The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery, Mr. Gordon Gibson, the former Leader of the Liberal Party of British Columbia and a member of the Legislature of that province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, an internationally recognized day to heighten AIDS awareness. The theme of World AIDS Day is "Families - Take Care, an appropriate message given the reality of AIDS in the 90s. AIDS is now a global phenomenon and we are all at risk no matter what our age or race or gender or what community we live in. Newfoundlanders along with people throughout the world are struggling to come to grips with this fact. It is only through the collaboration and consultation of many different groups and individuals in the community, that we can face the realities of HIV/ AIDS, develop a greater understanding of the disease and identify the needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS in the community.

One year ago today, the Department of Health introduced a comprehensive HIV/AIDS strategy with the following components: prevention and education; testing and treatment and care and home support. This strategy was the result of collaboration amongst numerous groups and individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to update hon. members on the activities that are ongoing with respect to HIV/AIDS throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Many of the recommendations contained in the strategy are concerned with the dissemination of HIV/AIDS information to mass audiences and to specific targeted groups. I am pleased to report that this initiative has been undertaken in all regions of the Province. Literature on HIV/AIDS has been developed and this information is accessible. Some radio and newspaper ads have also been developed.

Staff of the various community health agencies have undertaken a number of projects to broaden the understanding of HIV/AIDS, including awareness of the needs of persons living with the disease. These projects include such things as education sessions and workshops for care givers, health professionals, teachers, students, youth groups, women's groups, parents, employers and employees and residents and staff of group homes just to name a few. As well, AIDS education is currently incorporated in the Junior High School curricula.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to report today that anonymous testing for HIV is available throughout most of the Province and that pre and post test counselling services are provide.

The department is also working towards assessing the home care needs of persons living with AIDS. A number of AIDS support groups have been established throughout the Province to fulfil some of these needs.

A great deal has been accomplished in the past year. This is not to say, however, that every recommendation contained in the strategy has been fully and completely implemented. The initiatives outlined in the strategy are ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the point that consultation, collaboration and action are required at the community level. HIV and AIDS are no longer characterized by anonymous faces living in distant centres. The Departments of Health and Education together with various community agencies and the general public are doing a great deal to emphasize these and other facts about AIDS. The continued cooperation of the community is essential to fulfil the mandate of the HIV/AIDS strategy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While it is easy to applaud and praise the government for taking some action here in this area, I caution the minister too that we can never do too much for the prevention of AIDS and HIV in this Province. We've seen 3 million new cases of AIDS this year, 1 million cases in North America, and 17 million in the world today.

Over the past number of years we've seen seventeen people in this Province infected with AIDS and HIV through transfusions. This Province at the time did not show the compassion and the concern that was needed to enable those people to be able to live the rest of their lives in some dignity and care for their families. I caution the government to accelerate in any way possible methods to be able to send the message out on prevention of AIDS, because prevention is of utmost importance. Today, with the rapidly increasing number of AIDS cases, it is far from under control. In fact, the cases are increasing at a very alarming rate. I would caution the minister and urge him, and through the agencies of government and community health boards, to accelerate in the fastest possible method the prevention and the information that is getting out to the public and to make sure that the public is fully aware.

I have to compliment him on what has happened to date in terms of promotion, but they lacked the compassion in the past, and I urge them not to make the same mistake again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to inform the House that I will be withdrawing Bill 48, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act", which would enable the Director of Motor Registration to refuse anybody a driver's license with unpaid school taxes. The reason for withdrawing this bill, Mr. Speaker, is because there was an omission there. We were suppose to also put in the bill that anybody who did not pay child support was to be refused a driver's license, so that is an omission from the bill that I will be bringing back at a later date with the inclusion of enabling enforcement agencies to collect child support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted that the minister has finally backwatered on something. There are other bills that he is trying to put through that should also be backwatered. He talked about an omission. Well, the minister is an omission and I urge our Premier to have a long talk with that boy.

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House we had a startling admission by the Minister of Finance. The minister admitted that he deliberately withheld a critical legal opinion dealing with the Trans City contracts from the full Cabinet, even though the Cabinet at a meeting on October 22 had asked for further consideration of this matter, and for further information.

Now, the document made public yesterday was perhaps the most damaging document in this entire messy scandal. Also, yesterday, the Premier stated in the House that he not seen, nor had he been briefed on the legal opinion, and that the information had been kept from him.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance what possible right did he have to withhold any information from the Cabinet, and from the Premier, let alone information that Cabinet wanted, and in fact needed in order to make a very important and controversial decision?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all let me say that it would take quite a bit of time to deal with the preamble by the member. Suffice it to say that I am not so sure there is anything in his preamble that is true. It is probably his interpretation of something that happened.

Mr. Speaker, I explained the process in a statement in some detail, a legal opinion was sought, obtained and examined by the committee. The points brought out in the legal opinion were taken into account and I explained to the hon. gentleman that these points were considered by Cabinet as well as some other information concerning the projects getting started, the delay, the increased costs by delay. And on balance, Cabinet decided that we should now proceed with these projects, however, giving certain direction that if the process were tried again, some things would be done differently to handle the perception problem. Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, considered all information in making its decision. So what the hon. gentleman is saying is totally untrue.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to get his story straight and their acts straight over there. Yesterday, he told this House that he did not provide this paper to the full Cabinet. Now, did he or did he not provide the paper to the full Cabinet? that is the question.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is using one of his usual tactics. He is taking - and it is understandable, I suppose, he has to try to mislead, but it is my duty to correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance cannot accuse another member of purposely misleading the House.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw anything that is unparliamentary, thank you.

He is making a misstatement, mis-connection in this affair. First of all, I indicated that the paper, the memo - I ask the hon. gentleman to listen if he wants the answer - the memo with my signature on it was not presented to Cabinet. Now, all of a sudden, he is taking that to mean that some other documentation was not available to Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is honest, goes back and looks at what was said, he will realize that is what - the discussion at the time was about a memo that was dealt with internally in the committee and had nothing to do with the pluses and minuses of going ahead with the contract. Cabinet was fully aware of the pluses and minuses, and on balance, made a decision to save this Province one heck of a lot of money, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: - and created jobs at a time when jobs were desperately needed. So, Mr. Speaker, Cabinet made a decision and that is all I can say about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am not finished yet.

Cabinet, at the time, made a decision based on all of that evidence, and there was no essential evidence withheld from Cabinet in that process.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is even more surprising than I thought it was. The minister now is trying to wiggle out of what he told the House yesterday. He told the House yesterday, the members of the full Cabinet didn't have access to this document at all.

I asked the Premier in the House yesterday, was he aware of the contents of this document, and he says he was not. Now, I ask the Premier: Which is it? Were you aware of the contents pointed out in this document, or were you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am asking the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I am not finished yet, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will take it one question at a time.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, one question at a time.

To the Premier: Was he or was he not aware of the contents of this document? That is the question.

MR. TOBIN: Get your lies straight.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West can't tell the government to get its lies straight. I ask the member to withdraw the statement.

MR. TOBIN: I didn't get your ruling, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the ruling is, it is unparliamentary to tell any other member to get their lies straight, so I ask the member to withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: I withdraw that.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will explain it once again so that the hon. member is aware of what he is asking, and then perhaps other hon. members can think about this.

I indicated yesterday, in a statement to this House, that a memo prepared for consideration by the committee was not presented to Cabinet. Therefore, the memo was not presented to Cabinet.

In the hon. member's question, he mentioned a legal opinion, and he referred specifically to a legal opinion, which is a totally different document, so let's not confuse the two.

I have indicated that the original memo was not presented to Cabinet, that in my presentation to Cabinet I presented a recommendation that we proceed, after explaining the pluses and the minuses and so on with relation to this proposal. That is exactly the way it was done. Therefore, all that information, the information itself, was made available to Cabinet, and Cabinet ultimately made a decision.

I will stand by what I said before. That particular document he refers to, which was a memo that was dealt with by the committee, did not get presented to Cabinet - absolutely.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is having such a difficult time getting us to understand this, perhaps he can answer this question: If all the information contained in this appendix to 91-91 - it is listed as an appendix to a Cabinet paper - if all the information contained in this was verbally reported to the Cabinet, why didn't he just simply give them the document?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think I explained that in some detail yesterday. This was prepared and signed for consideration by the committee of Cabinet. The committee of Cabinet did in fact make a recommendation to Cabinet. It wasn't that one. There was a different piece of paper and a different summary presented to Cabinet and Cabinet made a decision on balance, taking all of the pluses and minuses into account. It is just that that particular document itself was not presented to Cabinet because that was not the view of the committee.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to get the answer straight, did the minister or did he not tell the Premier, did he tell the full Cabinet, every point that was made in this appendix that was made public in the last day or so? Was the Premier made aware, by the minister and by the committee, of all the points contained in here? Is that what he is saying?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet, in its discussion, was made aware of the pluses and minuses - the minuses being the perception problem as pointed out in the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) said you had never heard (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Cabinet was made fully aware of all the pluses and minuses of this particular proposal and made a decision on balance based on the recommendation of the committee. That is the way that it happened. I'm assuming that people who were in Cabinet at the time understood the pluses and minuses before a decision was made. It is as simple as that. I would again, Mr. Speaker, take the opportunity to point out that we got three high-quality buildings at a cost much lower than we could have done it ourselves. We got the work started quickly, providing much needed jobs at the time, and we ended up with a financial deal that was in the best interests of this Province - that is what we ended up with.

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

MR. SIMMS: We will debate that on another day, because there are a lot of minuses contained in here, including the fact it was going to cost the people of this Province millions of dollars more - he showed me that yesterday - and including the fact that they were verging on breaking the law, that they were not acting within the spirit of the public tender act. All of those legal things are contained in his own document.

I want to get back to the Premier. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board tells us here today that he told the Premier of all of the points contained in this document back in October 1991. He told the Premier and the Premier was made aware of it. Yesterday in this House the Premier said in response to a question asked by me, on page 2641 of Hansard: "Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection specifically of anything that is in that" - in that document. Can the Premier tell us why he made that statement yesterday in view of what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board just told us today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the answer I gave yesterday. The first time I saw that document was the day before yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, that is the answer I gave in the House. I will read the whole answer so there won't be any doubt: "Mr. Speaker, I know that the answers that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has given are not what the hon. members opposite want. I know they are not what they want. I know it disturbs them that it does not lay a foundation to allow them to make their unfounded allegations they have been making. I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I know that it does not suit the Opposition, but it happens to be the full and total information, and I have total confidence in the Minister of Finance, unrestrained, total confidence, that he is telling this House exactly what he knows and exactly what he did. I have no quarrel with..." that.

"Now, Mr. Speaker, I just indicated from my seat without formally addressing the House that I saw that document for the first time yesterday..." - now that would be the day... saw that document for the first time - "and that happens to be the truth. The Minister of Finance told me he found this document and he brought it to me to show me, and the obvious decision was that it had to be made available to the court process immediately so I think it was made available within hours. It was made available immediately, so, Mr. Speaker, the correct and proper procedures were taken, and I commend the minister for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection specifically of anything that is in that. I have never seen that document before until yesterday." Now, I have never seen anything that is in that document before until yesterday. "Now, whether or not any individual statement that is in it was brought to the attention of Cabinet at the time, I do not specifically recall, but I am quite prepared to take a look at the document and see." Now, that is completely consistent with what the minister just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The question I asked the Premier - since he is referring to the same Hansard - just before he gave the answer, was this, my question to him: Did anybody tell him about any of the concerns outlined in this Cabinet paper or not? Was he aware of any of that?

When he got through all the mumbo-jumbo, the real answer was in that last paragraph when he said: "I have no recollection specifically of anything that is in that."

He either told the truth yesterday, or he isn't telling the truth today; which is it? Can he tell us, which is the truth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me read it again, just so hon. members know what the member is trying to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Here is the answer that was given yesterday, and it was the answer the day before, and it is the answer again today. It simply says this to his specific question: "Now, whether or not any individual statement that is in it was brought to the attention of Cabinet at the time, I do not specifically recall, but I am quite prepared to take a look at the document and see. All I know is that Cabinet dealt with the issues as they were brought to Cabinet and Cabinet made its decision."

Now, that is exactly what the minister said, and the member can try to make something totally different of it if he wishes, but I am sorry that he can't succeed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is a master at verbal trickery. I know that; we all know it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask him this. In view of his answer that he just repeated there a second ago, that he read from Hansard - he read it himself: I am quite prepared to take a look at the document and see if I can recall if the Minister of Finance made me aware of all of these points.

Let me ask him, now that he has had a chance to see the document: Is he and was he aware of all of these points? Can he answer the question today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn't have the document?

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

MR. SIMMS: The question is: Did he look at it and see if, in fact, he was made aware of these concerns? Can he answer the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the whole thing was discussed in this general context and, as the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has said, the matters generally were brought to the attention of Cabinet. I can't look at any one individual item and say: Yes, I specifically recall that; no, I don't specifically recall something else. I have no quarrel with the answer that the Minister of Finance just gave, I think it is accurate. Whatever he says was discussed with Cabinet at the time, I can't quarrel with it, but I don't remember each one item specifically.

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

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, was the Premier aware that there was a good possibility of legal action by unsuccessful bidders as a result of the lack of information given in the tender process? Was he aware of that before Cabinet made the decision to approve the contract?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose disgruntled or dissatisfied bidders can always try to find some basis for making a claim, and that is a possibility, but I don't specifically recall it in relation to this contract. It may have been there or it may not but I don't at this moment remember specifically that, no.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, was the Premier aware that it would be quite clear, if we award to Trans City Holdings we would not be acting within the spirit of the Public Tender Act?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, was he aware, that our decision will be difficult to defend in the House of Assembly and the Public Accounts Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we were aware that proceeding the way we were was in the best interest of the people of this Province and we are quite proud of having done it. We are not defending it! We would do it again tomorrow because it is the right thing to do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I will give the member a proposition, I will put in place an inquiry of competent people to judge this whole thing and determine whether or not we served the public interest, and if they determine we did not, he will have my resignation the next day. If they determine we did, we will have his the next day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is what I asked him to do yesterday and he would not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Let me answer the Premier this way: I accept your challenge, Sir, I accept it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And I look forward to the Premier tabling the terms of reference in this House as quickly as possible for the public inquiry related to the political interference and political involvement of his government in the awarding of these contracts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, what I said was - I will repeat it: I will put in place an inquiry of two, three, four or five competent people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like the same courtesy extended on both sides of the House so I can hear questions and answers, thank you.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I said was - and I will repeat it: I will put in place an inquiry of two, three, four or five, whatever is the appropriate number, of competent people -

MS. VERGE: We are not going to trust you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will put in place an inquiry of competent people to determine - and we will look at my original words in Hansard - whether or not the public interest of this Province was best served by our following this process, and if it was not, the Province will have my resignation the next day, but if it was, I will ask for the Leader of the Opposition's the next day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I say to the Premier is, if he will put in place a full public independent inquiry with the terms of reference and the commissioners to be approved by both he and I, and that this inquiry will look into the interference and involvement of the government in the awarding of this contract to reward its Liberal friends, then I will resign if I am proven wrong!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that carries with it the inference that there was political interference when there was none. It was done in the public interest of the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: When I have order I will recognize the hon. Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier too.

Why hasn't the Premier dropped the Member for Naskaupi from his Cabinet?

Doesn't the Premier realize the citizens of the Province perceive the member's substantial personal, financial involvement in Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited, as being in gross conflict with his having a seat at the Cabinet table? Why has not the Premier done what any other First Minister in Canada would have done long ago and dismiss the member from his Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the hon. member does not know the difference.

Now, as nearly as I know, I am not prejudging, but as nearly as I know and as nearly as I can determine, the minister had nothing whatsoever to do with this matter personally, absolutely nothing. Now I am not prepared to presume that he did. Nobody has complained about any performance of his duties as minister or as Attorney General. None has complained about the performance of his duties as minister or Attorney General.

Some character in Ontario, was carrying on some activity that the police were investigating. It happened to involve some interaction with a company that the minister owns but in respect of which he has no direct involvement in direction, that the minister has an ownership interest along with others.

Now, Mr. Speaker, technically, technically, I did not have to ask the minister for his resignation anyway because there was no personal involvement on his part, but he said to me: it is not appropriate that I should be directing the police forces of this Province and acting as Attorney General if there is a prospect that a company, in respect of which I have some ownership, even though I have no knowledge of anything, I have not done anything, I have not failed to do anything, it may be the subject of a police investigation. He and I readily agreed, I shared his opinion totally and I accepted, not his resignation, I agreed that he would stand aside as Minister of Justice and Attorney General, I would discharge the responsibilities in the meantime.

Now for members Opposite to carry on this kind of personal, vitriolic witch-hunt is inexcusable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

More questions for the Premier.

Isn't it inexcusable that he has had in his Cabinet, a member who has a very large, personal, financial stake in Pharmaceutical Supplies Limited and related companies; a financial interest that is shown in public documents in the Registry of Companies, isn't it inexcusable that that company, while the member has been sitting in the Premier's Cabinet room, has been selling millions of dollars of goods every year to government hospitals and nursing homes? Isn't that an unacceptable conflict of interest, and to top it all off, isn't it now inexcusable that the Premier keeps in his Cabinet this same member who is now suspected of having profited from a national drug scam involving an Ontario drug dealer, who is the subject of a police investigation? If those aren't grounds for dismissal from Cabinet, whatever would be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have a conflict of interest statute that provides for full and complete disclosure by members and their spouses of all of their business interests, to ensure that all would be made aware. It is completely consistent with the national, it is completely consistent with other conflicts of interest; it requires members and their spouses to fully disclose. That member and his spouse have fully disclosed. They have performed properly; none of them can be said to have acted improperly in any way or to have failed to disclose. Other members in this House have not so performed, and for that member opposite to stand and make those allegations - well - I'll sit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Member for Humber East, distinctly said that I am suspected of some criminal activity. I say: a) that it is an infringement of my privileges; b) I deny it categorically, absolutely and tell her it is a despicable suggestion and c) I ask Your Honour to order her to withdraw it or substantiate it.

MR. SPEAKER: I will rule on the matter later.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to give a quick contribution to the point of privilege.

It is clearly not a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A prima facie case has not been established and all the rest of the references in Beauchesne, but I think Your Honour will want to read Hansard before he jumps to any quick conclusion.

MR. SPEAKER: I will read Hansard and take it from there on the hon. member's submission.

The hon. the Member for Humber East on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly stand by what I said. I have some more questions for the Premier though. The Premier who is now Minister of Justice and Attorney General for the Province has been asked twice to cause a police investigation into the activities of the Member for Naskaupi. I made a request last Friday morning and the Member for St. John's East made a request yesterday afternoon. Has the Premier referred these requests to the Director of Public Prosecutions, or to the police, and if not, why not?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I invite the member to refer anything she wants to the police. Go to the police now. I will call and make an appointment for you to see the Director of Public Prosecutions. Please go and see them now. Report anything you want. Ask them to investigate anything you want, but for heaven sake, have some personal respect for your fellow members in this House, have some sense of decency rather than to castigate people for your own political motives. That is a disgusting and despicable performance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Yesterday in the House of Commons the Minister of Natural Resources reaffirmed the Government of Canada's decision when the federal minister said she would ensure that the work being tendered for from Marystown would be put on public tender. This morning's news report states that a decision as to what will happen to the work will be made by the Hibernia partners and not necessarily by the management team.

I would like to ask the Premier, in light of these revelations by the federal minister to ensure that it would go to public tender, has he written to the partners who were going to make the decision rather than the management board as has been stated, has he written to the partners and if not will he write them and ask that the work be left in Marystown? Mr. Speaker, let me also ask the Premier if he will immediately, because of what has taken place, cause some sort of stop order for loading that barge to be put in place until such time as the decisions are all clued up between the federal government, the provinces, and HMDC?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge the companies will be providing their answer either later today or tomorrow. I expect to hear from them later today or tomorrow, as to what their position is on the matter, and I expect they will make it public within that time. I have not written the individual owner companies nor do I intend to write the individual member companies.

The position that government has taken has been made clear for the last two or three weeks during Question Period in this House and in other places, and there has been nothing happened to change that. The only thing that has happened is that MIL Davie has expressed dis-satisfaction that it did not have a chance to bid and as a result of that it complained to the C-NOPB - and I do not immediately share their view on this - felt that there should have been an opportunity given to MIL Davie to bid. I disagree. If there should have been an opportunity given to MIL Davie to bid there was no reason to take it out of Marystown in the first place.

MR. TOBIN: What did the Prime Minister say?

PREMIER WELLS: I know what the Prime Minister said. I am very much aware of what the Prime Minister said and he is not happy that it happened that way. I can understand his unhappiness, can understand his comment that MIL Davie and Marystown were the only two bidders, but they went instead to St. John. HMDC went to Saint John because they felt that was the place where they could have the work done in time, and it felt it could not be done at Marystown or MIL Davie or anywhere else.

Now, I do not quarrel with the right to make that decision. I believe it could have been done in Marystown and I have told the hon. members opposite before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table six copies of some pre-commitments totalling about $62 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, for the Farm Development Loan Board of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to table the annual reports of the Fisheries Loan Boards, fiscal years 1992-'93 and 1993-'94. In tabling these reports I should offer to this hon. Chamber the following comments: Section 17 of the Fisheries Loan Act requires the board to submit its annual report, including audited financial statements, to the minister no later than August 31 of each year, and also requires that the report be tabled in the House of Assembly within fifteen days after it is submitted to the minister if the House is in session. If the House is not in session then it is to be tabled within fifteen days after commencement of the next ensuing session.

Now the problem with the 1992-'93 reports not being tabled before stems from the fact that the Auditor General did not provide the board with audited financial statements until February 25, 1994.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I believe it was during Question Period, I indicated to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I would obtain copies of a legal opinion and table it, and I would like to do so now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and present a petition on behalf of 100 constituents of mine from the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. The prayer of the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned, do hereby request the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to immediately provide emergency funding to generate desperately needed employment in our communities, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of the constituents, because over the past month or so I received several calls from people who are in desperate need of some type of help from this government, and they are looking for anything that this government can do.

I am very pleased that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is in Halifax again today, doing his duty as minister to find employment for the people of this Province, and I hope that he comes back with more fruitful answers from this meeting than he did from his previous meeting in Ottawa last week.

When I look at the way that government spends money, I question why they cannot come up with some desperately needed funds for job creation. Mr. Speaker, when I look back over the last year-and-a-half, and $7 million having been spent on trying to privatize Newfoundland Hydro, it begs a question of where the priorities of this government are.

When I look back, and look at over $1 million being spent on trying to put together the ISP program, as most Newfoundlanders call it, the incredibly stupid program. Over $1 million was spent on that program, trying to put it together, all it did was give the federal government ways to do what they like with the social programs in this Province.

When I look and see that dollars are spent, and I answer my phones every day over the past number of weeks and people are calling, looking for work, I beg the question of where the priorities are of this government.

Mr. Speaker, people in this Province now, a fair number of the people in this Province, have been fortunate enough to be part of this NCARP or TAGS program, and even as I speak of that people are getting letters in the mail every day telling them that they are going to be cut off that the last of December. The word was first that it was going to be 3,000. I believe, from the calls I am getting in my office, that could reach 5,000 to 6,000 people who will lose their TAGS.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are calling me are people who have not been part of TAGS or NCARP. The people who are calling me are people who have been left out in the cold, who enjoyed indirect jobs in our rural communities due to the fishery, such as people who worked in the stores and worked in other spin-off industries from the fishery. These are the people who are calling me. People who have not enjoyed a decent day's work or who have brought home a decent week's wage in the past couple of years. These people now for the first time in their lives have had to resort to social assistance. These people are the people who are signing these petitions and are looking for some help from this government. Indeed I hope that something will be forthcoming.

Today marks December 1. Only a few more weeks and we will be into the Christmas season. These people, along with many more I'm sure, in every district in this Province, and I'm sure there are members opposite who are getting petitions - maybe not getting petitions, but they are certainly getting calls concerning some type of emergency employment.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - because there are several times when I go out throughout my district people ask me: Where is John Efford these days? We never hear tell of him. He is gone. He used to be the man who used to stand up, the champion of the little guy. Where is he now? I say, he was bought out too, Mr. Speaker. They say: He is not the minister, he is the monster of Works, Services and Transportation. I'm sure there are people in Port de Grave District who are looking for an emergency employment generation program. The minister can tell me otherwise but I am sure there are. We have received calls from Port de Grave District about people looking for emergency response work. They know that it is no good calling the hon. member opposite.

I say that from what I can gather the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has brought to Cabinet a request for funding for an emergency employment generation program and he cannot get his Cabinet buddies to go along with his request. This is the problem that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is having. I say the next time that he lays a Cabinet document on the table looking for money to provide emergency employment for the people of this Province I hope that his Cabinet colleagues show a bit of compassion and a bit of concern for the people who are out in this Province, left out in the cold, I say, indirectly because of the shutdown of the fishery in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity. In my closing remarks I would just like to say that I hope that this government comes up with some money so that these people will enjoy Christmas a little bit better than they have enjoyed the past couple of months. Because these people, their backs are to the wall, and it is time that this government woke up and smelled the roses. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past two weeks in this House I have asked questions of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations dealing specifically with the employment emergency program. The question that comes to mind the most was why has government this year refused thus far to deal with the impending crisis and an immediate crisis that many people and families are facing, when over the past three to four years government has come to the aid of many Newfoundlanders.

For example, the former minister, who obviously had some clout, more clout than the present minister, I believe, announced: I am pleased to announce government's employment initiative based on the major premise that our people are our most valued resource. Today I'm announcing a two-fold strategy. The second component is designed to provide immediate labour-intensive job creation programs to maximize the weeks of work for unemployment insurance qualifications for the coming year. Thirteen point five million dollar program announced in 1991 when the unemployment rate in this Province was 18.2 per cent.

What do we see today? For the past six months the unemployment rate has consistently risen where it is almost 21 per cent, which does not include those people who are on TAGS program. If it were the unemployment rate would be close to 30 per cent. However, the unemployment rate - and many Newfoundlanders for the first time in their lives will end up on social services. Yet government in 1991 could produce a $13.5 million program when the need was not as great, but today they cannot produce it.

What about the minister who has gone to Halifax to meet with the federal Minister of Human Resources? I hope that he comes back successful, I hope that he gets some federal funding. But he and this government must understand that it is a provincial responsibility. They have said that they will not proceed on a stand-alone basis but they must proceed. Whatever basis they wish to proceed on, it must be done, and it must be done now.

When we talk about if a program will be announced next week or the week after, many people have already fallen through the cracks because of government's lack and inability to deal immediately with this crisis. The minister has stood up on many occasions and said that he, too, understands, that he, too, has received many calls, that he has gotten more calls than all of us, because he is the minister. Then the question must be asked of everyone who sits in the Cabinet, why did they not support this minister when he presented Cabinet papers dealing with the emergency employment program?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the former Minister of Justice, I am not full of nonsense, and he knows full well that what I am saying is dead on and correct.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with this, that I urge government - I have many, many constituents who phone me. I have a list of 195 people who are in desperate need today, who need two, three and four weeks work and I urge the government to act, and act now. Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A couple of comments with respect to this petition which has been repeated now for several days at least. One of the difficulties, Mr. Speaker, that the government has in listening to and then attempting to respond to the members opposite is the fact that even though we really believe they are sincere about the issue they bring forward on behalf of people who would prefer to be working rather than not working - the difficulty is, Mr. Speaker, that time after time they can't resist getting up and doing as they usually do, even in a serious matter such as this, trying to make some political points rather than to just deal with the merits of the issue. We find it very difficult to deal with it on the merits of the case and the basis -

The minister is trying very hard, as members opposite know, but then when he does make a trip to Ottawa or Halifax to try to get some better solutions than we have had in the past - because we have done some stop gap things that everybody recognizes is not the solution - then they get up and say, `Well, he shouldn't be running off to Ottawa. He shouldn't be going to Halifax, and so on, he should be doing something about it.' If he didn't go, Mr. Speaker, the very same people would be up saying, `Why isn't the minister in Ottawa trying to get some help with this? Why isn't he over in Halifax meeting with the federal minister?' We have seen too much of it in the past, Mr. Speaker. The other point, even today -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay has - I didn't hear him the first time but I have heard him several times, accusing the hon. minister of lying. He must withdraw. Does the hon. member withdraw? Does the hon. member withdraw? The language is clearly unparliamentary.

MR. SHELLEY: Can I comment on that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. ROBERTS: You certainly cannot.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the member has to withdraw.

MR. SHELLEY: I did not ask you, I asked the Speaker. Am I allowed to comment on that, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No, the member has to either withdraw or not withdraw the remark. You are not allowed to say that another member is lying.

MR. SHELLEY: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated today, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) definitely heard the hon. gentleman, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay just say, `He's lying,' referring, obviously, to the minister. Mr. Speaker, I draw it to Your Honour's attention and ask you to take whatever action you think is appropriate. We are not going to have this kind of conduct from even the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't hear what the hon. member said but I have already given a direction to hon. members on many other occasions that it is unparliamentary, clearly, to accuse any other member of lying, and any member who uses the expression must withdraw it or face whatever remedy the House thinks appropriate.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By way of example again, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes today in presenting the petition did not - I understand he also took the point again rather than just deal with the merits of the case, Mr. Speaker. He had to deal with the references of expenditures of other monies by the government, that whether they were spent on the items that he mentioned or not would never be spent on this program. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that they are more interested in trying to get political brownie points in some instances than dealing with the issues. It is clear that these particular members - maybe they should have consulted with some of the members in the front benches who were in a Cabinet before, because they obviously have never run a government and would know that regardless of the monies that were spent out of those other Budget Heads, whether they were spent in the amounts that were there or not, they never would have been available for an Emergency Response Program or a Job Creation Program. And they do know the difference, Mr. Speaker - or, if they don't, they should know the difference, and it is the points that they make.

The last point, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the petition - the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes again today, did his usual thing. He ridiculed and pooh-poohed the government's efforts of a year or so ago which are continuing, to bring in an Income Supplementation Program, and I leave with just this comment: that if we had an Income Supplementation Program in place, these petitions and this debate would not be necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call the first Order, I wonder if we might attend to one matter of business that has been discussed behind the Chair.

Next Wednesday afternoon, which is December 7, if memory serves me correctly, the Prime Minister will be here in St. John's, and I understand that at 2:30 that afternoon he is to take part in a ceremony of some nature, which I believe is to be held at Hotel Newfoundland, in fact, to deal with the -

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear my friend, the Member for Placentia; I always anxious -

MR. CAREEN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: He doesn't make any sense, and that is usual - but I don't hear him, and that is unusual.

Anyway, Your Honour, what I am saying is, the Prime Minister will be here and there will be a ceremony to which I understand, all members of the House of Assembly will be invited, and I raised the matter with my friend, the Member for Ferryland, who is the Acting House Leader on the other side, and suggested that perhaps the House might wish to sit late that afternoon, not meet until say, four o'clock, so as to give members a chance to attend this ceremony.

His suggestion, which we are prepared to accept, is that the House not sit next Wednesday, that we adjourn on Tuesday until Thursday, and I just raise that now, a) so that we can get consent, if there is consent to be had and, b) so that members can arrange their own schedules accordingly. If that is agreeable, Your Honour, from our side, we shall proceed on that basis, but I will leave it to my friend, the Member for Ferryland to speak for his side; he is nodding acquiescence but I don't know if he wants to say anything or not.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just trying to follow the rules of Parliamentary procedure and not stand to speak when the Government House Leader was speaking.

Yes, I did make a suggestion on behalf of this side of the House, the members in our caucus, that we would not sit on Wednesday, because, at this time of the year and with many commitments, and members having commitments into the evening next Wednesday and we didn't anticipate that, to come back at 4:00 p.m. would be impractical for us, so I suggested that we not sit on Wednesday and resume normal business then on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker, that is in agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. I would like to put it in the form of a motion so we have something clear on the record if -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) good enough to take it as motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. It has been moved and seconded that the House not meet on next Wednesday, December 7, 1994.

All in favour of the motion, `aye'?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay'?

Did somebody say, `nay'?

I just asked because I am not sure; it may be that it has to be unanimous but - I take it, it is unanimous, if no one is dissenting?

Motion, unanimously carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask in a moment that we call Order 22, which is the adjourned, second reading debate on Bill 41.

We will then give my friend, the Member for St. George's, who is not in the Chamber - but somebody I hope will go to find him because we will not be very long on Bill 41 - we will give him a chance to shine by addressing, if we may, Your Honour, Orders 14 and then 17, both of which stand in the name of my friend, the Member for St. George's, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I assume he will be in the House; if not, he may find one of his colleagues addressing the bill in his place. We will then, depending on how we get on, Your Honour - because the debate ends at 4:30 p.m. today, this is the Late Show day -

I welcome my friend, the Member for St. George's back to his seat in the House, it is always pleasant to have him here.

I am open to suggestion, we will either deal then, Your Honour, with Order 16 or with Order 20 as members may be inclined at that time, but let's get on with Order 22 and then we will go on with Orders 14 and 17 and we will see by then where we are. My friend, the Member for Ferryland and I will have spoken behind Your Honour's Chair to deal with that.

One other thing, may I advise members that on Tuesday, we shall be calling for debate, the EDGE corporation bill, that is Bill 51, which is now in the hands of members. We will be calling that for second reading debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Are you talking to me, about me, or at me?

Your Honour, what I am advising the House is that on Tuesday next we will be calling, as the first order of government business, the EDGE corporation bill, and members can prepare themselves to deal with that.

With that said, Sir, if you would be good enough to call Order 22, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Government House Leader be presenting the bill on second reading?

MR. ROBERTS: No, I was concluding the debate, Sir. The debate has been held and I believe the record will show, I adjourned debate to conclude second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 22.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will not be terribly long. In fact, if there isn't a little less hubbub, I will just have to go on. I can shout but it doesn't help anybody, including me.

Your Honour, I want to thank members for the support. There was support, I believe, on all sides of the House, the one on this side, the one on the other side, and the Opposition on the other side. There were two or three points that members raised which I would like to address, to answer them. A number of members made a point about the effect of the committee's call. The Social Policy Committee, the committee chaired by my friend, the Member for Trinity North, has placed an advertisement in newspapers in the Province asking if anybody wishes to come and be heard on this Advance Health Care bill.

The notice calls for responses to be in by December 16. I have had a word with the Chair who subsequently was able to instruct the Clerk to change the deadline for notice to December 14, which is ample time for people to send in word if they want to come and be heard. We will not call the bill at Committee stage before the 14th has come, to see if anybody wants to be heard. If nobody wants to be heard, that is one situation, we will address it, and if people do want to be heard, then we will address that situation, too. But we will not call the bill at Committee stage until we have been able to hear whether or not people want to be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is closing the bill and I don't want to delay it, but I have been thinking about this since we had our discussion here on Tuesday. As the minister obviously could tell from my comments, I feel very seriously for this bill. One question arose in my mind - maybe the minister can give me a little legal advice and can answer the question for me.

In a situation where a family is trying to decide whether or not to remove life support systems: Let's assume there were three or four brothers or sisters who were trying to make that decision. The act, as I recall, says the majority shall govern in that case. Let's assume that three of the four agreed that the life support system should be withdrawn. In the hypothetical case where that fourth person was aware of some sort of plot by the other three, is there any remedy to that person to appeal to a court for an injunction on grounds, other than the medical thing, but on grounds that this person is aware - maybe the three stepsisters wanted to get all the gentleman's money or something ridiculous like that. Is there any remedy in that most unusual case?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's question, as he said, is perhaps an extreme example, but it is a fair one, and I would be happy to try to address it. Section 11 of the bill is the one to which he adverted. It says there is to be a majority. It is ll (1) in fact. We go by categories, and the categories are set out in Section 10, specifically 10 (1), so we then go to 11, `Where more than one person in a category is qualified to act, the decision of the majority prevails,' and we carry on from there.

Now, should the kind of problem arise that my hon. friend has suggested, then there would be a remedy, in my opinion. I am not here to give legal advice to the House, but in my opinion as a lawyer, as a member of Bar, there would be a remedy in this sense, that one could always go to the court and ask the court to take the appropriate remedy to enforce the laws of the Province. The inherent jurisdiction of the court allows them to do that.

Let me give an example, or refer to an example I used in a different context earlier in this debate. The Strong case in Grand Bank was an example of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. In other words, you don't have to point to a specific statute. You don't have to go in and say: I pray the court to make an order enforcing 1234 of whatever act. One can go into court and say: I ask the court to make an order that the law be followed. That is not the way the application would read, but the answer would be - in my opinion there would be a very quick and efficacious remedy by means of an application to the nearest judge of the Supreme Court Trial Division.

AN HON. MEMBER: That presumes there is a law not being followed.

MR. ROBERTS: One would go in, I suspect, and say: These people are not acting in good faith. The court would make enquiry, there would be an affidavit. One would get into an interlocutory injunction, I suspect, inter partes. That would be returnable the following day. Perhaps an analogy might be - this is a bad analogy in the sense of comparing life to a labour dispute - but we often see interlocutory injunctions being issued ex parte, only one side being heard, in a labour situation. Then two or three days later the parties come before the court and the judge hears them and decides whether the injunction is permanent or not. I can see that kind of situation here.

There is a very basic maxim of law that where there is a wrong, there is a right; where there is a wrong there is a remedy.

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman has more confidence in the courts than I do.

MR. ROBERTS: I have a great deal of confidence in the courts, Mr. Speaker. I've won and I've lost as counsel before the courts. I've never been before the courts, well, I've been before the Unified Family Court as a party but I've never been before the court in any other way - a witness once or twice, maybe.

But I have every faith in the courts. I'm not saying the courts don't make mistakes, of course, they do. Donny Marshall spent ten or eleven years in jail in a situation that, after a brilliant book by Michael Harris, was acknowledged to be a mistake. The man out in Manitoba whose name I - Mr. David Milgard? I think eventually it was concluded that he, in fact, had been sentenced unjustly to jail. There is at least one case in the United Kingdom where a man named Timothy Evans was hanged for murder, protesting his innocence as they took him to the gallows. And years later, a man named Christy was, in fact, discovered to be the person who committed the murders for which Mr. Evans had been tried, convicted, sentenced and executed.

I'm not going to say we never make mistakes, but much like Churchill's description of democracy - Churchill once said that democracy is an imperfect system of government. It is simply better than any other system anybody has ever been able to devise. I would say our court system would fall in with that.

Your Honour, let me deal with just one or two other points, if I may, so as not to prolong it. My friend, the Member for Ferryland spoke of some practical difficulties that he could see and that might arise in the administration of the scheme set out in this act. I would refer him to two specific sections which address the concerns that he raised. Perhaps the Clerk could - if it could wait, I will speak to my friend, the Member for Ferryland, because he did raise the points.

I would refer him to section 19 which protects people who act in good faith. He was concerned, as I heard him to say, about a situation where a medical care giver, a health care giver, a health care professional in the wording of this act, would have taken a course of treatment or not followed a course of treatment as may be the case, and it turned out later, there was a decision out there or a decision maker out there who hadn't been consulted or followed, as may be the case. I think that was the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, my concern wasn't necessarily (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I will deal with that in a minute. I would point that section 19 protects three people. First of all 19 (1) says: "No action lies against a substitute decision maker by reason only of having acted in good faith, in accordance with the Act." The "in good faith" words would address the problem raised by my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, in a little different context.

Section 19(2): "Where a health care professional makes a reasonable attempt to find the substitute decision maker, the health care professional is not liable for failing to find the correct substitute decision maker." You don't have to go back and check the birth and death records to see whether there are three siblings alive of the old gentleman one is treating or whether there are only two. There has to be a reasonable limit. "Reasonable" is a word beloved of lawyers that means - it has a great meaning, but it is awfully hard to define it.

Section 19(3) says: "No action lies against a health care professional who administers or refrains from administering health care to another person by reason only that the health care professional has acted in good faith in accordance with a health care decision made by a substitute decision maker." So if the substitute decision maker makes a decision, and the health care professional acts in accordance with it, the health care professional's indemnity is protected.

These clauses were drafted with a great deal of care, and I hope we got it right, because doctors and nurses find this to be an ethical and a practical nightmare now, these problems.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, but I think I have addressed the hon. gentleman's concern, or hope I have. If not, I will -

Now, Mr. Speaker, section 20 also addresses a good faith argument. It addresses the problem that arises under a will - when I see people come in and make a will, and the witness to the will is a beneficiary under the will. The law says that a witness cannot be a beneficiary, and a beneficiary cannot be a witness. Number 20 deals with a little different situation, and we have suggested a different solution in the health care directive field.

Finally, I would point out section 18, which puts a burden on the maker of the advance health care directive to communicate its contents to a health care professional, so the burden is on he or she who makes to communiqué, which I think is a reasonable in place.

Mr. Speaker, the only other point, I think, which was made, according to my view and what I noted, and I tried to note them all, was whether we should have an information program. There will be, I understand, quite an extensive program being planned by the people who deal in these things, the hospital authorities and the medical association and the nursing association and these groups. The idea has been around in the public forum for some time. I think it is becoming well-known, and we hope that people will take advantage of it.

Let me conclude by quoting an extract from some words written by one the great liberals, with a small l and a large L, of all time, John Stuart Mill, an Englishman who lived and died a century or more ago. This phrase struck me as a good one: `Each of us is the proper guardian of his' - or her, in this modern world - `own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual. Mankind' - or person kind in colloquially correct language today - `are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.'

That is a statement of a classic Liberal belief, but most people would subscribe to it, whatever their political persuasion may be in this day and age. That is the principle, Sir, which, in my judgement, this bill seeks to carry into effect. We have the right to determine our own fate - not to break the law, this bill will not allow that; but within the law we have the right to determine our own fate.

With that said, Sir, I thank hon. members for their support and commend the bill, and move it be now read a second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Advance Health Care Directives And The Appointment Of Substitute Health Care Decision Makers," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 41)

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, my friend, the Member for St. George's has been faithful in his seat. Would you be kind enough please, Sir, to call Order. 14, which is Bill 15, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act". (Bill No. 15)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Aquaculture Act was enacted in August, 1987. Since that time, a number of deficiencies have been identified and are corrected through the proposed amendments to this act. The current changes do not change the intent or the purpose of the act, but reflect improvements in its administration and enforcement.

The act, itself, contained in the draft bill, focuses on the following areas: number one, improved definition of aquaculture gear, which did not exist in the old act at all. A more realistic time frame for aquaculture is to provide proof of licenses at remote sites; improved efficiency to allow a minister to designate signing authority such as, for example, aquaculture licenses, transfer of license or other issues requiring timely action due to biological time constraints of the industry. Also in the suggested amendments; improved enforcement capabilities will be addressed; judiciary power to implement seizure or detention in the case of repeated offenses or where further activity could be a danger to public health safety or to the environment itself. The proposed act would also provide power of seizure in instances where abandoned or unmarked aquaculture gear is considered to be a danger to navigation and public safety.

The proposed act will also improve the ability to allow changes in regulation to provide compliance with other line agencies where their legislation is paramount. An example of that, Mr. Speaker, is for example, to allow compliance with changes as necessary to Transport Canada, The Canadian Coast Guard requirements to sites in respect of changing navigational requirements. Also the new proposed act would - various wording and grammar changes will be inserted to remove ambiguity, improve gender reference and establishment of a legal age requirement.

Following the enactment of the aquaculture act the Canada-Newfoundland Memorandum of Understanding on Aquaculture Development was signed in February, 1988. The Memorandum of Understanding established a regime governing the promotion, development and regulation of the aquaculture industry in Newfoundland without prejudice to the constitutional powers of either one of the two parties.

Areas of responsibility assigned each level of government are indicated as the following; provincial responsibility, Newfoundland has responsibility in the areas of enacting regulatory requirements in accordance with responsibilities outlined in the agreement. Our Province also has responsibility for compliance, location and sighting of aquaculture facilities. We also have responsibility for fostering and encouraging education and training in aquaculture; for creating a central registry of aquacultural activities; repository of related information and also in the delivery of fish health services to the aquacultural industry.

The federal responsibilities in our joint agreement are such that Canada has responsibility for the provision of regulatory measures in respect of the conservation and protection of the wild stocks, fisheries, habitant protection, fish health protection and stock registry. Under the Memorandum of Understanding parties have joint responsibilities for the development of an overall aquaculture plan, applied research and development, and a collection of aquaculture statistics.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to just very briefly go through some of the proposed changes to the old act and tell this hon. House why these changes are suggested. Number one, the first thing we have to deal with is a definition for aquaculture gear. Now such a definition was not included in the old act. In the new act the aquaculture gear will mean or means equipment used in the conduct of aquaculture to contain or provide a means of attachment for aquaculture species and it includes rope, sucking material, collection material, nets, cages, sea pens, tanks and so on.

The reason for this change, Mr. Speaker, was to define the term aquaculture gear for the purposes of enforcement provisions proposed in this amendment. The old act also neglected to contain or did not contain a definition of aquaculture inspector, what was an inspector in the field of aquaculture. In the new act it will be spelt out in section 1 that an "`aquaculture inspector' means an aquaculture inspector appointed under section 6" of the act. The reason for this change was to define such an individual, aquaculture inspector, for the purposes, again, of enforcement provisions proposed in the amendment.

The original act states under section 4(7) that: the minister may vary or amend an aquaculture licence upon application by the licensee. The proposed change is that section 4(7) of the act will be amended by striking out the words "upon application by a licensee". The reason for this amendment is to amend this particular subsection of the act by deleting the requirements for a licensee to apply to vary a licence and thus allow the minister to make that decision himself or herself.

The original act also under section 4(8) states that: the minister shall issue a licence to a person who acquires from a licensee an aquaculture facility and who meets the requirements for a licencing established by this act and the regulations. The proposed change to section 4(8) will state that the act is amended by striking out the word "shall" and substituting the word "may". To amend section 4(8) then of the act is to allow the minister rather than the owner to determine if the licensee is to be granted to a subsequent purchaser of an aquaculture facility.

Under section 4(12) of the old act it states that: a copy of an aquaculture licence shall be kept in the aquaculture facility to which it pertains. The proposed change to section 4(12) of the act is repealed and the following is substituted as such: "An aquaculture licence or a certified copy of that licence shall be presented to an aquaculture inspector upon request or where this is not possible, a licensee or another person responsible for the aquaculture facility for which the request was made shall present the requested licence or certified copy to the aquaculture inspector not later than 24 hours following the time when the request was made." In order to allow the person operating the facility sufficient time to acquire the licence to present to the inspector should it not be on the premises the day the inspection was made.

Section 4(13) of the act as it now stands states that there is no age requirement for entering into the field of aquaculture in this Province. The proposed change for 4(13) states that: the minister shall not issue an aquaculture licence to a person who is less than nineteen years of age. The only reason for making that change was to establish a legal age requirement for aquaculture in this Province.

The original act also under section 6(1) states that: the minister may designate employees of the department to be aquaculture inspectors. The proposed change to section 6(1) then of the act is amended by striking out the words "employees of the department" and substituting the word "persons". The reason for that change, Mr. Speaker, is to amend 6 (1) of the act to allow the minister to designate inspectors from both within and outside the department. Departmental employees only may be designated as inspectors under the existing subsection 6 (1).

In the original act as it now stands, section 6 (5) states that upon the advice of the aquaculture inspector, the minister may direct a licensee to take measures. The proposed change to this particular section 6 (5) of the act is amended by striking out the words `Upon the advice of an aquaculture inspector, the minister may direct a licensee to take measures' and substituting the words `Where he or she considers it necessary, an aquaculture inspector may direct a licensee, or other person responsible for an aquaculture facility to take measures'.

Now, the reason for making that change, Mr. Speaker, is to allow an inspector, where necessary, to direct a person to take action respecting disease - and this is very, very important in the aquaculture field, respecting disease, escape, public safety, or other operations affecting an aquaculture facility. The act now requires the minister, on the advice of the inspector, to take the direction. Changes would allow immediate response to issues of critical concern, and I am sure everyone in this hon. Chamber would agree with the need for that change.

Under section 6 of the act as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, the minister may suspend the license of a person responsible for an aquaculture facility who fails to comply with subsections 4 and 5 that we have just recently talked about. The proposed change is that section 6 (6) of the act is repealed and the following substituted: `The minister may suspend an aquaculture facility license where the licensee or other person responsible for that aquaculture facility does not comply with subsections 4 or 5.'

The reason for making that change, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the subsection of the act to allow the minister to suspend the license for non-compliance with regard to subsections 6, 4, and 5, regardless of who caused that non-compliance.

The original act as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, in section 6 (9) states that `where an aquaculture inspector determines that a person is engaged in aquaculture without having obtained the appropriate license, and so informs the minister, the minister may direct that person to take a measure referred to in paragraphs of the act to stop his or her activities, or for them to immediately apply for a license.'

The proposed change to the act, under section 6 (9), is amended by striking out the words and comma, `and so informs the minister,' and substituting a comma and the words `he or she'. This change is required so that in order to amend subsection 6 (9) of the act to allow an inspector to order the corrective measures under subsection 6 (5) and that they are carried out, presently the minister would make that order and not the inspector. So again, in order to speed up the process and make it more flowing, we would suggest in the new regulations that that be the duty of the inspector.

Under section 8 (1) it states that a person shall not introduce, transfer, or transport live aquatic plants or animals from one body of water or aquaculture facility in the Province to a second body of water or aquaculture facility in the Province, or from outside the Province to a body of water or aquaculture facility in the Province, without the prior written approval of the minister.

The proposed change in section 8(1) of the act is then amended by adding, immediately after the word `minister', the words `or a person whom the minister may by order designate'. Again, you can see that would make much easier this process, and cause it to flow much more simply and be speeded up.

One of the reasons for the change amending this particular section of the act is, it would allow the minister to designate a person to approve the transfer or introduction of aquatic species into the Province. This change will allow for more immediate action in this particular area.

The original act as it now stands, under section 11, pertains to making regulations concerning the act. Section 11(j) prescribes the marking of boundaries of a site. The proposed change to the act, paragraph 11(j) of the act, is amended by adding, immediately after the word `of', the words `aquaculture gear and of the site'.

The reason for making this change in 11(j) and (q) of the act is to more clearly outline the regulations which may be made respecting delineation of a notice respecting aquaculture sites. The change would improve the ability to change regulations, to provide compliance with other line agencies where their legislation is paramount. For example, it allows immediate response to changes dictated by Transport Canada, the Canadian Coastguard and so on, in respect of changing navigational requirements and public safety.

Section 11 also pertains to making regulations concerning the act, and 11(q) respecting the marking of aquaculture facilities so as to provide notice to mariners. The change in 11(q) proposed is to amend the area by striking out the word `mariners' and substituting the words `all persons', not just those who are designated as mariners.

Section 11 also pertains to making regulations concerning the act, and under 11(b.b) defines a word or expression used in the act and not defined in this act, and 11 (c.c) prescribing procedures by which the neighbouring land owners, municipalities, other affected or interested persons and the general public may participate in helping the minister in his or her decision whether to grant an aquaculture licence and, if so, under what terms and conditions, including the manner in which the applicant, the minister or designate or others are to meet with, provide information to, and record opinions concerned and questions of those participating.

Also, in section 13, it is an offence to knowingly give false information to the minister and aquaculture inspector and employee of the public service in respect of the matters under this act, or the regulations.

The proposed changes - this section, then, is amended by striking out the word `and', and paragraph (b.b) by striking out the period in paragraph (c.c), and substituting a semi-colon and the word `and', and by adding immediately after paragraph (c.c) the following: `prescribing the manner of identifying and disposing of aquatic plants or animals, or aquatic gear, under this particular subsection. And the reason for making this change is to amend the act to allow for the intentions to clarify some of the seizure procedures that are necessary from time to time, in the aquacultural industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you elaborate more on that?

DR. HULAN: What would you like elaborated on?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: That particular change.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: As plants come in from one area of the Province to another area - are you listening hon. member?

As plants are transported and removed from one area of the Province to another area or, especially as they are transported and removed from one jurisdiction of the country, or North America for that matter, to Newfoundland, it is very important that the provision be provided for a simple and clear seizure, if necessary, of the removal of such aquatic plants or animals. So that should make you even more confused.

The proposed changes to the act in section 13, are also to make changes where, an aquaculture inspector believes, on reasonable ground, that a person has contravened this act or regulations, the aquaculture inspector may, with a warrant issued under subsection (2) of the act, seize all aquatic plants or animals and aquaculture gear in relation to which he or she has responsibility, and believes the offense was committed, and that is, as again, I will say, very important because in the transfer of plants and animals in aquaculture, one has to be extremely careful because of the transfer of transmissible diseases in the receiving environment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: I am about ready to sit down.

The other reason for the change to this particular section is that, an aquaculture inspector acting under a warrant issued under subsection 2 of the act, (1), be able to take into custody or release from seized aquaculture gear live aquatic animals or plants; also, to order a person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed the offence, to remove and relinquish to the custody of the aquaculture inspector, aquaculture gear and, where applicable, aquaculture plants or animals, provided that the provincial court judge or a justice of the peace who has issued the warrant under subsection (2) has ordered those actions as conditions of the warrant.

The change also provides that aquaculture gear seized or removed under subsection (1) paragraph (3) may be detained for a period of two months following the day of seizure or removed, unless during that period, proceedings under the act, in respect of that aquaculture gear are undertaken, in which, in this case, the aquaculture gear may be further detained until the proceedings are finally concluded.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to pass some comments on the Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act. Now, of course, as the minister stated, it is an updating generally speaking, although there are some points that I wish to ask questions of the minister on and maybe in his response or in his final speaking on the bill, when he closes second reading, he might address some of these points as I get to them. Well overall, I guess, in the new section aquaculture gear was not defined as he stated and an aquaculture inspector was not defined in the old aquaculture act. So it is only normal to put in such a definition. We did have aquaculture facility and so on defined but we have not specifically defined what aquaculture gear is. So that was open to an interpretation in terms of whether there is going to be a charge levied for using a certain facility that had not been defined by an act. So I guess that occurs in defining it, especially if you are going to have any prosecution of offenses you have to be able to define a specific thing that you are going to prosecute.

Now there is a concern in clause 2 - well actually subsection 4(7) of the act - it makes reference to striking out, "upon application by a licensee." Now the minister may vary or amend an aquaculture license upon application by a licensee, is currently the reading in the aquaculture act. Right now, even though a person receives a specific license with a specific request, the minister is now going to be in power to technically give a license to an individual without having to make an application for that license because the old act states that the minister can amend upon application by a licensee. So the minister is now given the power to give a license for aquaculture without the person having to apply for the license, I say to the minister. That is the interpretation I draw from that and I think it is fairly straightforwardly stated here in the act. That is the change, a significant change now when somebody can be given a license without applying and writing for such a license. That is an area of concern.

We also have in clause 2, subsection 2, it says, strike out the word "shall" and substituting the word "may". It says here in the act itself, `the minister shall issue a license to a person who acquires an aquaculture facility and meets the requirements.' Now if I wish to purchase an aquaculture facility from an existing operator in this Province and purchase that facility according to the new change in the act now, the minister does not have to give me the license. I could buy an aquaculture facility in St. George's but the minister had to, before, allow me to operate that facility. Now the minister will be given the powers to take away the right to operate that facility at the ministers discretion. So that is a limitation upon the rights and infringement on the private enterprise for someone to continue to operate a facility generation after generation or to sell. If somebody gets older and decides their family no longer wishes to become involved in that aquaculture facility, they may be hindered from selling that facility that they may have invested hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in because the minister may decide not to grant that license whereas before it said the minister shall grant that license. I think it is a very legitimate point that the minister should take under consideration.

Of course, when we get to clause 2, subsection 3, and the change there is where it says the license must be held in the facility. I do not have too much problem with that because sometimes the facility might be out in the water, I mean do you attach the license to the corks or the floats on the only facility you have, it is not very practical there. So it is not practical to have that there and as long as they show it, within a reasonable period of time, and the minister is setting down twenty-four hours to be reasonable to show that license and that is a fair clause there.

Here is another of one big concern - I think this one may have implications, I am not sure of the rationale behind it and maybe the minister could address this when he closes reading on the bill - is that the minister now, according to the current act, as it sits, the current act states that the minister may designate employees of the department to be aquaculture inspectors. That is in Section 6.5, I think in the act. What it is doing now, this bill is changing that so that the minister can now appoint somebody who is not an employee of the department to be an inspector. It could be an employee of Works, Services and Transportation, of the federal government, of a contracting company. It can contract out the inspection work to be done on such a facility. That is giving a broader - and the minister didn't give the rationale for that change. If he did I missed it. I was listening, I think I missed it, the rationale for that. Maybe there is a rationale for those especially three key points I've made so far. If there is a rationale I would certainly be interested in hearing from the minister later to explain why that is the case.

Why would you want someone who is not from your department or have anything to do with your department to have powers of inspections under the act? Unless it is going to be some other government agency, or the federal government, or other provincial inspection services going to be centralized or contracted out, et cetera. There are some of the points I'm sure the minister would address when he closes reading on the bill.

Also I guess in clause 3(2) here, under the act now I guess the minister has to direct a licensee or other persons responsible to take measures and so on. Of course, that is not real practical as it currently sits. I have to agree to an extent there that it is not practical. A minister could be out of the Province. Technically the minister has to be able to designate somebody else to carry out this, and that is I think a matter of improving the wording in the aquaculture act as it now sits. I don't have a problem with that.

If we move on to clause 3(4) it says: "...amended by striking out the words and comma `and so informs the minister, the minister' and substituting a comma and the words `he or she'." An inspector now has the authority to enforce the act. Normally the minister had to have that authority. Maybe where aquaculture was at a very embryonic stage and there weren't as many licences out there and facilities. Now it is getting more cumbersome and it has to be designated or delegated out to departments. That is not a highly contentious issue there I don't think in that regard.

Also, to transport from one facility to another. Of course, having a designate to do that, that is I think reasonable there. We can't have the minister controlling - pinpoint fingers on every decision, on every direct little facility around, or directions. There has to be a line of authority put in place here in the act and that is doing that, to an extent, and that is positive.

As he mentioned, there are other points here. Establishing markings and boundaries. I think that is very positive too. Because we can't just confine it to mariners. If we are going to say mariners we have to define a mariner in the act. We are going to make it to I guess all people. The words I think he used are all persons here, instead of that, which would make it very broad and it would set (inaudible) to anybody who traverses or travels the seas or whatever in proximity to facilities that are usually of course going to be located in waters, as the name implies, an aquaculture facility.

Adding in (dd) section there. Of course that is a new one completely there that is going in in addition to others there, the manner of identifying and disposing and so on, I think that needs to be addressed there and something needs to be added. That is just improving really upon the existing act. Of course, the rest of that section, clause 6 - actually, all the rest of that clause 6 technically is all new. Because there was only one sentence in section 13 before. Putting in an enforcement and a detention procedure, the detaining and so on in place, to be able to take action and so on if it is not complied with. Very similar to other facilities and so on, and fish facilities, or aquaculture facilities in the Province. Putting a framework in to deal with that the same as any other offence.

I guess one thing I didn't hear the minister mention, but I think it is worthy of mentioning. In clause 7, one thing worthy of mentioning now, there is a change in the fine structure here also. The old act states in section 14(1) that for a first offence really a fine not exceeding $5,000. It states for a second offence a fine not exceeding $10,000. If someone is guilty the judge may decide to fine them $100, $1,000, for the first offence, or maybe $2,000 for the second offence. This change here is adding in and is stating that the fine for a second offence now cannot be less than $5,000. It takes away some of the discretionary powers of the court and adds in a fine that is going to be set at a minimal level. In other words, there is more direction or less flexibility for the judge now and there is more structuring there as to the severity of the penalty for violating that specific section of the act there.

Basically I'm not sure if the rationale - they see that there has been a history of fines not being tough enough. If that is the history of it it would be a good rationale to change it; if it is a means to grab another $5,000 in revenue it is not a good rationale. That should be in another item of our budget under taxation, not under fines. I would assume there has been a history of non-compliance. If not I don't see the means to be able to change the penalties that are levied here under this act. Probably when the minister closes debate on that a little later he can comment on some of these things.

There are, I say to the minister, some areas of concern there, some very I think important things that need to be addressed. I will just touch again, very briefly, on a few key things to summarize again to make sure the minister has an opportunity to address them in due course. Now the minister may grant a licence to operate an aquaculture facility without a person applying for such a licence. He now may appoint people outside his department to be an inspector. From any other department, any walk of life, anybody I would assume who is going to have the necessary training to be an inspector, and inspector is defined, covered in another clause of the act. He would be able to appoint anybody outside, a person. Only defined it as - persons now can be inspectors under the aquaculture act.

Another very important point I think which needs to be answered is that under this new legislation now the minister potentially takes away the right of a person to buy an aquaculture facility in this Province and operate it. Because the old act stated the minister "shall." If I bought a facility owned by the minister I would automatically be given a licence to operate that aquaculture facility. Right now under this new proposal I won't have that right unless the minister decides that I can have that right. It is a "may." They changed it from "shall" to "may." It is a very significant thing. What it is spelling out - I guess the down side of this is we need to develop an aquaculture industry in this Province at as accelerated a rate as we possibly can.

New Brunswick grew from a few million dollars in farm salmon to in excess of a $100 million operation that is very significant and establishing a whole new economic opportunity for people in that Province. If people are wiling to buy facilities and move in they could create employment. But if I decided to buy one - if it is the intention of this bill when someone no longer wishes to operate their facility and get out of the business, that facility is pulled from the system. I can't see that being a reason but that is a possible result of the legislation. It is not conducive to increased investment in aquaculture industries in the Province and it is not going to have positive repercussions on somebody who desires to build up and expand an aquaculture business in the Province. Because that person is moving forward very cautiously. Because down the road that person might be willing to put in substantial dollars into developing an industry, and now may be impeded somewhat, or have second thoughts, because that person would know that the facility that they may wish to obtain might not get a licence for this person even though it is currently existing.

I would hope the minister will address the rationale behind these things when he has the opportunity in closing second reading, or if not we will certainly - in Committee stage of the bill there are things I would like to have an answer on. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments on the second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: The `say nothing' member.

MR. MANNING: The `say nothing' minister. `Do nothing' minister, I should say. The monster of a minister.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to have the opportunity to stand and say a few words on Bill No. 15, An Act To Amend The Aquaculture Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: The only place the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is brave is within the walls of this House. I would like to see him give me the lip out on the street.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that some regulations are coming forth in bringing in this new industry because basically it is a new industry to the Province and it has been more or less growing over the past couple of years since the downturn in our fishery. People are looking for other ways to make a living and many people who were involved in the fishing industry are looking towards aquaculture as an opportunity to survive, especially in many parts of rural Newfoundland. I am glad to see that there are amendments coming to the aquaculture act that are more in line with the times and I am pleased to see that the amendments are coming forth at a time when we have to bring in some type of regulation to the industry so that the aquaculture industry does not turn out like so many other industries in the Province that were unregulated until it was too late. I am glad to see that the new minister has the fortitude to bring forward this regulation at the time so at least we can bring forward and do something proper, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that the cucumbers will be only a pickle when we are finished with Trans City.

Mr. Speaker, section 3, subsection 6(1) talks about, `striking out the words "employees of the department" and substituting the word "persons".' I would just like to ask the minister when he gets up, the change there, what persons? Could we end up with people from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation doing inspections on aquaculture projects? I sure hope that we do not end up with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation doing inspections, Mr. Speaker. If he was inspecting the roads in this Province he would have job enough, Mr. Speaker.

I am a bit concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, in relation to who exactly is covered under the "persons" in the act. I am sure the minister may touch on that when he stands to close debate on the amendments. Mr. Speaker, I have learned over the years that in a lot of cases people who really do not understand the industry or are not the people who really make the rules, do the inspections or whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could take his seat for a minute while I inform the House of the items for debate on the Late Show.

Number one, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the hon. Premier, re: my question, Hibernia work, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health re: my question, long-term care facilities, the hon. Member for Ferryland.

I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation re: my question on dismissal of Mr. Sam Alexander and that is from the hon. Member for Placentia.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could get back to the few comments I was making in relation to the persons. I believe it is very important, under section 3, in relation to the persons because, Mr. Speaker, as many Newfoundlanders will agree and I am sure the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would agree, that one of the major problems with our fishing industry in this Province today is the fact that the people who were making the rules and enforcing the rules did not listen to the fishermen and plant workers of this Province and that is why we have a major problem in our fishing industry today. Basically, I am a wee bit concerned, Mr. Speaker, about `persons.' I would like to know, are those people going to be people who are trained in aquaculture and people who will indeed know the industry before they go out and start telling the people who are in the industry how to do the job, Mr. Speaker? I think it is a concern. The minister shakes his head but I am sure he better not shake it too much, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the concerns I have, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MANNING: It is a concern to people in my district I say to the minister, therefore I have the opportunity to stand up and speak, and I will do that.

Another part I would like to speak on, Mr. Speaker, is Section 5. "Paragraph 11 of the Act is amended by striking out the word "mariners" and substituting the words "all persons". I believe this is positive in the light that it gives an opportunity for anybody to partake in the industry if they so desire and that it is not strictly under the connotation of the word mariners because there are people who were involved in the fishing industry in the Province, indirectly, I should say, not exactly fishermen, plant workers, but indirectly involved, that through no fault of their own have been put out of business, or whatever the case may be, because of the shutdown of the fishing industry. Those people, as far as I am concerned, or anybody for that matter, should have the chance to partake in some type of private enterprise and with aquaculture, I think, striking the word, mariners, and substituting the word, all persons, will give anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to partake in this new industry.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is a positive step. Also, Section 6, Paragraph (5) discusses where aquatic plants or animals are seized or removed. Under this section the aquaculture inspector or other persons having the custody of aquatic plants or animals may sell them and shall pay the proceeds of the sale into a Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I would like to know if the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture would enlighten us on the Consolidated Revenue Fund because from information we are receiving over here there are a lot of funds on that side of the House that we would like to know about, especially those brown paper bag funds. I would like for the minister, if he gets the chance, to enlighten us on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and is it a fund that is set up -

MR. EFFORD: Never ask a question unless you know the answer.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the Consolidated Revenue Fund and I would just like to have the minister elaborate more on it, and I am sure he will do so when he stands up to close debate. For all we, on this side of the House know, Mr. Speaker, the Consolidated Revenue Fund could be basically any fund, so I would like the minister, when he gets the opportunity, to explain it.

Mr. Speaker, the proceeds of the sale into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, I mean, it could be known as the Hickman Fund for all we know, so I ask that we make sure that the minister elaborates on that to some extent.

Section 7, Paragraph 14 (1)(b) of the act is amended by adding immediately after the word `fine', where it first occurs, the words `of not less than $5000'. Again, I feel, this is a positive step, and it is important that at least we now have a set amount that the courts can impose on people who break the law. At least it gives a penalty, it keeps an amount there that people can be penalized for. Instead of the judge having to play around with figures he has a set amount and I think that is a positive step, I say to the minister, in relation to not less than $5,000 being put in, instead of just fines, Mr. Speaker. I believe that to be a positive move.

I would like to ask the minister, without him getting up: Did you mention age limit on when a person can apply? Did I hear right when you said nineteen?

DR. HULAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What section is that, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I'm speaking to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, I would say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The minister is seeking something for me now.

DR. HULAN: Section 4, (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Section 4, paragraph 13. Let me have a look here now. I'm having a job finding that here now. Can you find section 4, paragraph 13?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I'm asking the minister a question, if you don't mind. Section 4 -

DR. HULAN: Thirteen.

MR. MANNING: Section 13? There is no section 13 in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not there.

MR. MANNING: Yes, boy, he read it out. The man was up and he -

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it is in the statute, section 13 is in the statute.

MR. MANNING: (Inaudible) understanding that you have to be nineteen and older to apply for a licence to operate (inaudible) - yes. I don't agree with that now, I say to the minister. You only have to be seventeen to get a licence to drive and if -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) change it!

MR. MANNING: I wouldn't doubt but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will change that. I wouldn't doubt that, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't doubt that the minister would come in with a law where you have to have a $50,000 car like himself to drive around in before you can get a licence. Who knows?

It is my understanding that you would have to be nineteen in order to apply for an aquaculture licence. I believe in all sincerity that we give people the licence to drive a car, like I say, at the age of seventeen because we believe they are responsible. We believe they have a right to be on the road and they more or less are people who we have trust in. I say there are many people who have started out in their small businesses before they turned nineteen and have turned out to be very successful in their field.

I'm going to come back to this later on, but I believe that it should be something that we should reconsider, maybe there is a reason why, I say to the minister, and maybe he could elaborate on that reason when he gets up to close debate. Maybe you could elaborate on the reason they have put in that a person has to be nineteen in order to receive a licence, because I believe to me at the outset it sounds a bit... off, we will call it. Maybe the minister has a good reason, but I hope that he can follow through on something. Because I believe that we should give the opportunity to our young people now, especially many young people in our rural parts of this Province who have been devastated by the closing of the fishery. This may be a way out for them and they may be looking at some type of training now.

I know some people who are doing some training in aquaculture at the age of seventeen who would be finished next year, and it leaves them a year before they can start. Maybe in that case they will go to work for somebody else. I believe the opportunity should be there for them if they wanted to start their own small business.

Mr. Speaker, I think those are about all the comments I have. Like I said, I think the bill overall is a positive note. I think it is a good bill. I believe we need some amendments to the aquaculture act because the industry is starting to evolve into something that may be a major player in our Province in the next few years and I hope the minister takes the few comments I made and will answer some of the questions I asked, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words; I don't intend to prolong this debate or anything like that but I -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I did not go and beat around the Province like the member did, when he became Chairman of the Fisherpersons Association, he became a great hero for a couple of weeks and when he was put back in Cabinet forgot about the fisherpersons. He hasn't got a clue, Mr. Speaker, he never opened his mouth since, has not spoken a word, has not uttered a word, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt if he signed the petition. I am not sure he is one of the people who signed the petition to retain the Department of Fisheries, but we will find out in due course, Mr. Speaker, whether or not he -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: When was the last time I had blood on my hands?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I was going to say, I don't have the same kind of blood on my hands that he has when it means going after his leader because the blood will be (inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: You are no match for him.

MR. TOBIN: His blood to the elbows, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. minister gets up and yacks about you don't know what a fish is. I can tell the hon. gentleman that we do not all forget as fast as he does. I mean, a few months ago he was bringing over cod from Iceland, he was going to clean out the Grand Bank, clean up outside the 200-mile zone, he was having this big scissors made up and the Premier said: Johnny come back into Cabinet and keep your mouth shut, and he said: okay sir. We have not heard from the minister since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He was vaccinated.

MR. TOBIN: He was vaccinated, yes, that is the word, he was vaccinated against continuing to help the fishermen.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no compensation package in the Province.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, when he says only for this man here there would be no compensation package in the Province. Now he has that half right, he has the first name right, John.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever seen his resignation to the (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I have never seen -

Mr. Speaker, June 27, 1992; Liberal MHA John Efford has charged the federal government plans to implement a resettlement program under the guise of a bare-bones compensation package for Newfoundland fishermen. Do you know what he said about the compensation package, Mr. Speaker? It is the worst thing that can possibly happen to Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what he said about the compensation package back in June and now he wants to take credit for it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You just said there wouldn't be a package except for you. Mr. Speaker, that is what he has done.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) increased to $225 (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, got it increased, how are you? We will see after Christmas, what is going to be increased and how many people are going to come off, Mr. Speaker. There is one thing this man has done, if anything, and that is wrecked the fishery in Newfoundland and the second thing he is going to do, Mr. Speaker, is wreck the highways in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not carried. So the hon. member wants to talk about fisheries. He has a yacht and does not know one thing about the fishery and knows less about aquaculture as far as that goes. The only thing he knows about that is what he hears Charlie Power talking about on television from time to time. The only education he has in that, Mr. Speaker, is what he has had from Charlie Power.

The bottom line is, there is only one thing that I can't wait for, and I have been waiting for awhile now, and that is to see when the minister is bringing over those big scissors from Iceland to cut all the nets. We are still waiting for the chairperson of the fisheries committee. The only thing he has ever done for the fishery in this Province was take on and blame everything on the deep-sea fishery. He never supported a deep-sea fishery in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: And I never will.

MR. TOBIN: He has never supported the fishermen who worked twelve months a year. He has never supported the fishermen who beat ice in January and February and March, trying to get in from the Grand Banks. He has never supported a full-time fisherman, and now he says he never will.

MR. EFFORD: Vic Young (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Vic Young was only around the last few years. Vic Young is President of FPI, I say to the minister. The people who work for FPI is what makes FPI, and they are just as important as the people who work for any other fish company in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What about the gill-netters? What is the member going to say about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: For what fishing he did, setting a few gill nets, he has never seen a cod end coming back over the stern of a trawler yet. He has never seen one. He has never seen the cod end come back yet. He has never seen one untied, and he doesn't know how to tie one. He wouldn't know the belly of a trawl from the cod end, if the truth were known about this gentleman, and I would like to see him trying to make up a trawl.

MR. EFFORD: Anytime, `Glenn', anytime.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is true.

MR. TOBIN: I know it's true, I say to the Member for Eagle River. I know it is true. We all know it's true. He knows absolutely nothing about the fisheries, absolutely nothing. He was so turned off by the Premier of this Province when he gave him the boot from Cabinet, he tried to get back at him by being a hero for the fisherpersons. He was willing to sell his soul when he was invited back to Cabinet, and to heck with the fisherpersons in this Province. That's what the hon. minister did.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) where were you?

MR. TOBIN: And where was he, I wonder?

MR. EFFORD: Where were you?

MR. TOBIN: I ask the hon. minister: Where were you when I was on the Grand Banks? Where were you then, I ask the hon. minister? You were never out there. You know nothing about it. Where were you when I was on the Grand Banks, landing in places like -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: As a matter of fact, I say to the hon. minister, his friend, the Member for Twillingate -

MR. EFFORD: Whose friend?

MR. TOBIN: Your friend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - and your friend, the Member for Fogo know full well the involvement of my family in the fishery in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: What does that have to do with you?

MR. TOBIN: I can tell you right now that the hon. member was never on Tobin's Point, I say to the minister. He has never been on Tobin's Point. He wouldn't know how to get to Tobin's Point.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's named after you, isn't it, `Glenn'?

MR. TOBIN: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: It's named after the member.

MR. TOBIN: I don't hear of any Efford's Point on the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker. There might be some place called an Efford's Cove or an Efford's Beach, but I don't know of any place on the Grand Banks called after Mr. Efford.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there's an Efford's Wreck now.

MR. TOBIN: An Efford's Wreck, yes, but I can tell him there's a place on the Grand Banks called Tobin's Point.

MR. EFFORD: I know all about it.

MR. TOBIN: You were never there, though.

MR. EFFORD: You were there.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I was, as a matter of fact, back many years ago when the hon. member was selling stoves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I stood up to speak on this bill and the minister interrupted me, I got carried away. But I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, that I don't think he knows a lot about the fishery. I believe he is ready to learn, but I can tell you one thing, in my opinion, he knows an awful lot more about it than the Member for Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Afraid you will put yours in there. I am talking about ministers selling their souls. What are you saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, speaking of ministers selling their souls. Steve Neary sized you up pretty bluntly one evening, but, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one member who I think would make a good Minister of Fisheries, and that is the Member for Port au Port.

The Member for Port au Port, Mr. Speaker, I think, would make a good Minister of Fisheries. He understands rural Newfoundland; he has spent his lifetime in rural -

MR. SULLIVAN: Food and Agriculture.

MR. TOBIN: No, forget Food and Agriculture, it has no business being part of the department, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope, when the Member for Fogo's resolution comes before this House, that members opposite will stand and support that resolution from the Member for Fogo.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) fifteen minutes, (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he is more interested in the clause in a bill than he is about the fishery of this Province. Well, I don't share his view, and I don't think the fishermen who are home today on a package, who would much rather be out on the Grand Banks, share his view either.

MR. EFFORD: What bill (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Bill 15, I say to the minister opposite.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do you know what they are going to do with those who are out there, `Glenn'? Those who continue to fish, they are going to kick them off the package. Those who kept fishing for the last two years, they are going to kick them off the package.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and that is another point.

MR. EFFORD: What page are you on?

MR. TOBIN: Seventy-two, further than you can count.

Those people who continue to fish are now going to get the boot from the package. Does the minister, the former President of the Fisherpersons Association, support that?

MR. SULLIVAN: United Fisherpersons, isn't it?

MR. TOBIN: United Fisherpersons. I would like to see a copy of the Constitution of that United Fisherpersons. I would like to see who elected him, how many votes he got when he was elected President of the United Fisherpersons Association.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard he was there because Richard Cashin wanted to put him there. Richard Cashin wanted someone there that he could control. The union wanted someone there that they could control; when there was a division coming up, they wanted someone to go out there that they could control, who knew absolutely nothing about the fisheries, and Richard Cashin set it up for the hon. minister to become Chairperson.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) if they think they are going to control me.

MR. TOBIN: Richard Cashin and John Crosbie made him chairman so they could control him, that is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Richard was a loser (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Richard was a loser?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member lost the nomination when he went out for the Tories in the last election, so he knows what it's like to lose. He lost the Tory nomination, that's what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted by the member when he said, Richard lost. All I am saying to the member is that he knows what it's like to lose, he lost the Tory nomination and came in the office the last time and saw our leader running against Dr. Warren. The next day Dr. Warren announced he wasn't going to run, and he called up and said: I don't think I'm going to run in this election, and the next day he announced he was running for the Liberals. That is what happened. That member there was (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health on a point of order.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I take issue, Mr. Speaker, with some of the comments coming from my friend, Mr. Tobin, over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that in this House you refer to members by their district and not by their names.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I refer to comments made by my colleague on the other side, from Burin - Placentia West.

The point that I want to make is that he puts forth a proposition that is not only inaccurate; it is totally, totally without foundation. It is untrue. It is incorrect. It is a proposition that needs to be addressed directly, and I would ask him to have the decency and the courtesy and the honesty and the integrity to withdraw his remarks. If the Speaker so chooses to ask him to do that, I want him to do it. He simply is telling fibberoos.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Minister of Health that you are not supposed to use unparliamentary language in this House. I would ask him to withdraw.

AN HON. MEMBER: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have asked the Minister of Health to withdraw his comments.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If that newly coined word is unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it; however, the substance of my comments -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you. I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Unconditional, the hon. the Minister of Health, unconditional.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw unconditionally. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, if the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is speaking to that point of order.

MR. MANNING: No, I have a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, this is a new point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: It is a sad day in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, when the only cod left is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It might be a point of foolishness, but it is not a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how long it's going to take the hon. minister. I don't know how long he planned to clue up the debate on this. I guess we are going to move into the Late Show now.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister will probably need more than a minute.

MR. TOBIN: I can adjourn the debate, or I can give the minister a few minutes into the half hour... How long do you figure it will take you to clue it up?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Let him finish tomorrow night; adjourn debate.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, I will adjourn the debate and let the minister finish tomorrow, because I think you want to get into the Late Show at the appropriate time.

If the minister is willing we will do it, but if he says he is going to take a few minutes longer than he thinks, then I will adjourn the debate and he can do it tomorrow, or finish it tomorrow morning, or he can adjourn the debate if he wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, if he speaks now he closes the debate.

DR. HULAN: Whatever is the pleasure of the House I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. HULAN: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Move adjournment.

DR. HULAN: Okay, I move adjournment of the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It being 4:30 p.m. on a Thursday, we now proceed into the motion for adjournment, commonly referred to as the Late Show.

MR. SPEAKER: The first question on the Order Paper is in the name of the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, today I asked a question of the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to try to restrain himself.

MR. TOBIN: Or I will restrain him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I have recognized the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. We would like to get on with the adjournment debate.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board that it is difficult to do it when you have a yappy like his colleague, his seat mate.

Mr. Speaker, today I asked the Premier a question in the House regarding the decision by HMDC to move the work from Marystown to St. John, New Brunswick. I understand the Minister of Natural Resources is going to be dealing with this on behalf of the Premier. At that time I was concerned because of statements that were made in the House of Commons yesterday evening by the federal Minister of Energy when she said, and I heard the debate this morning on CBC radio at around 6:45, when the federal Minister of Energy stated - and I say it for the benefit of the Minister of Natural Resources because I do not know if he heard that interview or not. Did you hear it? He didn't. What happened was that the block members were asking questions of the minister and they wanted her to ensure that MIL Davie be given the work unconditionally because they were the second lowest bidder. She said she would not do that, but what she did say was: I will ensure that the work will go to tender, and that caused me some concern because it is my understanding it would take six to eight weeks for the engineering department to draw up the tenders.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware as well that HMDC are having a press conference at this time and I am sure they will be addressing this issue. That report, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the fact that this morning a PR person for Petro Canada stated that because of what happened, because the Prime Minister had become involved in this, the partners would have to make the decision and not the Hibernia management team, so that prompted me today to ask the Premier if he would write to the partners in Hibernia Development and ask them if they would consider leaving the work in Marystown? The Premier said he would not do it and that is what caused me concern.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the minister has probably been briefed by now on what HMDC has said in their press conference, and may be able to advise the House as to what was said, but at the same time he may be able to let us know what changes have been made. If for example they are going to fool around with tenders, that they will insist and demand that the work stay in Marystown. That is why I was not satisfied with the answer, and that is why I put it to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In some ways I wish this question had been third instead of first today because Hibernia management is having its press conference at 4:45. I have very recently had a discussion with the president, Ken Hull. I talked to him about fifteen or twenty minutes ago as he was preparing for his press conference. I am aware of their situation but until they have their press conference and make their statements public I cannot make these statements public myself.

I know what they are going to be saying. I have received some briefing notes and I have had personal discussion with Mr. Hull, so I am going to leave it to him to have his press conference in ten minutes time and we will hear their decision at that time. They have made a decision and they will be informing the public when they have their press conference. They have informed the federal minister.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not satisfied with the response to my question to the Minister of Health. In fact he showed very little response and knowledge of the questions that I had asked him on Tuesday. I asked the minister on Tuesday and I stated in a report received by Agnew Peckham company out of Toronto that was commissioned by the government in the fall of 1992 and that reported back in October 1993 with a very comprehensive report on long-term care here in this Province that the department has not released or hasn't published to my knowledge. I happened to find out about it a month ago.

I read very carefully through that report. I said to the minister: In this report it states that 740 out of 1,184 nursing home beds in the City of St. John's and area need - and the words I quoted were - upgrading or outright replacement, The minister said: That is not correct. Some need to be redeveloped.

If we aren't going to upgrade - redevelop. Tell us how are you going to redevelop them if you aren't going to upgrade them or replace them. He just skated around an issue here. I will tell the minister that they are in St. Luke's Home, Glenbrook, Hoyles, Escasoni, Miller Centre. The ones that meet standards there are St. Patrick's Mercy Home, Agnes Pratt and Masonic Park. Identified in this report. It states that there are only 444 beds out of 1,184 that meet a standard for normal living today. He talked about the increase today in long-term care.

In light of this report, where there are 425 new beds, on top of those 740 we need - over the next seven years by the year 2001 we will need another 425 long-term care beds to meet the needs in this area - I asked the minister: Has the department developed a seven-year plan to meet the future needs of people who need this care in the Province? He didn't answer that they have. He said: We are going to look at the whole situation type of thing. After one year with a report.

I also asked the minister: If you are looking after all the needs that you stated in your response, why does the Agnew Peckham report state that there are 1,500 people on the waiting list in the city, not counting those who may need care who have not already applied? I know there could be duplication in different homes. I do know, and the minister might add, that a single entry system has been going on on an experimental basis in government-operated - Hoyles, Escasoni, and so on - for the last number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not satisfied with the answer to these questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you haven't told us why.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister is going to tell you why, I hope. I realize the single entry system is in the making. The community health boards were in the making over a year! We have 1,500 waiting in the meantime and others not identified. We are hoping to bring it all under a single entry system. The point is that an expenditure based on what Agnew Peckham's study said just to meet the next seven-year need is $35 million plus operational costs. To replace these others on a pro rata basis, I estimate you would need $100 million.

The minister says: We are catering to the needs and we will be able to look after the long-term needs. If the minister thinks that is adequate what is happening, and what this report states - and there is a very interesting point here on page fifty-one in that report, I say to the minister. We may be gearing up for a certain level of care in nursing homes, and this report is stating that the literature and the experience in past history suggests that hospital-based long-term care tends to be more medical- and treatment-oriented than nursing home base care, which may not be optimal for the future system.

In other words, not only are we behind 425 plus 749, 1,000 beds, but it may not even be necessary, the level of care provided in these homes, to meet future needs. I say to the minister, with an aging population in this Province, with a very high proportion of people in the sixty-five and over bracket - and it is going to increase in the next seven years, and it is going to increase almost exponentially in the next seventeen years - we need to have a plan put down by this department that is going to show their capital expenditures over a progression period and how we are going to meet these.

The department hasn't addressed these. There are numerous problems identified.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a question of telling why I wasn't satisfied with the answer to the question. It is not Question Period, I inform the minister. It is an opportunity to voice concerns that the minister could not address in Question Period. Now he has had two days to research those questions and hopefully he will stand up and be able to give an answer that is going to tell us something of what you are doing on those recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I thank hon. members for their generosity. He is starting to feel the heat.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was expecting a reiteration of the question that was asked, but what we got was a lecture from the hon. the Member for Ferryland, and incorporated in that lecture was a number of misconstrued pieces of information, just non-factual statements made by him.

First of all, let me tell the hon. minister - the hon. member -

AN HON. MEMBER: He will never be a minister.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Let me tell the hon. member that this report that he refers to was not a report done by government or for government directly. It was a report commissioned by - although government, I think, funded it - was done for the nursing home council in St. John's.

One of the things that the member said when he just spoke was that we will need 400 new beds between now and the year 2001 as indicated in this report. The report tells him, if he wants to look at it, that we will need ninety-three new beds possibly between the year 1993, which is when the report was done, and the year 2001. So the member is totally misinforming the House in terms of what the report says.

The report does not say that 700 of the beds that are in the system now need to be thrown out. What it does say, and what it does confirm, is something that we all know, that because of the aging population, because of people moving from Level I to Level II and Level III care, we have to redevelop the beds so they can better meet the needs of those people, and that includes doing things like suggesting rather than have four people in some rooms - we don't have room to move around with four people, having to take care of the people in the beds, so we probably need to reduce to two or three, so that means some redevelopment in the homes.

As far as 1,500 people being on the waiting list -

MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister indicated that what I said was incorrect, 425 beds. On page 78 of that report, I ask the minister, using present ratios of placement or beds to population -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not a point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The system would need to create about 425 additional beds by the year 2001. That is what the report said on page 78. The minister thinks I am wrong. I am quoting that report, and that is what I quoted in the beginning. I say to the minister that he made an inaccurate statement and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There may be a disagreement between two hon. members but it is not a point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I am referring to option number three in the report which says that we may need ninety-three new beds in the system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the Minister of Health and I am interested in hearing what the Minister of Health has to say.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that in the report option three refers to the possibility of needing ninety-three new beds in the system by the year 2001. What this amounts to on behalf of the hon. member is this, that he is taking a report that has been developed for the Nursing Homes Association in St. John's, a report that outlines what a system should have if we were operating in the most optimum of conditions and in a perfect world, and we know that we are in neither circumstance nor can we afford to be there anytime in the near future in this Province.

What we are doing as a response to this report, although it has not been adopted as government policy, what we are doing is moving on the recommendations of the report. As I told the member we are doing work at St. Luke's Home, we are doing work at Glenbrook Lodge, we are doing work at the Hoyles Home, we are doing work at Escasoni, and we are collaborating with the other home operators to lay out programs that will assist us to move forward and do the redevelopment that needs to be done as the need exists and as the resources become available to us.

So, I would suggest to the hon. member that he forget trying to use new math in terms of developing questions for the House, that he stick to the facts, and that he cease and desist from being a fearmongerer amongst the people of Newfoundland with respect to health care, and that he talk about some of the good things that are happening in the system.

I hear all kinds of horror stories being alleged from the member, but let me tell him that one of the first phone calls I received when I went over in the Department of Health was from a gentleman who said: I phoned you to tell you, Sir, that this summer I was stranded on Fogo Island in an emergency situation and within thirty-two minutes you had an air-ambulance out to meet me, within thirty-six minutes I was in St. John's, and it took me thirty-eight to get from the airport to the Grace Hospital. Now, that will tell you the type of service we are providing as a department and as a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: We are doing things that need to be done. We are doing them well. We are going to continue to do them well and we will not be deterred from doing what has to be done by suggestions that are inappropriate from the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: When order has been restored I will recognize the hon. Member for Placentia.

The hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The other day, I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, what I thought was a compassionate question regarding a Mr. Sam Alexander from the West Coast of Newfoundland, a vehicle inspector, who had been suspended from his job for two weeks and I was not satisfied with the minister's answer, not satisfied at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are never satisfied.

MR. CAREEN: Oh, yes sir, but I am not satisfied when I see some kind of a vindictiveness taking place; when I see the hon. minister, who at one time had been a champion of the small guy attacking the Crosbies of the world and attacking the Cashins of the world and now he has none of these big shots to pick on, so he has to pick on someone else down the line.

Where is the compassion, sir, that you displayed for a year-and-a-half until you got into Cabinet, and I sincerely ask you, sir, to do something about the man who only spoke up on safety, mirrored by editorials in the papers throughout this Province, and they are not Tory papers, not all of them, probably none as far as I know, but they are all saying the same things about safety on our highways which has to be a prime thing with this minister; but what we see the minister exercising is jackboot diplomacy on a man who had the courage to speak out. A wise minister would have ignored it; a wiser government would not allow it to take place. A wiser Cabinet would not allow inspections to be suspended.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How would you know?

MR. CAREEN: I would know. How would you know? I see the Member for Eagle River, that is the one guy in this House who approaches every concern with an open mouth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Democracy, sir! A person should have the right to have their say. I said he never attacked the government, he only brought up a safety concern, and had the courage to say it. Because he had to enforce the regulations the minister brought in months before, the same department.

My late grandfather, who I was called after, used to say: You can make a pet out of a weasel but you never let him sleep in the henhouse. Minister, I think you are a better man than what you portrayed yourself last Friday by suspending Mr. Alexander. I'm asking you sir, again this evening, to do like the Quaker Oats man says: Do the right thing sir, and reinstate Mr. Sam Alexander. Listen to the people who know. A vehicle safety inspector should know. He knows, he is qualified, and the minister was not qualified to make the decision. I'm asking him to reverse what he has done and reinstate Mr. Sam Alexander.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, for fear of the hon. member being confused for the second time this week, and for fear of the weasel getting trapped in the henhouse, I am going to refrain from giving any answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before you put the adjournment motion which is before you, Sir, we will meet at 9:00 a.m. This one is for Bud tomorrow I guess too. We will be dealing with Order No. 17 which is Bill No. - I'm sorry. We will finish the debate on second reading of the aquaculture act, we will get through that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman only has half an hour, but it will be a good half-hour, I say to my friend. Then we will deal with Bill No. 17. Then we will either go on more likely to Order No. 20, which is An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act and The City Of Mount Pearl Act. With that said, Mr. Speaker, there is a motion before Your Honour, I believe. Perhaps you would wish to put it.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.