June 5, 1998

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII

No. 40

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to

apologize for not having an opportunity to send across the floor of the House a

copy of the statement I'm about to make, because I don't have a prepared text.

I've just heard from Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet

on an important development, I think, for the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is, that the

Treasury Board, for the completion of the Argentia clean-up program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The multi-year funding in

the amount of $68.7 million will begin, Mr. Speaker, with work this summer.

This new amount of money brings the total funding for Argentia to $81

million, and will result, in 1998 and 1999 alone, in an additional 300

short-term jobs being created this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in passing

along this information, which has just been conveyed to me by Mr. Fred Mifflin

who indeed brought this plan before the federal Treasury Board last night and

saw it approved, I want to acknowledge in the House the incredible energy and

the dedication and the perseverance of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who

travelled not once -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: - but three times to Ottawa

over the last twelve months as the representative of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and personally made the case on behalf of government

to have this funding approved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, while we are on

the issue of jobs - and these are indeed temporary jobs as part of the clean-up

- I do want to comment on the latest employment statistics which have been

released. The labour force survey

for the month of May was released this morning, and it reports that employment

in Newfoundland and Labrador rose by 6.3 per cent, or 11,500 jobs, last month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: That 11,500 job increase

comes on the heels of a 5.3 per cent, 9,300 job gain in April, bringing the

average gain over the first five months of the year to 3.7 percent.

The unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, declined by 3.9 percentage points

last month and by an average of 2.3 percentage points in the first five months.

Many national forecasting agencies, such as the Conference Board of

Canada, are predicting that Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in

economic growth this year. The

positive trends in the labour markets support these forecasts.

1988 is shaping up to be the best year the Province has experienced since

the late 1980s.

In the eight months from October of 1997 to May of 1998, employment gains

have averaged about 3.8 per cent or about 6,000 jobs a month.

This compares with an average gain of 2.8 per cent nationally.

Mr. Speaker, job growth in Newfoundland and Labrador is outpacing the

increase in job growth nationally in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe if we

stay the course, if the Province remains fiscally responsible, if we made remain

dedicated to an appropriate fiscal plan, do not allow our deficit once again to

get out of control - this Minister of Finance has delivered the first real, Mr.

Speaker, balanced budget effectively in the history of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to

acknowledge the work of the Minister of Finance in creating the climate, with

his guidance in the finance ministry, to allow us to see our economy grow.

Mr. Speaker, if we stay the course, if we stay prudent, if we have modest

expectations but we stay confident and positive in our outlook, I do believe we

are entering a period of time where growth in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker, will be real, will be sustained and, yes, will bring a better day for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

It reminds of the Open Line Shoe,

free for all Friday. I should say to

the Premier: Is there anything else

you would like to speak about in Ministerial Statements before we go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say free for all or

free fall?

MR. E. BYRNE: Free for all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to

the clean-up at the Argentia base, obviously it is good news, timing is

critical. As the work continues down

there, it is my understanding that there may be more monies needed, but

obviously the timing of that clean-up is essential.

The next question that must be asked with respect to that is with regard

to the bases in Goose Bay and Stephenville.

When can we expect timely announcements from the federal government with

respect to the environmental problems that are occurring out there?

My understanding is that it could be happening any day.

Any day is what I hear, but we will see.

It will be timely announced I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the increase in the number of jobs created

in this Province, the Premier was quick to add, with respect to our growth

compared to Canada, that we are outpacing Canada. The statistics certainly

indicate that, but the reality is, for employment in this Province and the

unemployment rate in this Province, that we are sadly behind the rest of Canada

with respect to the unemployment rate.

While this is good news, we have many, many roads to travel and many ways

to go before we can reach a national average where employment is at least equal

to the national average.

I look forward over the coming days, weeks and months in debating a

variety of issues with the Premier and government with respect to how we can

create long-term, long-lasting jobs in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill - Quid Vidi, does he

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond briefly to the Premier's State of the Union

Address this morning.

With respect to the Argentia clean-up, we are very pleased that the

Of course, when the bases were passed back to the people of Canada and

Newfoundland, the Americans were not required to do the job and the Canadian

government took that responsibility.

I hope they will similarly meet that responsibility with respect the Harmon Base

in Stephenville and the DEW Line in Labrador.

We are also pleased to see some progress in the job numbers, Mr. Speaker,

but we always have to remember where we are coming from.

We are still playing catch-up, we are coming from a long way behind. The

gains that we have, although impressive, are, in fact, modest when it comes to

the unemployment rate. Often, all

you have to do in Newfoundland is look at the national unemployment rate, double

it and that turns out to be the rate for Newfoundland.

I hope we can change that forever.

It will take a lot of work to do it.

It is nice to see we are making some progress.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY:

Mr. Speaker, since 1952, the provincial Arts and Letters Competition has

made an invaluable contribution to the artistic and cultural life of our

Province.

The competition represents government's ongoing commitment to providing

incentive and recognition to talented and ambitious writers and artists in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Last

night it was an honour and a privilege to attend the annual awards ceremony for

the Arts and Letters Competition.

More than fifty awards were handed out in a variety of categories, in

everything from poetry and prose to musical composition to visual arts such as

painting and photography.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my

department and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to congratulate

everyone who received an award or an honourable mention.

The Arts and Letters Competition is one of my department's oldest and

most important annual initiatives, and it has continued to prosper and thrive in

these times of fiscal restraint.

Again this year, more than a thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

young and old alike, submitted entries.

The competition is really a celebration of the incredible depth of

artistic talent we have in this Province.

Many of our Province's finest artists and writers first flexed their

creative muscles through the competition.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the Arts and Letters

Competition has made an immeasurable contribution to our culture and our

heritage.

I would like to thank the Arts and Letters Committee for hosting last

night's awards ceremony and for doing an exceptional job with the competition.

I would also like to thank the judges and volunteers for their valuable

time and effort.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly here today to

join me in congratulating all the Award winners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY:

I encourage my colleagues to visit the Provincial Art Gallery between now

and June 14 to view a special exhibition of the award winning and selected other

Visual Arts works.

I am delighted and proud that my department continues to support and

encourage the artists and writers of Newfoundland and Labrador through the

Provincial Arts and Letters Competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the Premier, it is a very lovely, pleasant day.

I would say to the Premier and to the minister, that we as well on this

side of the House, would like to certainly congratulate all the award winners

who won awards last night and indeed all the people who took part and all the

volunteers who work each year to make this thing a success.

I guess if this community had one wish it would probably be that the

minister's department would probably be able to contribute more money to them.

But other than that it is certainly good news and we, on this side of the

House, would certainly like to congratulate all the award winners and all the

people who took part.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in congratulating the winners of the Arts and

Letters Competition. I also

recognize that it is one of those institutions that encourages and provides an

opportunity for exposure for amateur artists and writers as well as

professionals to engage in the competition.

It is one that has been going on for a long time and deserves the kind of

support the department is giving it.

As the Member for Conception Bay South has said, perhaps we should try

and find a little bit more support for this type of competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's statement received such an enthusiastic reception by

members opposite that I thought I would add a few more details.

The employment gains to which he referred continued to be broadly based

in May, with job increases recorded for a number of industries, including the

fishery, manufacturing, transportation, and services.

Of particular importance to workers in rural parts of the Province for

which we have particular concern, given the changes that are taking place, was

the 2,800 gain in the number of fish processing jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, that was in

May, and that followed an increase of 2,600 in April and 1,300 in March.

A successful caplin fishery, together with higher catches of shrimp, crab

and cod, will be instrumental in ensuring that these job gains in the fish

processing sector continue.

Employment gains have been accompanied by sharp declines in the

Province's social assistance caseload.

I believe this is critical.

The number of employable cases declined by 19 per cent in the first four months

of the year, following a decline of 11 per cent in 1997.

That represents, in actuality, more than a 20 per cent decrease this

year. The total caseload declined by

nearly 10 per cent in the first four months and by about 5 per cent in 1997.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, consumer confidence is also continuing to

increase. This reflects employment

and income growth, falling unemployment, and the beneficial affects of the lower

sales tax rate that accompanied the implementation of the HST last year.

The value of retail sales was up by 4.6 per cent in the first three

months of the year, following a gain of 5.7 per cent last year.

These are not the only positive indicators.

The value of manufacturing shipments rose by 14.3 per cent in the first

three months, while the volume of iron ore production was up by 2.9 per cent in

the first two months. Of course, Mr.

Speaker, our continued growth will be affected by the post-TAGS program, and we

look forward to seeing a proposal that adequately addresses the needs of the

people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this turnabout has come around, and it

is no secret in this Province and certainly not in this Legislature.

Members of all parts of the House, and those in the gallery, realize that

it is the fine leadership of our Premier who has been here for a short two years

that has brought about this dramatic reversal in our fortunes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope he will also take credit for the largest out-migration in any

quarter in our history, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Finance Minister should

not get too excited overall. You

have to look at the year in total, not just the quarter.

If you remember, I say to the minister, the crab settlement was not

reached until July last year. It was

settled in April this year and there are thousands of workers who went back in

the fishing industry who were lying idle last year.

So we have had an earlier start, and the winter last year did not

disappear until April. The milder

winter has contributed to some projects and construction getting under way.

I would look at the total analysis, Finance Minister.

You have not looked -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am optimistic to see

employment increases here. I am

delighted to see it, I say to the Premier, and I hope they will not be

completing their work earlier and there will be no work beyond July in the

fishing industry where it began in July last year.

Sustainable employment is very important.

We are still experiencing tremendous out-migration in this Province day

after day. We are seeing our young

people, people who have been here for twenty-five and thirty years - a family in

my district left this week who spent thirty years in the industry and they are

now working in Alberta. It is sad to

see it happen. If the jobs are

short-term, inflated seasonal jobs, it is not the answer.

We have to look at an economy that is going to be built on a longer

period of employment, I might add, and curb this growth of out-migration here in

our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to be able to get the economic indicator before anyone else

and make a statement like this before anyone sees the full picture, because that

allows the minister to cherry-pick the statistics, avoid the seasonally adjusted

characteristics of them, and bring out all the good news and ignore the

perspective that is buried there. If

there is any progress as well, Mr. Speaker, it may be a reflection that your

unemployment rate goes down as the number of people you are dealing with goes

down as well. So let's have the full

picture, Mr. Speaker, and then we will see whether we can praise this government

for its efforts or not. The full

picture is needed before we do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I call Oral Questions, the Chair would like to take this

opportunity to welcome to the gallery today eighteen Grade V and VI students

from New World Island Elementary School, in the district of Twillingate & Fogo.

They are accompanied by their principal, Roland Hamlyn; teacher, Chris

Osbourn; parents, Donna Gidge and Patsy Gidge; and bus driver, Arthur Gidge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral

Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions are for the Premier or the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, whichever one would like to answer or prefer to answer.

In the last couple of days we have heard a federal government ruling

which allows companies from outside of Canada to do seismic work - a report on

the radio this morning actually - outside of twelve miles off our coast in the

oil and gas industry, that would also allow foreign companies outside of Canada

to bring foreign workers with them - no obligation to hire Canadians - while

there are at least 2,000 Canadians who are trained, who are ready to go to work

in that industry.

I would like to ask the Premier or the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology: Have they heard this

news? Are they concerned about it in

view of the fact that it flies directly in the face of the Atlantic Accord?

I would like to ask the Premier and the minister:

Are they going to make representations to the federal government on this

issue and to the C-NOPB?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have heard,

as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has heard, by way of a journalist medium, a

report of changes that have been made to the way in which the immigration policy

of Canada is applied. Mr. Speaker, I

have no information directly from the federal government.

This is a matter that I have asked my officials in Intergovernmental

Affairs to look into. I want to

assure the Leader of the Opposition that first of all I think it is appropriate

to raise such a concern. Secondly, I

am looking into it through my office both as Premier and Minister of

Intergovernmental Affairs. Thirdly,

yes, we certainly concur that we have to ensure that every opportunity possible

comes to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and then after Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, where we do not have the skill set, to Canadians.

Come to the people of this Province first, Canadians second, before we go

offshore to fill these highly skilled and high-paying jobs.

This was the position we took last year.

The Leader of the Opposition and his party took the same position with

respect to the barge that came in here and the diver contract that was let, and

the fact that there were no divers from this Province first and from Canada

second who were involved, and it is the position we take again this year.

It is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that I was happy to stand in the House a

week or two ago - the Leader of the Opposition joined me in this regard - and

welcome the appointment of our new Chairman of the C-NOPB, to ensure that

benefits come first at C-NOPB, and we will certainly be following up on this

important question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I hope that

when the Premier says he will be following up...

It is an important issue for this Province.

The amount of seismic work that is about

to take place, and scheduled to take place, on the coast of this Province is

significant and could produce significant long-term, high-paying jobs, highly

skilled jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are now ready to take

advantage of that work. But this

ruling flies in the face of an agreement signed by the federal government, known

as the Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Speaker, my next question deals with an announcement last spring when

the Premier turned over the keys to the Bull Arm site, in terms of the facility,

the use of that facility as a world-class facility.

Would he like to comment on recent news reports where that facility is

being dismantled, that much of the infrastructure at that facility is being

dismantled, such as the bunk-houses, the infrastructure that has been there?

And, as a matter of fact, that marketing that facility, or the ability to

market that facility, is being seriously diminished because of the dismantling

that is taking place at the Bull Arm site?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE:

Mr. Speaker, what is happening at the Bull Arm site is certainly in

keeping with what we intend to see happen with that site in furthering the

development of the oil and gas industry in this Province.

There is an agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dismantled.

MS FOOTE:

No, Mr. Speaker, there is no dismantling taking place at the Bull Arm

site. In fact, what is happening our

there is being done in concert with PCL.

We have an agreement out there with PCL for part of the site, for the

industrial use of that site.

There are bunk-houses out there that are, in fact, being given by this

Province to the Winter Games.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Canada Winter Games

(inaudible).

MS FOOTE:

To the Canada Winter Games, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE:

It is unfortunate if, as a government, we cannot do that to support a

volunteer organization for the Winter Games out on the West Coast of this

Province. That is what is happening

at the Bull Arm site.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, certainly there

is more than the bunk-houses being dismantled.

If there is anything on that site that is owned and operated by the

Province that can be used by other people in the Province to enhance a project

such as the Winter Games, nobody is going to stand in the way.

I would like to ask the minister this:

Is she aware today that there are people who are doing the work, both in

dismantling and people who are on the tugs out there right now today, who are

not from this Province? Is she aware

that there are people in this Province who are eligible, who are trained, who

are skilled to do that type of work, but there are people from outside the

Province doing that work. It would

fly right in the face of the Atlantic Accord?

Is she aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE:

Mr. Speaker, what is happening at that site in terms of the union

activity in this Province, we have an agreement in place, a first-class

agreement, with thirteen of fifteen unions on that site, and the work that is

taking place at that site will be done in a non-strike environment.

It will ensure long-term employment for the people of this Province, Mr.

Speaker. The fact that there are two

unions outside of that contract is a matter for the unions, not for government

to get involved with.

What is happening at the site in terms of the equipment, the only

equipment that is leaving that site is anything that has been determined to be

surplus to any future activity at that site.

If it is not in use for any period of time - and PCL has told us they

will not be requiring the equipment that has been sold - then it would just

deteriorate and be of no use to anyone at any point in the future.

The point is that what is been sold is surplus assets.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister

did not answer the question. I could

preface my last response to her answer in saying that if there are materials on

that site, if the bunk-houses on that site can be used for other projects that

are taking place in this Province that would enhance them, that would improve

their ability to deliver a quality product at the end of the day, such as the

Canada Winter Games, fair enough, you will get no opposition from anybody on

that.

The question I asked the minister was:

Is she aware -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on, now.

No, I didn't.

I asked the minister: Is she

aware that there are people who are working on that site right now with respect

to the operations of it who are not from this Province, that there are people in

this Province who are skilled and ready to go to work there but were not given

the opportunity? That is the

question I asked the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology.

MS FOOTE:

Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to be drawn into any

dispute between the unions who are on site at the Bull Arm site.

Whether or not there are people out there from out of the Province,

whether or not there are people there from outside of the Province doing the

work that the skilled workforce in this Province can do, we will certainly look

into that and see if that is in fact the case, and if it is, what the rationale

is for that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There are many problems, I say to the minister, in the child welfare part

of your responsibilities that need to be addressed.

There are severely overworked social workers with unmanageable caseloads,

and children are not getting the help they need from your department because of

many of those problems. The turnover

of child care workers is alarming, and burnout is occurring frequently.

On April 8, Minister, I wrote to you asking for answers to some very

basic, simple questions regarding child welfare, and to this day you have not

provided one answer to my general questions.

Minister, are you failing to provide the information because you do not

want the basic information to be made public, or because the people in that

branch are so overworked and so preoccupied with child protection that the

information cannot be provided?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

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

The question certainly gives us an opportunity, as minister and as a

government, to restate the types of initiatives that we have in an issue in a

way to address the concerns around children.

Mr. Speaker, we have allocated over $10 million of new money for children

and children's programs in this Province.

With respect to the letter, Mr. Speaker, the letter has been prepared and

signed. If he does not have it, he

should have it any minute, any day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is in the mail - two months.

I hope the postal service will get a little more prompt, if it has been

in the mail for two months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, we

have to raise awareness in child abuse and the protection of children.

There is something wrong when, for breaking and entering, someone gets

twelve months, and for twisting and breaking the leg of a child, gets four

months. I think we need to put more

attention on the system today.

I am asking this question of the minister:

Could the minister tell me - and some of the basic questions I ask are

very simple - if she could provide, when I asked her on April 8, the current

caseload that social workers have - a very simple question - the average tenure

of a social worker here in the Province?

That is not too complicated.

Could the minister just give me the answer to that simple question that I asked

two months ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

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

The average caseload for child care workers is around thirty cases, and

the average length of time working in this high, stressful area is about

one-and-a-half to two years.

Collective agreements allow for various workers within the arrangement, under

the collective agreement, to transfer and to move in and out, and that certainly

addresses social workers being able to move out of the system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition

House Leader, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister made reference that the turnover is very, very high because

of burnout, people working weekends, long hours, I must admit.

I want to ask the minister one final question.

Minister, where is the much needed child welfare legislation that we were

promised and were supposed to see?

Where is it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

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

As the member knows, we have been working together on the integration of

the new department. We have been

working in consultation with the whole review committee looking at child welfare

legislation.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, because when I had my

first orientation to the new Department of Social Services by the then deputy

minister of that department, who no longer works with government, he said to me,

and I quote: If there is one area

that we failed in here, in this department, is the fact that we have not done

one thing with child welfare over the last twenty-five years.

So, Mr. Speaker, some two years later we put in action a whole review.

So for that person who left and felt like this was such a failure, I can

reassure him that there will be new legislation coming forward this fall, but we

are doing all the analysis. It has

been over twenty-five years. It is a

very important piece of legislation.

We have looked at the whole issue around strategic social policy, the National

Child Benefit, and all the needs that have been addressed by the advocacy

groups.

Mr. Speaker, it is important and we won't rush it, and when it is ready -

we said it would be available to go through this House of Assembly this year and

it will go through this year, but not until we have addressed the issue, because

we take the issue of child welfare very seriously.

We are looking at the whole scope, ranging from all the issues that had

not been addressed over the last twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, I, as my colleague for the Department of Human Resources and

Employment, social policy and government, are very proud of the work we have

done in the past two years that had not been done, Mr. Speaker, over the last

twenty-five years, and we look forward to bringing it into the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope I am not hearing correctly when the minister said the reason why

is because when she moved into her new department she had to be oriented with

the new department. Minister, you

were the Minister of Social Services before you became the Minister of Health

and responsible for that department.

Is that the reason why you are delaying?

Could the minister clarify that?

That is what she said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is what she said.

Read Hansard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I think if there is an orientation needed it might be for the Opposition

House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What I said was, when I came

as minister for the first time in government to the Department of Social

Services, the then Deputy Minister, who no longer works with government, said to

me: If there is anywhere that I feel

this government has failed, and my role here, is that I have not been able to

move forward the issues around child welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker.

Immediately, upon arriving at the department I and my new Deputy Minister

put in place a committee to begin the long overdue role of reviewing child

welfare in this Province. We have

gone around this Province through committee hearings, and not only that, Mr.

Speaker, as it moved along, we have gone and talked to all of the advocacy

groups. We have had it through

social policy. It was also raised

under the Strategic Social Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in the interim we aren't waiting.

We are putting in place $10 million worth of new programs for children,

including early childhood education, family resource centres and community youth

networks. So, we are not sitting on

it, we are moving very quickly towards addressing the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

A few days ago I asked the minister a question on the Gander River

management plan, entitled: It Can Be Done: From Concept to Implementation.

The minister at that time said that part of this particular plan was

approved and part wasn't, by his department.

He wasn't quite specific on which part was approved and which part

wasn't.

In this report it clearly states, Minister, and I quote:

That a controlled terminal harvest of surplus fish will be managed by the

Gander River Management Association.

An initial target will be 5,000 fish and revenues from the sale of those fish

will be targeted towards river management.

I ask the minister if this part of the management plan has been approved,

and if the minister's department condones netting salmon in inland waters.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I said the

last time the member asked a question, that part of that plan has never been

approved, and is not going to be approved.

A number of suggestions have been made.

There are a number of recommendations in that plan.

The plan is about a year and a half to two years old.

The only recommendation that has been considered was the river specific

licence, and that was for a pilot project for two years.

We are into the potential second year of that project right now but

nothing else in that plan has been approved.

They are recommendations and suggestions made by a group which have done

a lot of hard work to bring the Gander River back to where it is today.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In The Gander Beacon , Minister,

on April 13, 1998, page 3, the Gander River management plan's secretary is

quoted as saying: this association intends to use a trap in Gander Lake to catch

salmon after they have gone up the river.

I ask the minister if the secretary of this management plan is speaking

on behalf of his department or expressing his department's management plan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is the

kind of misinformation that creates confusion.

I think it is time for the member to do his homework.

Watershed management is volunteer consensual decision making where you

get together with groups and individuals who are interested in development of

the watershed. They may have

suggestions to the governments, both federal and provincial.

The governments may decide that they will act on them or they may decide

not to act on them, Mr. Speaker. I

will make it very clear that that recommendation is not being acted on.

The only one that has been was the river specific licence.

Why should management groups have done a good job of developing and

enhancing watersheds working with both levels of government.

They have no legislative authority, they have no legal authority in that

way, Mr. Speaker, but there are volunteer groups we are trying to help.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, no wonder total confusion exist on this particular issue of

river management and watershed management.

You approved part of a plan and people out there today do not know which

part of the plan is approved and which

part is not.

You have executive members saying one thing, and you have the minister

saying something else. I ask the minister what he plans on doing, what his

department plans on doing, in clearing up this total confusion that exists with

river and watershed management in rural areas of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the

member opposite is the only person confused.

For the last number of months this has been explained.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the papers, Minister,

(inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: I can read all the papers I

want, Mr. Speaker. No means no, and

that is the case. So, therefore, if

groups come forward and want to volunteer ideas, we welcome the ideas.

But at the end of the day the government will decide whether it goes

ahead or does not go ahead. You can

beat up on watershed management, the groups and the volunteer groups that have

been involved all you want to, as a member of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the ideas, but we are looking at the possibility

of a White Paper to develop a policy to go forward on and we will consider doing

that.

The member continues to create confusion.

Everybody else understands it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this morning are for the Acting Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

It has come to my attention, that over the last little while and before

the 1998/99 fiscal year in government, that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

have purchased, in very short order, somewhere in excess of 200 fridges and

stoves for houses around the City of St. John's to get rid of some of their

budget. I do not know where they

bought them. I would like to ask the

acting minister this morning: If

this is true, why were they bought, when the residents living in these homes did

not even ask for them? They received

a phone call saying: We have a new

fridge and stove coming to you. When

the fellow comes in, find the space in your house so we can store the old one.

I would like to ask the acting minister this morning, if this, in actual

fact, really happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know whether they bought fridges, stoves, vehicles or anything

else. I will check into it and find

out.

Let me just say, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation

has a budget of $100 million. It

administers right now in excess of 10,000 housing units in this Province.

It has taken them over more from CMHC.

It is primarily responsible for social housing in the Province, and it

has a mandate to look after that.

I am sure, if the member wants, I can give him a full list of all the

inventory and equipment they bought.

They also employ people to paint apartments.

They provide a lot of accommodations and services for elderly and

disabled people. If they bought

fridges and stoves, it would not surprise me.

I will check and find out for you.

If I may just say, if anybody in government - we made the point very

strongly with all our executives and our managers that there is to be no dumping

of government money, Mr. Speaker. As

the hon. member knows, we do not penalize departments for not spending money.

One of the questions that came up in the estimates, as the member well

knows, was, why when a department spent less in a particular category last year,

we did not reduce them. We do an

assessment each year as to what a department should realistically spend.

If there was evidence of somebody dumping government money, they would be

held to task. I will check on it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: It is very interesting to

note that we bought in excess of some 200.

Now, we are not against people receiving new fridges and stoves.

Although, through the department of Social Services, as we all know on

both side of this House, it is very difficult now to receive furniture.

I guess the question is: Why

did it happen?

There is also, I say to the minister, Buckmasters Circle where there are

tremendous amounts of money now being spend, and there are actually law suits

ongoing.

I would also like to know this morning, as well, where we are with the

law suits. What brought about this

particular work? It seems to me,

minister, that in these purchases, and, as well, with what is happening at

Buckmasters Circle - a lot of this money we certainly could have used to

purchase new drugs. We could have

used it to help injured workers. I

am one who doesn't believe because the money is left at the end of the year it

should be spent on things that we really don't need to spend it on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government has many responsibilities, among them is to

provide for the needs of people who are less fortunate for a variety of causes.

Those needs are not always simple, they are often complex.

Sometimes it is a need for food, other times it is a need for shelter,

other times it is a need for heat, for clothing, for fridges and stoves, among

those things.

He mentioned drugs. People

need to eat in order to avoid need for medical necessities at times as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: I don't know what was on at

Buckmasters Circle in particular. I

mentioned to the hon. member that there are something like about 12,000 units

that NLHC now maintains in this Province, a very substantial number.

They have a substantial budget for repair, renovation and, as the hon.

member knows as well, fridges and stoves are often provided as part of any

apartment complex. Not all of them

but the majority of apartments have fridges and stoves provided.

So any assortment of equipment needs to be renewed on an annual basis.

However, we will check into it.

If there is any evidence that the expenditure was not justified then we

will deal with it appropriately.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also ask the minister, while he is doing his checking, if he

could find out what happened to the old ones?

Because the information that I have says that when the new stuff came in,

the old stuff would be taken and stored somewhere in a home.

I don't know if they are still there or if they have been moved out.

Were they given to somebody to auction off?

I wonder if you could also check on that and let us know exactly where

they went.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Finance.

MR. DICKS: Yes, we will, Mr. Speaker.

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

They concern the unfortunate incident a short while ago when $100,000

went missing from the Department of Human Resources and Employment.

My concern focuses on how the department could allow more and more public

funds to go missing over a period of three years and go completely undetected.

Is the minister convinced that the conversion to the new Central Cheque

Processing Data Centre is enough to ensure that the funds that are intended for

the clients of the department don't go missing again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, it is because

of the improved internal audit procedures and investigations procedures that the

incident to which the member refers was in fact first realized, picked up,

further investigated and subsequently provided to the Department of Justice, and

the charges laid.

In relation to our central processing system for cheques and the

improvements that we are making in this system, I have every confidence that as

we continue with our changes to the income support system, the development of

our new procedures and policy, and also more importantly, the improvements to

our information systems which provides a much better accounting of all of the

transactions that take place in the department, that we will have far better

control procedures in place in the future and that we will continue to improve

our services to our clients as well.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: What new efforts is the

department implementing to ensure that its employees are given thorough

background checks prior to being hired by the department to help care for some

of the most vulnerable people? What

level of screening is done? Are

Certificates of Conduct required?

How deeply into the background of perspective employees does the department dig

before giving these people power to affect the lives of individuals who may not

be able to look out for themselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as the member

would know, the hiring for the permanent positions, full-time positions within

the public service, are hired through the Public Service Commission.

In that regard, there are very good recruitment and selection policies in

place which define not only the credentials and the qualifications and skills

that people need to have in order to work in professional positions throughout

government, but also define the kinds of protections that are required for

different positions when they work in areas that are considered sensitive and

areas that deal with people who we would all consider to be vulnerable.

Again, I would have to say that as a policy throughout government there

are quite adequate and in fact good policies in place around recruitment and

selection which provide the kind of protection that the member suggests.

I would say again that this is something that within the department,

because of the sensitivity of the responsibility that we have, we also pay

particular attention to ourselves.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon.

the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: In view of the fact that the

particular person involved in this incident had a record of thirteen counts of

fraud, I say to the minister, how good was the checking at the Public Service

Commission?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, again, the

member would refer to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, the member is

referring to a specific case of one individual, and the thirteen counts she

refers to are all related to the same incident which has now proceeded through

the courts. So this is not to suggest

that because of one particular incident there is a major problem with screening

and selection throughout government.

Our employees for the most part, I would say, in the experience I have had in

this department, throughout government in other departments, and as a former

employee of government myself, are highly professional in the way they dispense

their responsibilities, and they do a good job for this government.

There will always be cases, I am sure, given the size of the public

service, where you have unfortunate incidents such as the one being described,

but I stand on the level of professionalism and the honour and credentials of

our public service as they perform their duties throughout this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Waterford Valley, time for one quick question.

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

My questions are for the Acting Minister of Education.

Given the fact that the school boards have not received any information

relative to the results of the air quality studies - I do understand the

information has not been communicated to the school boards - of the first 150

schools, and that therefore the tender documents have not been prepared, and

given the fact that school boards need some lead time for advertising and the

work that needs to be done in that phase of the remedial action, I ask the

minister: Can the minister now give

assurances that all of the remedial actions that are necessary to correct the

air quality problems in the schools will indeed be completed in time for school

opening in September? Contractors

have said to me they have doubts about it, the school boards have doubts about

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY:

Mr. Speaker, much of the work has been completed, some is still in its

final stages, so you cannot give an assurance that everything will be done by a

certain time frame. Until everything

is evaluated there may need to be some very major work that needs doing that

will continue on as the school year progresses.

As much work as possible will be done, and of course the work that will

be done first will be the work that will cause the least interruption to

students. The major work will be

done before school opens. All of

that is in the assessment stage now and will be rolled out in the next few days

and weeks.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions

has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the

Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Order No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act". (Bill No.

20).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Order No. 4, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act", (Bill No. 21).

Would the hon. the Opposition House Leader like to recess for five

minutes to talk with him?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, I would like for us to recess because I understand there is

a discussion going on that is needed.

MR. SULLIVAN: I will just get this in

order here.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy for the hon. gentleman, let us recess for

five minutes.

CHAIR:

The House will recess for five minutes.

Recess

CHAIR:

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, I want to call Order No. 4 next, but before I do that I

want to move that the House not adjourn at 12:00 o'clock.

CHAIR:

It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 12:00 o'clock.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Order No. 4, Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act to

Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act."

(Bill No. 21)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Order No. 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act to

Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No.

22)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think, as I mentioned the last day, it said, a corporation producing an

eligible film - that is 8.1 in the Income Tax Act or clause l here in the bill,

"...producing an eligible film or video in the province may apply to the

minister." What will constitute an

eligible film or video, I say to the Minister.

We are not opposed at all to making changes in amendments for the film or

video industry. We would like to see

more film, more videos or movies here in our Province to entice people to come.

We have lost business in this Province to other provinces because we were

not progressive enough in making changes that were necessary.

So I am just wondering, for my information - I am not aware what

constitutes an eligible video. There

must be a certain standard of content or the location having to here, a certain

per cent basically of that on location or what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: It is Bill No. 22, clause 1.

That is in 8.1: "A corporation producing an eligible film or video may

apply to the minister." I am just

wondering if the minister could tell me what is the criteria determining what is

eligible for this tax?

Because, for instance, they may come in here and do a shoot of a segment of a

movie and then they complete it elsewhere.

They may come in and do the whole thing on location here.

There must be some point at which we are going to say:

Hold it there! You are not

getting a credit for that because we do not have any additional people to get

employed here, people who may have no role in the actual acting itself, but

other support people who may be employed here in the Province, additional people

where it is not practical to fly people in from their location; those type of

things.

I am just wondering - we do not want to be giving a carte blanche to

these people, because if we do, they will do what is convenient when they come

in here and just do a few a shoots and so on to get a credit.

If the minister could enlighten me on this.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the hon. member knows, the criteria are established under

Section

32(1) of this act.

I will just give the hon. member a little background.

I cannot answer his question directly.

If you look at Subsection 2, the eligibility requirements - and I believe

another member of the House raised some questions about the amount of tax credit

that will be prescribed by regulation.

Now, if I can say to the hon. member, two things:

One is that the final decisions on this have not been made, and we will

looking to what an appropriate regulatory scheme is.

I can tell him that we have looked very closely at all the jurisdictions

across Canada. Nova Scotia and New

Brunswick have some interesting aspects to their regulation of this industry.

I will deal with the amount and then I will come back to eligibility

because I think that will make things clearer.

The film would have to be filmed to some extent, or the video made in the

Province. What is eligible for a tax

credit is only those wages paid in the Province.

So, you know, the wages to people who are of Newfoundland and Labrador

residency. So it is a method to help

employ people here in this particular industry.

Nova Scotia has, for various reasons, a very booming industry, and a

large part of it is the tax credit.

Now the way they do it in Nova Scotia - and my figures may be off in Nova Scotia

and New Brunswick. I meant to take

the material with me this morning and I don't have it.

I believe they give a credit of 30 per cent or 35 per cent, and I believe

New Brunswick gives the 40 per cent tax credit.

Some of the Western provinces are much lower.

In Nova Scotia, I believe they have a two-tiered system.

If you do it in the metropolitan area of Halifax you get a 30 per cent

credit, if you do it outside you get 35 per cent.

Those figures may not be exact but it is of that magnitude.

In other words, there is an incentive to do it in rural areas where there

is less of an activity.

What people get is they get back a portion of the wages as a payment that

reflects roughly what the tax would be.

What you do is you have to ensure that you are not overpaying people and

giving them more. What you are

trying to do is help establish the industry and get more economic activity,

which leads you to the question of eligibility.

I think the eligibility of which films would be able to claim the credit

would be less important than the types of expenses that you have that are

eligible. Because whether they do 10

per cent of the film here or 100 per cent, it doesn't really make a difference,

if all you are giving them a rebate on is a portion of the salaries they spend

here.

I think that should probably answer the hon. member's concerns.

Frankly, although Cabinet hasn't made a decision, I expect we would set

something competitive with the rate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

We would be in the range of 30 per cent to 40 per cent in order to be

competitive. That I suspect will be

something in the order we would come to.

What I would say to the hon. member is, what will be less important is

not which films are eligible, but rather the type of expenses.

We will ensure that only those expenses are eligible which meet the

criteria of having been spent here in Newfoundland or Labrador that would not

otherwise occur.

I trust that answers the hon. member's concerns.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Basically it would have to be, if I understand the minister, based on the

wage portion you are paying. Because

the corporation would be from outside the Province, outside the country

probably, and we wouldn't be getting any direct corporation tax from it anyway.

So it basically would be a credit based on your employment and the wages

you would pay to people in our Province.

It would be just geared to that.

What about the corporations from our Province?

Would the same apply, I wonder?

I know they will pay taxes and they pay their corporation tax to our

Province anyway, but would the same credit be applied to any particular part of

the industry? A Newfoundland company

would have the same, if in event somebody wanted to set up a company and

incorporate a company here in our Province, a subsidiary, a company for the

purpose of doing filming on location here.

Who knows, hopefully in the future that might happen there.

I am sure they will set up their place of business where the tax rate is

most preferential to them overall from a tax perspective.

Many companies do that.

I think the minister is implying that this would apply to a Newfoundland

company too, the same basic credit, in addition to any other credits that might

occur because they are a corporation in our Province.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, that is the case. I

would say the focus really, as the hon. member suggests, is not on the

corporation, and ultimately it is not on the film, if you understand my intent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: It is the members of the

Catholic Women's League who cause the most noise in this House, as I recall, Mr.

Chairman, and I don't mean the female members of the Catholic Women's League, as

the hon. member well knows.

Yes, it will be available to Newfoundland corporations and people making

films, and really it's focused on the expenses in order to create employment in

this industry in this Province. So

whether the corporation is a U.S. or British or Canadian or Newfoundland and

Labrador corporation, it really wouldn't matter.

It's available to the whole industry.

The only expenses that are eligible are those that are paid to

individuals here in the Province. I

trust that allays his concern.

As I say, as of yet we haven't had a chance to fully review and establish

a rate, but it will be competitive with the other jurisdictions.

On motion, Clauses 1 and 2, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act."

(Bill No. 22)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Order No. 11, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Elections Act, 1991, Bill 19."

CHAIR:

Order No. 11, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," Bill 19.

Shall clauses 1 to 10 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm just trying to find the

clause number here now, Mr. Chairman, that I'm referring to.

Okay, clause 6 is the only one I wish to make a comment on.

It is clause 6, page 22.

I just want to ensure - it is 294.1 of that.

In subsection (2) it just says, "In a campaign period for a general

election, in addition to the contribution permitted by subsection (1)..." which

is $8,000, "...the total value of all contributions shall not exceed (

a) in the

case of an individual, the amount of $16,000."

Now, one way it might be interpreted is to say that is $16,000 on top of

the $8,000, but the intent, as I understand it - I want to make sure on the

record - is that the total an individual may contribute during an election is

$16,000 in total. There could be a

little ambiguity in saying in addition to the contribution.

So those words, in addition, might give the impression - page 22 in the

bill. It is 294.1 of the act, clause

Part III of the act. So I think

the Government House Leader knows where I am coming from there and maybe he can

respond.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, in actual fact there is some ambiguity there, and for the

record I think we should say that in an election year the total amount they will

be able to contribute is $16,000 in the case of an individual, and in the case

of a corporation, $40,000 and not $24,000 and $60,000 as it would seem to

indicate in this clause.

So the intent is that in a non-election year an individual will be able

to contribute $8,000 and a corporation $20,000.

In an election year an individual will be allowed to contribute $16,000

and a corporation $40,000. So that

ambiguity should be cleared up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay.

That is really including subsection (1) rather than in addition too.

So basically in total. So I

just wanted to make that specific point, whether - there could two

interpretations drawn from that. I

just want to be sure of the right

interpretation.

It may not need an amendment to that effect.

I am not sure if the minister feels that is necessary.

MR. TULK:

No, we have it on the record.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Government House Leader

has indicated that that is the intent of it, that is what it should reflect and

I am satisfied with that.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

So there is nobody putting forward an amendment to the table at this

time.

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Elections Act, 1991."

(Bill No. 19)

On motion, clauses 1 to 10 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Order No. 10, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The

Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act."

(Bill No. 33)

CHAIR:

Order No. 10.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions

Act." (Bill No. 33)

On motion, clauses 1 to 5 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Order No. 8, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."

(Bill No. 30)

CHAIR:

Order No. 8.

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."

(Bill No. 30)

On motion, clauses 1 to 4 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Order No. 7, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Provide For

Participation By The Province In An Intergovernmental Join Purchasing Agreement

And to Repeal The Provincial Preference Act," Bill No. 25.

CHAIR:

Order No. 7.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An

Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial

Preference Act". (Bill No. 25)

On motion, clauses 1 through to 6 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Order No. 9, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act Respecting Child

Care Services In The Province". (Bill No. 31)

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a brief comment on this

one, Mr. Chairman.

The minister yesterday made reference, I think, so it may not invoke a

direct question, I say to the minister.

I just want to state that there is a lot left here to regulation, very

much to regulation, and not a big amount to legislation.

One of my concerns in any instance is that the legislation is too

general. Then we depend on

regulations, depend on Cabinet, and depend on the minister, then, on the

regulations.

Especially, like under two, there is a great difference in people under

two and over two. Now, for the first

time, it is also putting in regulations for people under two, under thirteen in

total. Before it did not cover the

earlier period. Over all the

legislation, the principle of it, is important.

It depends on how it is applied and the specific regulations to

distinguish between those two particular areas there.

That is the particular concern.

If we see the regulations, it may be of no concern.

I am just saying there is a lot in the regulations.

It is important that - it give a fair amount of authority to the minister

on regulations, as I guess regulations always do.

The more it is legislated, the more teeth it really has into it and the

less it is subject to alterations.

One down side to legislation, I suppose, is that once it is there you

will need the House of Assembly to make changes,

whereas in regulations it does

not. But overall in child care it is

an important step and I certainly support that particular aspect of it.

I just wanted to indicate that we need to be looking at commitments to

children - a period, not just in child care.

I think it is important to have a commitment in child care.

It is a very, very important part of development to see that we have the

proper environment for young people to be able to grow, to be nurtured and so

on, particularly preschool people, because it is at a very important age in

their lives where you really shape their behaviour and set them on a path for

the rest of their lives.

I look forward to seeing regulations that follow there and seeing exactly

what it accomplishes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was not really a direct

question. I do not really need an

answer. It is not a question.

It was my comment.

Order No. 9, a bill, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The

Province". (Bill No. 31)

On motion, clauses 1 through to 23 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Order No. 2, Bill No. 28.

CHAIR:

Order No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," (Bill

No. 28).

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, if I could, I understand we have just passed three or four

amendments which are really not very consequential to the Opposition House

Leader which he has had a chance, I take it, to look at.

MR. SULLIVAN: This one here?

MR. TULK:

Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just spoke with

(inaudible).

MR. TULK:

I understand there is no problem with them.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am quite familiar with

what you are looking at there.

MR. TULK:

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the House, I am going to move all of

the amendments at the same time.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, fine.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments:

Clause 4 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed

paragraph 109(2)(

d) the words "who is licensed under the Public Accountancy

Act".

Clause 5 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed

paragraph 109(2)(

d) the words "who is licensed under the Public Accountancy

Act".

Clause 18 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the words

"certified management accountant" the words "licensed under the Public

Accountancy Act".

Clause 20 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the citation

"82(2)" the words and citation "and subsection 287(2)" and by adding immediately

after the proposed paragraph (

d) the words, "licensed under the Public

Accountancy Act".

Clause 23 of the bill is amended by adding in the proposed

section 60 the

words "licensed under the Public Accountancy Act" immediately after the words

"certified general accountant".

I think, Mr. Chairman, the Explanatory Note says:

These amendments would clarify that an auditor for the purpose of those

provisions is one who is licensed under the Public Accountancy Act.

CHAIR:

The House is aware of the five amendments that have been tabled and read

into the record. I will call the

five amendments together.

All in favour of the five amendments as tabled and as read, say `aye'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR:

Opposed?

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 inclusive, carried.

On motion, clauses 4 and 5 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 6 through 17 inclusive, carried.

On motion, clause 18 as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 19, carried.

On motion, clause 20 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 21 and 22, carried.

On motion, clause 23 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 24 through 30, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments,

carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to correct me if I am wrong but I believe the

only Order - not a Motion, I understand we have to do Motion 2 - that has not

been called is Committee of the Whole on Order 6.

CHAIR:

That is correct.

MR. TULK:

"An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act".

(Bill No. 24).

CHAIR:

That is correct. Is the hon.

Government House Leader calling that one now?

MR. TULK:

Yes, I am.

CHAIR:

Order No. 6, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act." (Bill No. 24).

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on the Public Tender Act again

today. I want to be on record that I

do not support this bill, this amendment to the Public Tender Act, for a number

of reasons. I said here before in

the House of Assembly, and I am going to repeat a few of those in Committee so

it will be quite clear, the reasons why I do not support this Public Tender Act

and the changes to it.

There are some points with which I can agree, a couple of changes with

respect to the registry of local manufacturing.

It is a positive move. As I

said before, I think this is where all these changes came from.

They are using this one positive step to make some changes to circumvent

the Public Tender Act, generally speaking.

The minister talked about going around this Province on public

consultations. I think most of the

recommendations made were related to the local manufacturers and producers.

I don't think he got a lot of presentations saying that they should

change it from a level playing field to some sort of other system whereby

political pressures could come to bear and contracts could be awarded now

instead of on price, qualifications, expertise and what have you.

We will go back to the 1960s and it will be going on who you know and how

many political contributions you may have made.

I am not just saying that to the administration in power because if these

changes are made, no matter what party is in power, the same pressures will come

to bear on that group administering the money of the Province.

A couple of the more specific problems I have with it, of course, is that

Section 3(2)(

i) means the government will not have to invite public tenders

"where, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology... the

work or acquisition is for an economic development purpose..."

Now to me, again, as I said before, that gives the Administration in

power a wide latitude, "in the opinion", because everybody's opinion can vary on

any given situation.

With respect to economic development, there is no definition in there for

economic development. If the

government decided to go down and put down one kilometre of pavement that could

be considered for economic development.

If someone in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing wants to build a few

houses for social housing, although they are getting out of that, that could be

considered economic development.

They may not have to go to tender because the minister says this is for economic

development. If this is to be

changed there should definitely be at least a definition there for economic

development. As I said, the minister

should not be given that authority with which to do what she or he wants,

depending on who the minister is at any given time.

Another paragraph, of course, seeing that we are in Committee, is

3(2)(j), which means the government will not have to invite public tenders

"where, in the opinion of the head of the government funded body, inviting a

tender would not achieve the best value and the government funded body has,

through the minister responsible for it, obtained the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council..."

So they can carry out requests for proposals based on the permission given to

them by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

We saw what happened before in this Province back in the 1960s before the

Public Tender Act was put in place.

We saw the abuse of what went on in this Province, and contracts given out

right, left and centre, cost-plus contracts to buddies, to affiliates of certain

parties and what have you. Now we

are seeing ourselves going back by changing the Public Tender Act to the exact

same situation that was happening in the 1960s.

We saw what happened only within recent years with Trans City.

We saw what happened with Kodak, where they were bringing in legislation

to circumvent the Public Tender Act, a big deal, hundreds of jobs.

What happened? It fell

through.

Again, if you can show where in the - not only in the opinion of a

minister but in the opinion of Cabinet, who were trying to do that for Kodak,

they were wrong there and they will be wrong again.

I am after saying to the minister there is no doubt in my mind I will be

asking questions in the future in this House of Assembly to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, and to any other minister, when it comes to

pass that what I am saying here today is right.

The minister can get up in the House of Assembly and try to rationalize

all he wants, but he cannot justify these changes.

He can justify the changes with respect to the registry of local

manufacturers, and I support that, but he cannot justify these changes in

section 3.

Also there is a

section here, with the repeal of subsection 5(3) the

provision allowing government to make change orders and extensions to expand

award of contracts is loosened up.

So the government will be able to give contractors extra work without tendering

that work. The minister says

section

5(3) has no impact, by taking out or repealing the subsection it has no impact.

So why is he changing it in the first place?

That is the question that needs to be asked.

If the minister is persistent in doing this, what is going to happen

according to that

section - there are limits there, but now with the changes

being proposed here there can be a cumulative effect and you can circumvent that

with these changes. That

section

there, in my mind, should not be changed also.

Also, the new clause in the exemption area of the act, points one and two

above, will give broad discretionary power to the government to avoid calling

public tenders. That is the whole

point we are trying to make on this side of the House.

That is the whole point, that whenever the government decides they want

to put out some work to some buddy or some friend or what have you, they can

avoid calling public tenders. I have

members over on the other side shaking their heads in agreement with what I am

saying, yet they are going to vote in favour of this because the Premier told

them to vote in favour. Sheep, Mr.

Chairman, sheep, that is all I can say, when they know in their own heart and

soul this is not right. The level

playing field that is there now is being weakened.

The Public Tender Act is being weakened.

It is almost being repealed.

They may as well take it, tear it up and throw it out the window.

Those are some of the points I have been making in the past.

Also, Mr. Chairman, public procurement is in an area of governmental

activity that can be subject to enormous pressure to direct purchasing that is

not in the public interest. That is

a point I made earlier in this House of Assembly when we spoke against this.

As a matter of fact, I was on the Open Line show yesterday morning

speaking against these amendments and I am going to continue.

Also, Mr. Chairman, these amendments throw wide open the opportunity to

opt out of public tendering for vague reasons.

The minster was up again yesterday or the day before - I am not sure

which - trying to justify these amendments, and there is no way in my mind he

can justify them. There is no way he

can justify to me that the government or a minister can end up giving a contract

to anyone with no definition for economic development, and in the opinion of the

department head for the best value.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am just being on record,

Mr. Chairman. I have said it all.

I pointed out - and certain members on that side of the House, as I said

earlier, are shaking their heads in agreement - that they should tear this up.

So I am wondering if the minister should basically withdraw this?

Also, Mr. Chairman, the changes here will destroy fairness and

accountability in public procurement in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. This Public Tender Act was

brought in by the Tories back in the 1970s - I think 1972 or 1973 - somewhere

around that time. It has been on the

go for quite some time now, so why is it necessary to do this?

The previous Premier, Mr. Wells, I think, tried to circumvent the Public

Tender Act, as I said earlier, with the Trans City and got caught.

The courts decided that it was wrong.

There are ministers sitting in the government benches who were involved

with the Trans City and now they are trying to change this to make it legitimate

to do what they want.

Another point now, if the government circumvents the Public Tender Act

there are certain legal requirements and they can be taken to court.

But if they make these changes, the legalities of the whole situation

completely change and the government then cannot be called into question as they

can today. Mr. Chairman, we have to

point these out.

The Opposition, of course, their duty as members of the Loyal Opposition,

is to point out these faults in legislation, to provide constructive criticism

to government, which is what we are doing.

It is to provide constructive criticism to government and that is what we

are doing here on this side of the House.

We have done it in the past and we will continue to do it, I am sure, all

members on this side of the House.

I don't know what to say any more than that, Mr. Chairman.

We can propose amendments all we want on this side of the House, and I

did give some consideration to proposing amendments to this legislation, but I

have made my points. I know that

government has a majority so any amendments we want here they are going to vote

down anyway. So that is an effort in

futility in actual fact. All we can

do is make our points over here and hopefully the government will listen, but I

don't know. It is hard.

Sometimes you have to wonder.

Also, Mr. Chairman, the Public Tender Act came into being because of a

report by a judge, Judge Mahoney, when they looked at some illegal activity with

respect to government years ago.

Actually, a person was sent to jail because of the situation that went on.

We did not have a Public Tender Act and the illegal actions were taken by

certain people. We put in a Public

Tender Act to try to avoid that, and now we have the Administration basically

saying they are going to tear up the Public Tender Act, go back to the days of

the 1960s and leave it to the will of any individual minister, or even a

department head of a government funded body, to do what they want.

I am not going to be able to support this.

I hope members on this side of the House are going to say no to this

public tender amendments.

I think I will sit down now and let someone on this side, if they wish,

say a few words.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I just wanted to rise again today and have a few comments relative to the

Public Tender Act that we are now considering.

Basically, I think the Member for Cape St. Francis has raised some

question as to the wisdom of the changes, and I wanted to repeat some of the

things I said yesterday to the effect that we are not against changes that make

the whole system more open to contractors.

We certainly are not against making it possible for all contractors in

this Province to participate in the bidding that goes on when government

services are required, or when tenders are called for the completion of

construction, or for other services that government might need.

In fact, we believe that is a good feature of this particular piece of

legislation.

What we are afraid of is the fact that this particular bill may open up

certain, shall we say, provisions or windows whereby some contractors might be

able to get extra work for which they would then have an advantage over some

other contractor. For example, the

new act would mean that certain contractors might be able to have their

contracts extended. When you start

extending contractors unreasonably, just extending and extending, it means that

the people who were involved in the original contract may have been seriously

disadvantaged. In other words, if

you are going to have a contract and you are awarded it, lets say, for $50,000,

and the next highest bidder was, say, $52,000, but if you knew that the

government would be likely to extend that contract for extra work that could

amount to tens of thousands of dollars more, then you might certainly, shall we

way, be inclined to take a loss leader on the original contract.

Mr. Chairman, that is where we have difficulty.

We accept the minister's word that that is not likely to be a dominant

feature, but when we look at situations like the Trans City deal we see how the

letter of the law can be used to circumvent the intent of the law.

Certainly in that particular case we know that government went out for

proposals and then used the letter of the law to give them the power to

(inaudible) circumvented or changed the intent of the Public Tender Act.

We certainly express great caution to the government when they bring in

laws that are open-ended. It is the

open-ended feature of this particular piece of legislation that causes us some

concern, because we know that if the integrity of government is to be maintained

in the public eye we have to have laws that govern the way in which we conduct

the public business. When we have

laws passed that have the possibility of reducing a level playing field

approach, then we certainly have to express what we consider to be the lack of

wisdom in that particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side have raised these points.

They have been raised by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

We raise them as concerns, and we say to the government that we will be

watching very carefully to make sure that the provisions of this act are not

used in a manner that circumvents the integrity of the public tendering process.

In fact, as far as the provisions of the act that let all contractors and

all bidders have information rapidly, and let us do away with this idea of

calling three preferred bidders, that kind of thing, we think that is a good

idea.

This particular bill has some very desirable features, but it also has

some places where we feel there might be certain possibilities that may not have

been intended by the government, certain loop-holes, certain windows of

opportunity that were formerly protected but which are not now as protected as

they were in the previous piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was to correct the weaknesses of public tendering that

the Peckford government brought in the Public Tender Act many years ago.

It was to correct the difficulties that were so evident in Newfoundland

and Labrador in the 1950s, 1960s and indeed into the 1970s, and to make sure

that public money was not only spent as it should be spent, but to give the

authority of the Legislature to command the government to make sure that the

public money was spent wisely and fairly, and that all contractors doing

government business would have an equal playing field and equal access.

Mr. Chairman, we know that some of the provisions of this particular

piece of legislation have been adopted in some other provinces, and as far as

computerizing the whole system, that is a very positive thing.

However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to, again, alert the government to

listen to what the Member for Cape St. Francis, the critic, has said on these

issues. Hopefully, when the

implementation stage comes, there will be assurances that we do not use this

particular piece of legislation, the changes to the Public Tender Act, to

facilitate a process that would be more reflective of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s

than it would be of the public process that is more evident into the 1980s and

1990s.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether we have any further speakers on this

side. The Government House Leader is

now free to call the question.

On motion, clauses 1 through to 6 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, Motion No. 2, To Move That The House Resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Advancing

or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957,

Bill No. 11.

CHAIR:

Motion No 2, To move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Advancing or

Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill

No. 11.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise again today to echo my negative thoughts towards Bill No. 11,

thoughts which I think other people on this side of the House will put forward

as well.

It is a situation where this bill,

An Act To Amend The Loan And

Government Guarantee Act, Mr. Chairman, is doing exactly the opposite of what

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Premier and members opposite are

saying that they are not doing and they are getting out off; and that is

providing money, fund loan guarantees, to the fishing industry of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand when the Member of Twillingate & Fogo

stands and says that he supports this particular bill.

I can understand when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo stands in his

place and says that there is nothing wrong with extending a loan guarantee to

the Fogo Island Co-op from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.

I can understand that. The

member is doing his job, and he is representing a fish plant that employs people

in his district and in one of the biggest communities that exists on an island

in his district. I can understand

that. I would do the same thing.

I would probably be one of the people that would be knocking at his door

asking the government of the day to provide a government guaranteed loan for a

plant that employed people in my district.

I would probably be doing the same thing, but that doesn't make it right.

If we are going to go and get out of the fishing industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I hope you will.

Let's start treating everybody alike.

Let's not be going out around this Province, on the one hand, standing on

a soapbox saying we are not putting money into the fishing industry, and on the

other hand going to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and securing

government guaranteed loans, Mr. Chairman.

That is what is happening here in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as you read Item 1, and go on down to Item 2, you see where

expiry dates have been taken away.

You see where loan guarantees have gone, with Integrated Poultry Limited, from

$1 million up to $6 million with no expiry date.

When I see no expiry date I wonder how long this can be on the books.

How long are the taxpayers of this Province going to be on the hook to

Integrated Poultry Limited with no expiry date of that particular loan having to

be paid back?

You can go on now, Mr. Chairman, to another $6.5 million loan guarantee

to Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation.

This guarantee has no expiry date.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is a businessman here.

He knows he can't go to the bank and get a loan of money without having a

time frame to pay it back. Anybody

in this House who has gone and accessed money knows that you have to have a

commitment -

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of the time they want

it yesterday.

MR. FITZGERALD: Most of the time they want

it yesterday is right, or else, Mr. Chairman, somebody is going to have to pay a

price for it. I fear who will be

paying the price should they renege on this particular piece of legislation.

Then we come on down to Item 4, S.C.B. Fisheries Limited, a $2.6 million

loan guarantee, with no expiry date, no commitment at any time to pay back that

money.

Mr. Chairman, we come on down to the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative

Society Limited, which is one, I suppose, I could almost condone because of

where this particular business is carried on, and where there is not a lot of

competition, and where we have made great efforts in order to establish

processing. If there is an argument

to be made it would be made for the Labrador Coast.

When we look down at the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society

Limited we see an expiry date of May 31, 1998.

We go on to another loan guarantee for Smith Seafoods Limited.

A second extension has been provided to this company, another fish

company, a company that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture continues to

say is not financed any more, is not propped up any more, by government

assistance; another loan guarantee with no expiry date.

We go on, Mr. Chairman, to the top of page 4.

Section (

b) under Explanatory Notes talks about a $600,00 loan guarantee

to Earle Brothers Fisheries Limited, another fish processor in this Province.

Certainly you can't put forward the argument that it's located on an

island, you can't put forward an argument that if something should happen the

community would die; it is located in Carbonear.

With no expiry fate, another $600,000 loan guarantee.

Then, Mr. Chairman, on page 6 going onto page 7,

section 3, the Fogo

Island Co-operative Society Limited, a loan guarantee being extended from $1

million to $2 million with no expiry date.

What is going to happen tomorrow when we see a company from Gaultois

coming and visiting the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board?

What is going to happen tomorrow morning when we see the fish processor

down in Ramea going to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, when we see

the fish plant owner and the processor from Burgeo?

Three prime examples of three communities that exist only on fish

processing facilities in their own communities.

If there is any such meaning of the word isolated, then it certainly

would refer to those people here.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Labour if he has talked this piece

of legislation over with the people who own the fish plant down in Gaultois, or

if he has consulted Fishery Products International, which is the biggest

employer in his district. Has he

talked to them, who operate the fish plant down in Harbour Breton, if they agree

with this piece of legislation?

I ask the Government House Leader if he has talked to the manager of

Beothuck Fish Processors to see if they agree with this piece of legislation.

I ask him if he has, and I ask him if they agree with it.

MR. TULK:

Under the circumstances, yes, they do.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, I have talked

to some of those people as well. I

won't say who I talked with, but I will tell you one thing, they don't

appreciate what is happening here, especially when you see the same company

going out last year and paying $0.10 a pound more.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not doing it this

year.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not doing it this year!

They tell you they are not doing it.

What are you going to do if they do?

There is no expiry date on this piece of legislation.

What are you going to do if they go out and pay the extra $0.10 or $0.20

a pound being financed by the taxpayers of this Province?

They aren't going to do it because they told you they aren't going to do

it? You are not that simple-minded,

I say to the minister opposite. You

know full well that what you are talking about is incorrect, is silliness.

I ask the Member for Burin-Placentia West if she talked to the fish plant

owners down in Burin, Fortune, and Marystown, to see if they agreed with this

particular piece of legislation. The

Member for Burgeo & LaPoile: Has he

talked to the people in Burgeo to see if they agree with this.

The people in Ramea, the people in Gaultois:

I can assure you that they will not be putting forward this piece of

legislation as a good piece of legislation unless you treat everybody alike.

If we are going to get out of the fishing industry, if we are going to

get out of the pockets and off the backs of fishermen and fish processors, then

let's do it. Let's not be going out

and saying that we are not financing this industry any more, and then very

quietly sneaking in the back door to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board,

saying: We want a government

guaranteed loan. If you give

somebody a government guaranteed loan you are giving them a blank cheque, you

are giving them money, and you aren't out of the processing industry.

I have a real problem with this piece of legislation.

It is not a piece of legislation the people on this side of the House

will be supporting, Mr. Chairman. We

have seen fish plants springing up all over this Island in the past.

We have seen them propped up by government, we have seen taxpayers'

dollars spent. Then we have come

forward with a policy, after being in a moratorium for six years now, and we say

we are going to change all that. The

fishing industry in this Province is going to change, we are not going to be

putting taxpayers' dollars into this industry any more.

We will let the marketplace and the business sense of those businessmen -

because that is what they are - dictate whether that plant will survive or

whether it will go on. We have

overcapacity in the fishing industry and we have to reduce it.

Those are the words being echoed by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture wherever he goes, and they are words that are true.

Mr. Chairman, what we see happening here is not the message that the

minister is carrying across this Province, when we see government owned fish

plants put back into operation, when we see government owned fish plants that

have been closed since 1990 brought back into the fish processing industry

again; one in Lawn the other day, St. Lawrence last year, and the list goes on.

And the minister talks about giving the others back.

The people from Lawn deserve to have a job as well as everybody else.

The people down in St. Lawrence deserve to have a job.

It is nice to get their fish plant open.

I commend the people who went forward and tried to allow it to happen,

and I know they were happy when they received the decision.

But let's not say one thing, Mr. Chairman, and do something completely

the opposite.

You would think if we are going to take processing capacity out of the

industry today that we would start with the government owned plants, plants that

have been closed, Mr. Chairman,, plants that maybe should never have been built

in the first place. Mr. Chairman,

that is where we should start, that is where we should set the example and make

the example.

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly against this bill and I would suggest that

the Minister of Finance - and I have a funny feeling that this was a decision in

Cabinet that was split. I would

suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there was a little bit of a kerfuffle to get this

through Cabinet. I would suggest,

Mr. Chairman, that everybody in Cabinet - maybe the minister, maybe the Premier

had to step in on this particular one.

I can assure you that this piece of Legislation did not go through

Cabinet with unanimous approval from the very beginning.

It did not go through Cabinet with unanimous approval right from the very

beginning, Mr. Chairman. It was a

situation where people had to be convinced.

People had to be convinced in order to allow this to happen.

You talk about Cabinet solidarity!

That all happened at the end, I am sure of that.

In the beginning, all the way through, it was a difficult situation to

get this piece of legislation through; and rightly so, I say to the minister,

because you cannot have it both ways, minister.

I give you warning, if I am ever in your presence again and you stand and

business, I am going to remind you about Bill 11, where there are millions and

millions of dollars put into this industry, Mr. Chairman, with no expiry date,

no commitment to pay at any particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: It is wrong!

It is not a great speech, it is wrong!

Mr. Chairman, anybody who knows anything about the industry and anybody

who knows what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has been saying about

what the fishery of the future is going to look like, and the problems that we

have in the processing industry would say that this is a double take.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: What the minister is saying

and what is happening here is completely the opposite of the message that he is

taking around this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I would tell them that.

Absolutely! I am not saying -

I said before you came that I commend the member.

The member stood here the other day and spoke in favour of it and I

commend him for that. I would do the

same thing. I would probably be the

first one knocking on the Minister of Finance's door to try to get help for a

fish plant in my district, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that if he is going

to take a message carry the right message, tell the people what is happening.

Don't say one thing and come back here into this House, under the guise

of darkness and behind closed doors, to do something different.

That is what is happening here, Mr. Chairman.

We have picked out four or five fish plants, we have picked out another

couple of industries there, and we have propped them up with government

guaranteed loans. Millions of

dollars! Did away with the expiry

date, doubled the amount that they will owe the taxpayers of this Province, and

we say we are out of the business.

That is not the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I do not support this piece of legislation, Bill 11, and I

can assure you that it will not receive unanimous approval.

It will get passed.

Government members have the right to pass it.

They introduced the legislation and they have the numbers to put it

through. We are starting a very

dangerous precedent. We are starting

to get right back to where we were before, propping up industries in this

Province that then go out and compete unfairly with other processors.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will pass debate to another member.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few further comments on Bill No. 11.

I have said it before at length, I said to the ministers:

I do not agree with a bill that is in contravention to government policy.

Now, it is this government's policy - and the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture has said it before - not to prop up and subsidize fishing industries

when there is an overcapacity in the industry.

In Bill No. 11, the very government that has said its policy is not to

subsidize, turned around and gave a company that was paid more money last year

than anyone else, had $1 million guarantee and now they want $2 million this

year, a reward for doing that. So

what we are going to be doing - and it is not just this company and it is not

the location. That has nothing to do

with it. It is a basic, underlying

policy, and the government is going against its own policy.

Today out there, there is overcapacity.

Industries have to be able to survive on their own.

Then we have ten of millions of dollars, I believe, of government money

now gone in to SCB Fisheries Limited; another example.

It must be ten years since that started.

If you look at that, I bet it equals what went into Sprung Greenhouse, if

you go back and calculate it. SCB

Fisheries Limited has received, I

would say, as much money as Sprung Greenhouse when you look back.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Peckford's

proposal.

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not care who proposed

it. I am just making a statement and

I am saying to the Minister of Mines and Energy, I cannot see how the Minister

of Mines and Energy or anybody sitting in Cabinet now would support a bill that

is contravening government policy.

It contravenes your policy. I do not

know why the Premier would support a bill that is against his own government's

policy. I mean, it does not make

sense.

If that is the case, you go out - and the minister said:

There are no government guarantees, they are going to stand on their own.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said it before on many

occasions. I mean, to cut it off all

of a sudden, I can have some sympathy.

A gradual phasing out and say to them:

It must be phased out.

MR. EFFORD: It is.

MR. SULLIVAN: One million last year and $2

million this year is phasing it out?

I say to the minister: Minister, you

better go back to school and do your math over again.

Going from $1 million to $2 million is increasing it, increasing a

further dependency. If there was $1

million last year - I mean, you do not want to push a company out of business

right away if they have a guarantee.

You say to them: Look, you have to

get it down to 750 or 500 and we will phase it out in three years.

I mean that is giving them a little crutch to stand on until they are

self-sufficient. You cannot have

propping up industries. We have

spent in the tens of millions of dollars in this Province on guarantees and

companies then went under and we had to pick up the bill.

We have seen it. I have seen

it in my district, I have seen it all over the Province, and it happened with

government guaranteed loans.

If you have an industry that is getting off the ground and getting people

going but they do not have that capital there, they do not have the shareholder

equity in their companies, at times you have to realize that we are moving in

the wrong direction. We only move in

the direction in which it is politically wise to move - a contravention of our

own policy. The minister stood up

and articulated the policy time and time again over the last number of years,

back from the previous Premier right to this Premier and the government, and now

they do something that breaks their own policy.

I mean, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong.

It should have been addressed last year.

They should have sat down and dealt with them, to assist them to be

weaned off that support.

If I am out in business today and I go out and spend way more than

anybody else - I saw it in the community in which I live, in Fermeuse, in a

plant that is closed. They have not

had an operator in there to operate it, and $23 million or so in guarantees.

The people are paying a big price for that today for the simple reason -

and I say to the Premier - your government policy is, you have indicated, the

previous Premier and the minister have said it time and time again, that there

is overcapacity, we are not going to be supporting industry.

And a company went out last year, Premier, and paid more than anybody

else for crab, and this year they are back looking for a $2 million guarantee

instead of $1 million because they found out they could not make money, they had

problems and they need more money this year.

That is contrary to the policy of this government.

It is contrary to what the minister stated and what the government stated

and I, fundamentally, do not agree with it.

With a company that was there and had a guarantee in place, I do not

agree with cutting the legs out from under them right away.

You have to say: Here is a

period in which you can stand on your own two feet.

Let's gradually take away that crutch until you can operate.

If you can't do business and survive today in this Province without

government support there is something wrong.

It is not a public utility that needs to be regulated and protected.

It is not a public utility, it is a competitive marketplace out there

today. I have heard the arguments

that people use to support it and they are wrong.

There are people over there who agree with me.

There are many over there who agree with me; many, many people agree and

that is basically a concern.

Now I have put my points on record, and I agree with it, I fundamentally

agree with it. I don't care who it

happens to be, I don't care if it is

my father, my mother, my grandfather or someone's worst enemy.

I don't care who it is, principles are principles and policies are

policies. They should have a purpose

and we should not be able to deviate from that.

So it is important, I might add, that we follow our policy, that we do

what is right. There comes a time

when we have to get our nose out of business today.

We are interfering in the operation of business in the Province and it

will be the decimation, I can tell you - mark it down, this Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture will be responsible for setting back this industry in

the long-term in this Province. He

will eventually, if he is there too long more, I say to the Premier, destroy the

fishing industry in this Province.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend

The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957 , to

provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds

or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a

bill consequent thereto, carried.

Motion, clauses 1 through 6 inclusive, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."

(Bill No. 11)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without

amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is agreement among all parties that

we do an amendment to Bill No. 19, the Elections Act, and I believe the Premier

is going to propose that amendment.

CHAIR:

The Chair will revert to Order No. 11, "An Act To Amend The Elections

Act, 1991," Bill No. 19.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, just to speak very briefly on Bill 19, "An Act To Amend The

Elections Act, 1991," and that is to reference the fact that there has been, off

and on over the last year, consultation amongst all parties on cleaning up, in

essence, the Elections Act, that

that effort to consult amongst parties and the need to amend the act has really

been very much accelerated by communication from the Chief Electoral Officer to

me, and through me to members of the House, on the need to ensure that the act

is presented in such a way as to be beyond question in terms of legal challenge,

etcetera. Mr. Chairman, we put a proposal before the House, Bill 19, after

consultation with all parties.

There has been further consultation directly amongst the party leaders,

between myself, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New

Democratic Party. After further

consultation with respect to the question of fund-raising, as covered by the

Elections Act, there has now been agreement that we in this Province, in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with all party consent, should replicate,

in essence, the federal election act, and that is to put in place similar

measures for fund-raising and similar reporting mechanism and to depend upon

fundamentally the notion of transparency of reporting amongst all parties to

have an adequate system in place.

So after consultation with all parties in the House, I move that clause 6

of the bill is amended by deleting the proposed

section in it,

Section 294.1.

Mr. Chairman, I move that such an amendment be accepted as an all party

consensus of the House.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I second the motion and the amendment put forward by the Premier here.

He is right, there has been much discussion.

My background with the Elections Act began in 1991, when I was not a

member of the House but on the provincial executive of the party and was part of

the group behind the scenes that worked with the Chief Electoral Officer at the

time.

What eventually became the Elections Act that was passed in this House

left much to be desired in the opinion of this member.

I think that the act that we have before us today clears any confusion or

any unnecessary bureaucracy that was associated with the other act and sets

means in which political parties and candidates must operate.

There are three fundamental principles that are in this act and the

reason why I stand to support it: One, it is transparent; two, there is

accountability; and three, it demands, unequivocally, full disclosure of

activities by political parties, candidates and other entities.

For those reasons I support the amendment put forward, in terms of those

three fundamental principles. And I

think, from the Chief Electoral Officer's point of view, that once this act is

passed, proclaimed and made law the

governance of an election, and then the activities that each and every one of us

have to go through thereafter, will become a little more streamlined, again less

bureaucratic, but most importantly, always transparent, always accountable and

full disclosure.

With that I will take my seat.

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did make some comments last night about the proposed

section that we

are now agreeing to delete. I do not

take them back. The comments made

last night had to do with the limits as they were proposed, and I felt that they

were not designed to make our system more democratic but, in fact, were designed

to favour those who might be persuaded to meet those contribution limits for

particular parties, perhaps the governing party or incumbents, but not for

others.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment which reflects and mirrors the

federal act under which the New Democratic Party lives and agrees to, and in

some places thrives, and in other places hopes to thrive in the not too distant

future - we have accepted the way that the system works on the contribution

limits. The issue really is one of

whether or not a political party or political candidate is seen to be dominated

by one particular group of people or individuals or corporations based on open

and objective reporting.

With the system as it existed - and I make the comment generally about

the whole of the election act - there was quite a mishmash.

In order to find out what was going on in the last election you had to

have three separate documents and figure out which sections were in force and

which sections were not, particularly with respect to financial contributions

and other operations of the act. It

was a real dog's breakfast, and I welcome the cleaning up of these provisions.

With respect to the financial contributions section, I will limit myself

to that right now, and say that I am pleased we have been able to have further

consultation so that we do not have a piece of legislation that seems to be

directed at a particular group of people who can meet those contribution limits,

but in fact is basically

an act that leaves the matter, the same as the federal

act does, to the electorate in determining what the appropriate level of

contribution ought to be, in terms of support for a particular party.

I endorse the amendment introduced by the Premier with the consent of all

party leaders.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I close my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The

Elections Act, 1991." (Bill No. 19)

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 6 as amended, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendments,

carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee

of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me

to report Bill Nos. 20, 21, 22, 33, 30, 25, 31 and 24 passed without amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee

of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to

report Bill Nos. 28 and 19 passed with amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments to Bill Nos. 28 and 19 read a first and second

time, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for

Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee

of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to

report that they have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that a bill,

Bill No. 11, be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit

again.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And

Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of

the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain

corporations."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Speaker, I call first reading of Bill 11.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957,"

read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. TULK:

Mr. Speaker, Order No. 23, "An Act to Incorporate The Cruiseship

Authority." (Bill No. 32)

I would ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce

it.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship

Authority". (Bill No. 32)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MS KELLY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am

very pleased, actually, to speak to Bill No. 32, "An Act To Incorporate The

Cruiseship Authority".

This a fine example of a private/public partnership.

This industry, the cruise ship industry in our Province, has been moving

ahead in the last couple of years by leaps and bounds.

This is a new innovative way to have an authority put in place in which

all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be involved.

Of course we must commend the association as it stands right now for the

work they have done, in particular the City of St. John's and the port of St.

John's. Also included are Botwood, I

understand, St. Anthony, Corner Brook, and other communities.

Of course now this year we have very exciting things happening.

For instance, the Bonavista Matthew

will be launched on June 24. At that

very same time we will have a cruise ship in the port of Bonavista for four to

five days. That will greatly enhance

their economy this summer. This is a

new innovative plan. This industry

has great potential in our Province, but in particular we want to add value to

this industry.

We do not just want cruise ships arriving and their passengers coming in

for a few hours. While it is great

for the retailers and the craft industry, we want to enhance that.

We want to have cruise ships home port in here, using the hotels.

We want the cruise ships to be taking on more fuel, to be doing catering.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS KELLY:

No, we will not be blasting away the narrows, I do not think, but we have

many, many ports very close to St. John's, for instance in the CBS area, where

they can be accommodated. All of our

Province - the Labrador portion, around the coastline, and even inland

communities - benefit from this. For

instance, in Terra Nova last year when a huge German cruise ship was off the

shore in Terra Nova, they came into the park, but they came inla