and he is a member of this Province

who contributes to the Treasury, who contributes money to Memorial University,

so the employer of Memorial University can put money into the pension fund.

The employer's contribution in the pension fund of this

Province comes from revenues obtained by the university of which over $100

million comes from this Province, of which he and you and me and everybody else

contribute to that. That is a very relevant issue I would say today, that

taxpayers contribute and why shouldn't the taxpayers get accountability from the

Auditor General? They should. There is nothing more relevant I can say than the

Province footing the bill and paying tremendously and not being allowed to have

their watchdog go in and examine the books.

This bill also adds in

section 15 (1) an employee shall be

retired, when you reach normal retirement age which is one thing, and (

b) if he

or she is not participating in the long term disability insurance plan of the

university or a similar plan substituted for it and so on, I won't read all

that, but they add in a third one now which says: If the post held by the

employee is abolished or his or her services are no longer required as a result

of reorganization, the employee shall be retired. So that is there and there are

some changes I noticed to allow somebody to retire a little earlier - I had a

little notation here on one, where, if they are less than sixty - you had to be

sixty but now, if you are fifty-five and that is in 15.2 in the Act, clause 5 in

the bill - to somebody who has not yet reached the age of sixty but who is

fifty-five and has ten years or more of service, they should be able to retire

with their accumulated level of pension they should receive, they have that

particular option also.

So, these are some of the specifics there but the overall

thing and that is also in 16: The board shall award a pension to an employee who

has completed not less than ten years of pensionable service and has been

retired under

section 15 which is the one I just alluded to earlier. But

overall, the gist of it, right on the specifics here, I do not have a problem

with the Memorial University Pensions Plan at all. It is a plan I understand

that is a fully-funded plan; I stand to be corrected but I think it is a

fully-funded plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is fully funded.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is fully funded, my colleague tells me

and one in which they are paying premiums of what, 6 per cent basically is the

normal requirement that it states here that they have been paying into the fund,

I think it is six, is it? It is a healthy plan but the problem I have is that as

a taxpayer, the people of the Province, we contribute to Memorial University, we

contribute an equivalent of 6 per cent employer contributes to that plan, there

are taxpayers dollars going to the University in excess of $100-and-some million

with the opportunity to fund another $25 million in addition to their grants to

Memorial University on an annual basis, that is a significant chunk of money out

of taxpayers dollars when this Province only raises about less than $2 billion

of its own funds or revenue in a year, that is a significant expenditure, one

certainly that I support an expenditure to post-secondary education but also,

with any price of supporting and putting money, there has to be an

accountability of those revenues carried out and I feel the Auditor General, my

colleagues here have mentioned before, should not only be able to examine - they

took the Auditor General out of examining the books of Memorial University, the

former Premier; the former government did that and they decided to go the rest

of the ways now and remove the Auditor General from being able to audit the

pension plan fund of Memorial University. Not that there is any problem with it,

not to imply that at all but to imply the right of an Auditor General, the

watchdog of this Province, to be able to see that the public's money has been

expended in an appropriate fashion and the proper regimes are in place to be

able to show full accountability and expenditures on an accepted accounting

basis.

While many times people make decisions in the best interest

and with the best intentions in mind. We don't always have the safeguards there

that would protect the public investment into any institution.

That is an auditor general person who has been trained in

that area, has expertise in that area, and the staff of the auditor general's

officer are such that they look for those methods, always trying to achieve

something that is perfect. Might never achieve it, but at least we can analyze

it, we can recommend, we can say where you went wrong, where you can notice that

the next time we might avoid those mistakes and we won't end up making the same

mistakes all over again.

That is the role there. There hasn't been an opportunity for

the Auditor General to exercise full protection of the public by taking the

Auditor General out of the right to audit the funds. I shouldn't say taken out.

By having someone other than, by diminishing or reducing the ability of the

Auditor General to do that, and to audit Memorial University as it was done in

the previous legislation.

That isn't acceptable, that isn't something that we support,

that aspect of it. Those factors, I think, are important. I say, Mr. Speaker,

they are important in protecting the public here and having appropriate

guarantees in place, and appropriate safeguards, and appropriate monitoring and

watch-dogging of expenditures of an institution here that is to use public

money.

Because if money is not used to the advantage, to the best

use, there could be ways that the students pay for it. There is an increasing

burden being borne by students in tuition today. They are paying a higher and

higher per cent of tuition to run those institutions. I spoke to the Federation

of Students over a year ago and I spoke again this year and I said: If 25 per

cent of the cost of running the University is paid by students, they should have

25 per cent of representation on the Board of Regents. If they contribute the

same per cent to other colleges, to the College of the North Atlantic or

wherever in the Province, they also should have an appropriate representation

because he or she who pays the piper calls the tune.

Why shouldn't students, 25 per cent, have 25 per cent of

representation? If they pay it all, they should have all the representation.

Their money. It should be utilized to an appropriate purpose. We have a very

small representation. In fact, I think there are only two out of about

thirty-two, for instance, on the Board of Regents. I know it is unrelated, but

there are decisions made that impact University in expenditures, and the overall

pot of money ties into what the University has.

There are important aspects there, and many other things I've

recommended, dozens of recommendations I made that should be done. Who did I

hear after? I heard the Premier, was it, or somebody stood up after them, a year

after I made them, and copied some of the same ones I made to them out in

Stephenville over a year ago, and I made out in Corner Brook again this year and

so on. As if they must have got a copy of my speech, which I distribute to all

the media anyway. I'm sure they have a copy. Some of the same basic things I

said should be happening out there.

We have to allow a certain amount of autonomy, have to allow

people to contribute, and we contribute to the operation of the University, we

as taxpayers, people all over this Province. We have somebody out there in

office, the Auditor General, reports here to the House of Assembly, to see that

these are expended in an appropriate manner, and that we follow the proper

accounting procedures that would maximize the most efficient use of these

dollars, within the parameters of academic freedom of the University on the

dollars.

Dollars in a pension plan are still dollars contributed by

the employer. They are decisions that must be made appropriately. If you can

operate it efficiently and have it fully-funded at 5.5 per cent, so be it. If it

takes 6.5 per cent to fully fund it, so be it. We aren't talking about relative

amounts or about the health of a plan. We are just talking about the percentage

of money, and what the people at the University pay into this fund out of their

own pocket is not the relative point. That is their money and it is their choice

what they do. What is contributed as an employer and a public funded money, a

good portion of it out of public funded money, and a portion out of the students

who contribute to the overall budget of Memorial University, and other funds or

revenue that they get by various other sources, that all go into the one pot and

the one decision making, we have to have a degree of accountability.

We don't have that degree of accountability enhanced by

removing and lessening, decreasing, the role that the Auditor General plays in

that particular institution.

That is an issue that I certainly hope will not be exercised.

It is diminishing the powers (inaudible) to someone else. I hope it won't be

diminished by that process because the Auditor General - it doesn't matter what

the government of the day is - looks at things from a perspective of

accountability, and we should heed the words of the Auditor General and use it

not as a means to rebuke the Auditor General, as has happened in cases, but to

use it as a lesson to improve our role as legislators here in enhancing the

accountability, contributing to a better, more efficiently run operation that

safeguards the public dollars and gives us dollars to use in some other area

where it is badly needed. That is the role. That is what should be done, and we

should maximize that to our advantage.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks on this

specific bill, Bill 39.

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

intending to close the debate?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the

debate. The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: He will probably get to it in committee.

The debate has gone on for awhile, and I would move second

reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Memorial University

Pensions Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 39)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 25, Bill No. 25, "An Act

To Amend The Nursing Assistants Act".

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

Nursing Assistants Act". (Bill No. 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Health, who is in a meeting that has to do with some very important business,

let me just say that

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, yes, she has some other things she has to

do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Well, that is very important. That is a meeting

that is very important.

Let me say that what this bill does is basically take us

along to change the designation of Registered Nursing Assistant to Licensed

Practical Nurse. There is nothing overwhelmingly earthshaking about this bill;

otherwise, the minister probab