November 26, 1996          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS         Vol. XLIII  No. 40

 


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this honourable House have probably read a news story in today's Evening Telegram, and indeed an earlier reference was made to it in some national papers yesterday, which reports that Spain, "wants Canada to do away with legislation that enabled Canadian patrol vessels to seize foreign vessels suspected of over-fishing."

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the news story is accurate and indeed this is the position of Spain as part of its conditional approval of a Canada-EU framework agreement. Spain, in fact, wants Canada to agree never again to use, specifically, Bill C-29 to protect straddling stocks outside 200 miles.

The question for members in this House is: Why does Spain want this? I believe the answer is very clear. Spain wants to lift the threat that Canada will once again act unilaterally outside 200 miles to ensure good conservation practices. While that threat remains, as it does today, there is a deterrent against Spain, or for that matter, any other nation, returning to the destructive pattern of overfishing that its vessels were guilty of from 1985 to 1995, over a ten-year period.

That pattern of destruction was ended by a series of steps taken by the government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. The first step was for the Prime Minister to indicate shortly after his government's election in the Fall of 1993 that unilateral action would be taken, if necessary, to end foreign overfishing.

This declaration by the Prime Minister was followed in May of 1994 with legislation, Bill C-29, that gave domestic authority for Canadian vessels to take enforcement action outside of 200 miles, where necessary, to protect straddling stocks. Mr. Speaker, that legislation was not a partisan matter in this country. Indeed, it was approved unanimously by all parties in the House of Commons and approved unanimously by the Canadian Senate. In fact, the approval in both Chambers was given in a record two days. Shortly thereafter, the Federal Government approved regulations against flag of convenience vessels fishing for straddling stocks outside 200 miles. Within a matter of a few days, the flag of convenience vessels, fifteen at the time, that had been pillaging stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks had left the area. Because of Bill C-29, these flag of convenience vessels which had been fishing for years, have never returned.

The third step was for the Government of Canada to use Bill C-29 to take unilateral action against Spanish vessels overfishing for turbot outside 200 miles in March 1995. That led to a Canada-EU Fisheries Agreement that in September of 1995 was adopted by all members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Those measures agreed by Canada and the EU and then adopted by NAFO include 100 per cent observer coverage on every vessel beyond the 200-mile limit. This is extremely important to ensure that all countries fishing for straddling stocks do so in accordance with NAFO-designed and approved conservation controls.

These controls are for measures against the use of small mesh gear, controls against harvesting juvenile fish, controls against misreporting of catches. Those controls continue to be enforced through 100 per cent observer coverage and other measures agreed to by Canada and the EU in April of 1995.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rise today because it is clear that these measures are working and it is equally clear why Spain wants the withdrawal of Bill C-29. In the year before the turbot dispute, EU vessels were cited for fifty-eight major infractions of NAFO conservation rules. Many more perhaps went undetected because there were no observers at that stage aboard EU vessels. In the year after the turbot dispute, there was only one major citation - fifty-eight in the year before, at a time when there was no observer coverage. In the year after the new NAFO Agreement with 100 per cent observer coverage, so that more incidents could be cited if in fact they were occurring, there was only one major infraction. Mr. Speaker, fewer than half the number of Spanish vessels have come to fish this year, in 1996, than fished in the same region in 1995.

But this whole matter of compliance with the NAFO rules is not just a matter of goodwill. It is a matter of increased awareness on the part of all countries, including the E.U., that we can no longer fish indiscriminately the living species of the ocean beyond the 200-mile limit, but the bottom line is the system works, the new pattern of compliance is in place, because an effective deterrent, Bill C-29, remains in place. The bottom line is that nations don't pillage and destroy the living resources of the ocean because nations of the world remain convinced that if required again, Canada will again take the action to go beyond 200 miles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I remain confident, and I believe I speak for all members of this House, irrespective of party, that while Spain may want Canada to abandon Bill C-29, I am convinced that the Government of Canada, and indeed the leaders of all of the political parties of Canada, will never agree to abandon Bill C-29. The Prime Minister and his government have made a strong commitment to do what is necessary to protect straddling stocks. They backed up that commitment in the past with actions, and I am convinced they will do so again if necessary.

Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot allow its relationship with the European Union to be dictated on the basis of a particular grievance by one country, Spain, that wants Canada to abandon legislation, passed by a sovereign House of Commons, necessary to protect our straddling stocks. One of the reasons we in this Province suffer as we do today economically is because of the destruction of straddling stocks that occurred in the past. Never again must the fundamental interest of Atlantic Canada, or the fundamental interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, be traded off for a diplomatic nicety. Bill C-29 must remain. We say it must be so, and we expect the people of Canada, as they have in the past, to remain vigilant, and our Government of Canada to remain vigilant, to ensure that law stays on the books, and if necessary implemented in the defence of our straddling stocks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our Opposition supports any measures that are going to get control over our straddling stocks to ensure that it is harvested in a manner that is sufficient to sustain ability of that stock, and we agree with whatever measures that takes. We agree with controls on mesh size, against harvesting juvenile fish, and we agree with observers. Let us not be mistaken; when we put observers on domestic boats here the number of infractions went down drastically, and they also did on foreign boats. It is the observer presence on those boats that has reduced the amount of illegal fishing that is taking place outside and inside a 200-mile limit here.

Mr. Speaker, our own people have been violators of the very same regulation as that of foreign boats, but we had control over ours. We got there before they did on straddling stocks, and now the same thing is happening there. I certainly support any measures that are going to assist in this regard, and we must send a message that is not ambiguous. When we enforce a section of our law we must not return cargoes, we must not give them back their fish and their boats, and pick up all the costs for doing so. We must send a message that is clear and concise to these people, that we are not going to tolerate any of this, and put an end to foreigners coming in and devastating our stocks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform my hon. colleagues that the provincial government has approved funding to help establish a Newfoundland and Labrador Construction Safety Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: To this end, Mr. Speaker, the funding of $300,000 per year for the next three years, plus $50,000 for start-up costs, has been approved for this initiative.

The new safety association has a mandate to reduce workplace injuries through the introduction of a Construction Safety Program that has two components: first, the safety training of workers in the industry, and second, Mr. Speaker, the provision of a Certificate of Recognition for construction companies.

Under the program, only certified companies will be able to bid on government-funded projects in this Province. Mr. Speaker, government will introduce a policy effective January 1, 1998, that all firms bidding on government-funded construction projects in excess of $100,000 will be required to have a Certificate of Recognition. Similarly, effective January 1, 1999, all firms bidding on any government contracts will be required to have a Certificate of Recognition.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important step in standardizing the bidding practices in the Atlantic Region. Currently, Nova Scotia has such a program in place while PEI and New Brunswick have it under consideration. I commend the construction industry, and also the workers of the Province in the construction industry, for taking the initiative, on their own, to reduce the number and seriousness of injuries that impact on the workers in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the value of this safety program is that it will contribute to a reduction in workplace accidents throughout construction sites in this Province, and we do need to see that happen, and we want to see a reduction in the cost of workplace injury claims, and in the process, produce a better trained workforce in the Province, who are much more aware of occupational health and safety at the sites.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today as somebody whose former profession was with respect to occupational health and safety, educational upgrading and specific training programs in the construction industry, and I commend the initiative by the minister today.

For the past number of years, many people, some employers, but on the other side, many training and labour management groups, have been advocating such an approach, because they believe, fundamentally, that if we are going to be reducing workplace accidents, then the money that government should be putting in should be upfront in initiatives like this.

There are some questions that need to be answered, and I guess they will be flushed out and fleshed out over time. What will be the make up of the new board that he talks about? Will it be a labour management make up? What criteria? Will they be responsible solely and ultimately for determining the criteria by which the recognition will be given to certain companies, or will it ultimately be up to the minister.

On the whole, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, support the initiative. We believe it is money well spent and will produce tremendous gains for the Province, and in effect, tremendous gains for the people and the industry they represent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. I have provided information to the minister today to verify statements I made in the House yesterday about the impact of faulty equipment at the Burin Hospital on patient care.

Will the minister confirm that since November 7, the day when all surgeries were cancelled at the Burin Hospital, three outside technicians have been working there every day to repair equipment, and that the work is still ongoing.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do acknowledge receipt, about fifteen minutes before I came to the House, of a letter from the hon. member, and I appreciate his taking me up on the request to provide me with whatever information he might think is appropriate, and that I might be able to follow up on. The information he has provided me with indicates three specific names and instances, and I will undertake to follow up on these.

The hon. member says, in his correspondence to me today: If you would simply acknowledge the concerns of the individuals I have provided to you, as well as listen to the medical staff at these facilities, this issue would be resolved.' I am glad to tell the hon. member that I do acknowledge the concerns, the receipt of them. I will do diligence to what he has put forward. And to the second part of his solution, in terms of listening to the medical staff, as he is aware, a process was started last Thursday to address all issues that the medical staff brought forward. The medical staff are fully participating in the discussion with the committee, they have representation on the committee and to that part of it, their concerns will be addressed this week, no later than the end of this week, when the board anticipates receipt of the report of the review committee, and undoubtedly, I will be concurrently in receipt of the same. So his solution, as he puts forward, is absolutely in progress and I do acknowledge the concerns that he has given me. We will follow up.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the minister, I did mention several, three names and telephone numbers are provided. Other people had wished to remain anonymous or I could not get in contact with. There are many instances, Minister, and more besides.

I would like to inform the minister, too, that he did not answer my question with reference to maintenance ongoing. I would inform the minister that the company Biotron - in case the minister would like to know what company is servicing this equipment - is currently in the process of doing that. I am sure the minister has avenues to access that information.

Now, I have been given verbal confirmation, and I am asking the minister to acknowledge, as well, that medical staff at the Burin hospital made a commitment to his department that they would not make statements in public about the concern at the hospital - concerns that I have raised - until a review is complete and the report is released on Thursday. Now, will the minister confirm, as well, that staff at the hospital are intimidated for fear of reprisals if the administrator comes back?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that the medical staff, be it one doctor or several doctors or any specific group of doctors, made any such commitment to anybody with respect to the issues that they raised. What the doctors did agree to, in a fair and reasonable fashion, was to participate in a review of the issues that they brought forward through a committee. They are doing that.

The only calls, quite honestly and quite factually, Mr. Speaker, that my office has received from the doctors at the peninsula, for the most part, are a couple of calls we got from a couple of doctors expressing grave concern as to the level of rhetoric that is being verbalized in this Chamber and outside by people who are elected and are expected to operate in a responsible fashion. That type of concern has come to me from some of the medical staff. The issues that have been raised will be dealt with. The information I have - as of fifteen or twenty minutes ago - is that there may be 250 pieces of equipment in the board's jurisdiction. We know, the board knows, of one piece of equipment that failed on one specific time. The other 249 pieces of equipment, as far as I know today, are functioning and were functioning. If there is something different to be expounded or clarified as a result of the review process, let the hon. member do the decent thing, in the interest of the people that we serve on the Burin Peninsula, let him wait until the review is done on Thursday or Friday of this week. And let me assure him that this House will be amongst the first to know the results of that review, as would be appropriate in any event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If you follow up, I say to the minister, on the names and telephone numbers of those patients who could not have a medical service provided because equipment was not working, as told to them by the physicians and hospital personnel, you will find the true answers, I say to the minister, it is in the information I gave you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Have you made one call to confirm it yourself, personally? I ask him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister if he will follow up on the information I provided to him today and I just referenced, and find out why there was a serious failure in the system?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can only repeat what I said in the answer to the first question, yes, I will follow up. Yes, I will undertake to do due diligence to the concerns that you have brought forward. If there is one concern that comes to me it is no less important than 100 concerns. Every individual incidence that is alleged or in fact confirmed of inappropriate or under-service, as a result of anything that happens in our health care system, is of utmost concern and utmost priority to me, to this government. We will continue to take a position of responsibility in dealing with these questions and issues in a responsible fashion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final supplementary. I say to the minister, if your follow-up is not to your satisfaction, I extend an invitation to you and ask will you come with me down to the Burin Peninsula, and I will let you speak with these people personally who have been the subject of a lack of medical attention because of non-functioning equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Province is indeed fortunate to have a Minister of Health who takes more seriously the responsibility to try to administer the health care budget of this Province in a manner that is in the best interest of the people of the Province than we have a Leader of the Opposition. I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, when questions are put that are serious, that raise serious concerns and serious issues, members on this side, including the Minister of Health, will always respond in a manner that is appropriate to the seriousness of the question that is raised.

But I say to the Leader of the Opposition, it doesn't serve the public of this Province, having raised the issue, having received an absolute assurance that the matter is going to be thoroughly investigated, thoroughly dealt with within days, for the Leader of the Opposition then to pursue questions in a manner that can have no effect whatsoever other than to needlessly alarm the people in the area receiving health care in this region. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, I assure him, and I ask him to take the word of the minister and my word, that this matter will be thoroughly looked into. But I ask him to stop this game of trying to score political points by needlessly concerning people on the Burin Peninsula.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Will the minister today table an analysis which shows the relative cost of contracting out the air ambulance service to the private sector compared with running the service in-house?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been decided on and dealt with and is in the process of being put into the format where we will have tender specifications designed which will go out to the public for a call to the private sector to provide to government their assessment of how they can deliver this particular service on government's behalf.

Through the course of developing the tender specifications, as a government we will be consulting with the private sector to determine and to look at all of the requirements that we need to build into the specifications. We will be consulting with all of the hospital boards and the Department of Health to determine those tender specifications. Through this process we will receive detailed proposals which will identify all of the cost analysis which will be involved. When those are received we will then analyze completely the cost benefit of supplying this particular service through a private sector involvement.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Won't the minister confirm that the government has in its possession information which indicates it is preferable not to privatize the air ambulance service? I have Cabinet documents which clearly show that it is more expensive to privatize. Won't she now confirm that she herself, just like her predecessors, two previous ministers, has advised against the very course of action she is now taking?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I can only presume that the Cabinet documents the hon. member refers to are the same Cabinet documents that were referred to by the Leader of the Opposition in a television interview and in contact with the media approximately three weeks ago, and at that time it was confirmed by me and by the media that in fact they were not Cabinet documents, that it was a draft paper that was the subject of the conversation. In fact it was also noted at that time that that same paper, which again I reiterate is not a Cabinet document, is simply a draft paper that was prepared well in advance of any Cabinet submission on this, was released through The Evening Telegram approximately two months ago.

So what I am saying in response to this is that there is not a Cabinet document as I understand it, unless this is something different now that the member is referring to, but the information that I have, that was being referred to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: The only information that I can assume the member is referring to here is the same information that was referred to in The Evening Telegram two months ago, and on the television stations approximately a month ago. It was a draft paper at that time; it is still a draft paper. It refers to very dated information, referring back to studies that were done in 1988. As I said then and I will repeat now: Circumstances have changed substantially in the intervening time period, which cause us to go to the move that we are now doing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister really has her heart set on contracting out this service, then will she at least write in the tender specification that a Medivac air ambulance must be based in St. Anthony, adjacent to the areas on the Northern Peninsula and in Southern Labrador which depend so much on the air ambulance service, and which accounts for 55 per cent of the flights? Will she recognize that by pursuing her own dream of having this service based in St. John's, in the face of sound advice contrary to what she has been giving us, she is in fact playing with the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing a clear statement from the Opposition on their position on privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: We are hearing very conflicting messages when we are talking about taking the position that this government should be looking at privatizing certain services where it is the appropriate thing to do, and yet on the other hand indicating that we should be dictating, in going to that privatization, how that service should be delivered.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the air ambulance contract and the specifications that we will design, and the tender that we will call for, we will include in the specifications everything that is required in order to ensure that we obtain the highest level of service at the most cost-efficient price that this government can possibly receive from the private sector.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Premier.

Of course, the hot topic of the day in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be Voisey's Bay, and with all due respect to the Premier and his Cabinet, of course, the questions over and over come forward. We have tried in this House to ask some questions. We have asked the Premier, in the media. There have been public meetings on Voisey's Bay, and the truth is that there is not very much known about this whole project.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Premier again, our record as politicians, on both sides of the House - of course, that famous clip of Premier Smallwood standing with the white hat on, at Churchill Falls -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the questions have not been answered; so we will start with a few more questions today, and I ask the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will start to ask the questions to the Premier again today, and we will have a long list of questions for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, they seem to be a little nervous about some questions, I believe.

Mr. Speaker, the first question to the Premier: Can the Premier tell us today that the announcement on the smelter refinery is within days? Can the Premier tell us today in the House that he knows, right now, today, where the smelter refinery will go? And how long has he known where the smelter refinery will go?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago we had the Leader of the Opposition doing everything but chasing ambulances to try and score some political points, and now we have another of his colleagues standing up, and it is so transparent that everybody in the Province can see what he is doing. He is trying to see whether there is any political mileage to be gained in trying to divide one part of the Province against another part of the Province. It is called the politics of pride, prejudice, and division, and we on this side will have no part of it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: I rest my case, Mr. Speaker. The first question, five minutes again with the Premier and still no answer on a simple, straightforward question: Do you know where the smelter refinery is going, and how long have you known? I asked the same question. So I will ask question number two and we will see if you will skate around this question. Forget the road show that he has had in this House for the last month or so.

Sixty per cent of Voisey's Bay nickel is sold to Asian countries, Mr. Speaker. We always talk about the smelter refinery. Will the Premier commit that every ounce of nickel that comes out of Voisey's Bay will be refined at the refinery in this Province? That is a simple enough question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr.Speaker, to quote the former Member for St. John's West, the hon. John Crosbie: That is the greatest performance I have seen since King Kong climbed the Empire State Building.

Once again, the member wants to have it both ways. Here is the same member who stood up in the House of Assembly a few weeks ago and launched a blistering attack on the EDGE program. It was a shocking program, a spendthrift program, a giveaway, but he had forgotten that he had written a letter to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology asking for EDGE status for a mine in his own riding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member of the following: the Voisey's Bay development, as we said was the case during the last election campaign, will only occur when there is maximum and full benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that means the construction of a smelter refinery complex within the Province. And when it is constructed, just so the member is not confused, it will be the biggest nickel smelter refinery complex built anywhere in the world. Even the member will be able to find it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte, a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Those were two straight questions, Mr. Speaker, and zero answers.

The third question, straight to the question - copper, a magnificent amount of copper, 185 million pounds annually in Voisey's Bay - will all of the copper, I ask the Premier, be refined in this Province? Can the Premier answer at least one of three questions today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, everything that can be viably, commercially, and economically smelted, refined, and processed in the Province will be done in the Province, just like the mines on the Baie Verte Peninsula, the gold mine which now has a milling operation because the government provided for an EDGE grant to make that possible. Everything we can do - a seal plant which was just given an EDGE status on the Baie Verte Peninsula - everything we can do to create jobs, to keep jobs, to keep revenue, we will do; but I will tell you what we will not do. We will not do what the Leader of the Opposition asked us to do on Monday, which is to give a ten year tax-free holiday to Inco. We say that Inco has to pay its full share, its full way, and pay good revenues to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a number of employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard in our galleries today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The workers of the Newfoundland Dockyard are tired of politics and rhetoric, so this question is not designed to be a political question.

I ask the minister, based on rumours that we received yesterday that Irving - and I indicated this to the minister in a previous telephone conversation - is now lobbying Ottawa, using a two- or three-year-old document, explaining that there are too many shipyards in the Atlantic region, to make sure that the Newfoundland Dockyard does not open. I ask the minister, is he going to do everything in his power, and the provincial government do everything in its power, to make sure that Ottawa does not close this viable industry?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of a document circulating in Ottawa by the Irvings. Does the hon. member have that evidence? If he does, can he lay it on the Table and we will deal with it. But I certainly have no evidence that there is a conspiracy by Irving to keep investors out of this Province.

I know of two very substantial proposals that have been laid before the Government of Canada with respect to the Dockyard. They are good proposals; they are sound companies. I, in fact, met with one of the companies in its headquarters in Montevideo just last week. I can tell you it has substantial interest. The particular company that I met with has seven headquarters around the world. It trades on two international stock exchanges. It has substantial revenues flowing through its corporation, and it is very excited about the St. John's Dockyard. The other company is a Newfoundland company. It has put a proposal forward as well.

The ball clearly is in the court of Marine Atlantic, and it has just struck a committee - two from Transport Canada, two from Marine Atlantic - to assess both proposals. That assessment is happening today and tomorrow, and yesterday they invited the Province to sit in, in an observer status, and we have a senior economist at the table this morning. But we don't have any knowledge of somebody conspiring to keep investors away from the Province. If the hon. member has evidence he should give it to me immediately.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology also on the Dockyard. The reality is that the workers of the Dockyard have been waiting for two years for some word on the Newfoundland Dockyard and its future. Today I spoke to management at the Newfoundland Dockyard an hour before I came to this House, I spoke with officials at Marine Atlantic about an hour before I came to this House, and I have spoken with officials in the Department of Transport nationally who have told me, I say to the minister, that Irvings are indeed lobbying strongly to ensure that the Newfoundland Dockyard does not open its doors any more because it would impact upon their businesses in the rest of Atlantic Canada. The question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Totally irresponsible?

AN HON. MEMBER: Name the official; name them here and now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The question, I say, to the minister, is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question I have for the minister is: You have indicated that you have a senior official who is at the meetings today. Does the contract look good for the Dockyard? Does it look like its doors will remain open? What commitment can the Province give to the people who work at the Newfoundland Dockyard that a future will be there for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions there. I think the first one, the hon. member says a senior official from Transport Canada has told him -

MR. E. BYRNE: Officials from Transport Canada (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Officials from Transport Canada -

MR. E. BYRNE: Officials (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Just name one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, all of us have a responsibility, as members, to act in a responsible manner in this Assembly. We cannot hide under the cloak of immunity and say anything that we want, or lash out at people.

MR. E. BYRNE: I agree with you.

MR. FUREY: Now, the hon. member has said that officials from Transport Canada, people who work for the country, have said to him that Irvings are lobbying and conspiring to keep investors away from this... You owe it to the people of the Province to name that official.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I take quite seriously anything the hon. member says because I know that he acts in good faith. He asks responsible questions. He has been my critic for a number of years and has done so responsibly. But to say that somebody is conspiring to keep investors away - I can tell you with certainty, I can tell you and the House, the unions, and management and the people of the Province with certainty that the company that I met with - and I have not met with both companies, I was not invited by both companies, I was invited by one company. They are excited about this place. They see ship-building, a ship repair, they see offshore, they see Newfoundland as the new North Sea, the place of the future! They want to come here! They want to invest here! They want to put hundreds of people back to work in this Province! That is what this company wants to do!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) it is important today and it needs the answers today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the answers privately, I will tell you privately, if you can guarantee me that you will hold (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to conclude by saying, we have all worked very hard. We have worked in concert with the unions and with management. I have sought out investors personally. We have spent considerable time, energy and money chasing investment, to bring it into this Province. I do not want to chase it away by innuendo, smear tactics and causing some kind of conspiracy. There are two substantial proposals on the table and I say to the hon. member, because I know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to take his place.

MR. FUREY: I know, Mr. Speaker, he is earnest and he wants a responsible answer. There are two serious proposals on the table. They are being reviewed by senior executive of Transport Canada and Marine Atlantic, a committee of four, today and tomorrow. Where that will lead, they will select one. If it leads - it may well lead to another delay where they may have to seek clarification of proposals and that is understandable but let us all be positive and let us understand that there are two real investors who want to come in here. They see this place as a good place to do business.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. minister to take his place.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. Mr. Minister, in June you made promises you knew you could not keep regarding the Crown land pricing policy. You strung people along in June, July, August and September. The people were expecting changes to the policy. The deadline for application was October 31, yet, you did not make an announcement until October 10 that there would be no changes. Mr. Minister, was this simply a move to give the public no time to organize? Will the minister now admit that this was simply a tax grab and that you could not keep your promises because the money was needed to balance the budget?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member, the Crown lands pricing policy that we implemented in May - for the cottage lots there were 4,055 cottage lots subject to this deadline of October 31. We have received 3,850 applications, which is about 90 per cent, 95 per cent response rate (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

The minister did not answer the question, he only confirmed what I had stated earlier.

Mr. Minister, you stated that there would be revenues of approximately $6.2 million. With the number of applications received by October 31, the revenues would be closer to $15 million. Based on your press release of November 14 - which you just referred to, by the way - will the minister now confirm revenues of closer to $15 million? Why did you tell the people of the Province that it would be a $6.2 million figure when you knew, based on the number of applications that you would receive, based on the number of cottage leases, commercial leases and residential leases in the Province, that you knew upfront there would be closer to $15 million to $20 million, and you told the people $6.2 million? Why did you mislead the people of the Province?

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question again, I remind the hon. member that when we put the program out we anticipated a response rate of about 40 per cent and we based our figures on that amount but we were able to encourage people to take part in the program because obviously they saw it as a good program and a good way to get their land straightened up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Let me further suggest that not only did we have a large take in the cottage leases, we also had a 35 per cent response rate for residential which really was not involved in the program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: We also had a 39 per cent response rate in the commercial properties, and we had felt we would only get about 10 to 15 per cent. I think that is a pretty good program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the House today the present Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Commons, who is sitting in the Speaker's gallery, Mr. Gus Cloutier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. DECKER: Me. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcements."

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to present the following resolution:

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are the rightful owners of the Churchill Falls power resource; and

WHEREAS on average between 1976 and 1995 Hydro Quebec received 96 per cent of the benefits while Newfoundland and Labrador only received 4 per cent of the benefits, this has provided a daily revenue flow of $1.7 million to Hydro Quebec while this Province receives a mere $61,000 per day; and

WHEREAS over the course of the agreement Hydro Quebec will gain fifty-six billions of dollars while CF(L)CO will face a cash short-fall of $340 million; and

WHEREAS the people of this Province deserve a full and fair share of the wealth of our resources;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this honourable House fully endorse and support the government and its efforts to change this unconscionable contract to maximize the financial benefits accruing from this Labrador resource in the Labrador region of our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present to the House of Assembly a petition signed by the employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard. I will read the prayer of the petition:

We, the employees of the Newfoundland Dockyard, wish to petition the House of Assembly, to voice our concerns over the closure and the lack of action on the closure of the Newfoundland Dockyard.

We are asking the Provincial Government to take an active stand with the Federal Government and Marine Atlantic to re-open this vital industry supplying hundreds of needed jobs to the Newfoundland economy.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present this petition to the House of Assembly today but, on the other hand, it is with great dismay that I see the Newfoundland Dockyard is still closed, that it has not been re-opened and that, to date, there are no signs of any constructive workings to re-open the dockyard, other than the fact that we have a Greek company with interest and there is a Newfoundland company with interest. This is a vital industry to Newfoundland and Labrador, supplying at times, up to 800 jobs as well as the spin-off business that it provides to several companies in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is a very, very, vital industry to Newfoundland and Labrador as well, because of the out-migration of people from the Province. We cannot afford to lose any more people, we cannot afford to lose any more employment, we cannot afford to lose any more industry in this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, it gives me great pleasure to present this petition, and it is with anticipation that the Provincial Government will be very, very aggressive in their fight against Ottawa and the closure of the Newfoundland Dockyard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to stand in support of the petition that has just been tabled by the member opposite, and tell him that I, and many members on this side of the House, indeed in particular, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have, for some time, a great deal of time, been working on this problem. I think that many of the members of the dockyard in St. John's know, going back more than a year ago, that I have had a personal involvement, as had the Minister of Industry, back when I was in another jurisdiction in the House of Commons at that time and as Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet, in ensuring a process was established to look at the possibility of an employee takeover, in the first instance, but also the time to develop alternate investment opportunities for the dockyard.

So, I want to assure the hon. member, and through the member and through this House, I want to assure all of the employees, their families and members of the community here in St. John's who support this dockyard, who understand it is a natural for this city, that the government will do everything in its power that it can to find new investment and to see that the dockyard is reopened.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there have been comments lately, some tongue-in-cheek, about the travel done, on all of our behalf, by the Minister of Industry in South America. One of the purposes of that trip was to meet with the principals of one of the companies interested in assuming ownership of the dockyard. That was one of the purposes of the trip. I have met with both representatives of the (inaudible) and representatives of the Newfoundland based concern as well, both. I can tell the member and I say to the member and say to the employees of the yard, that I have confidence that everything that can be done is being done by the minister and by his officials, and I personally have taken an interest and personally have been involved, when it is appropriate, in this file.

Let me go further. I have confidence that everything that can be done within the realm of responsibility assigned to this individual, and by the Chairman of Marine Atlantic who resides in this Province, who has given good leadership to Marine Atlantic, and who has given good leadership, good sensitivity and understanding to the importance of the dockyard, everything that could be done in that area is being done as well, by Moya Cahill.

I don't take the position, and I don't think any of us should take the position, that somebody, a particular individual or group of people, are the enemy here. It is unfortunate that the end of the string has been played out with Marine Atlantic in terms of this dockyard, and the Federal Government with respect to this dockyard. The mission now is not to repeat rumours and repeat innuendo and cause mistrust and to cause suspicion, to cause division or to cause people to shy away from investing.

Today we heard in the House - and Irving Oil is big enough to look after itself. Irving is a big, big organization, no question about it, but when you take the name of an organization that has a very substantial presence in this Province, a substantial presence in Canada, and a substantial presence around the world, and in a cavalier fashion call into question the ethics -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me finish, please. - the ethics of that organization, then what you do is you tell other investors that are considering coming in that the rules of the game here are, there are no rules, and you could be maligned at the drop of a hat.

So, I would say, if I may speak to the member who raised the petition, and I think raised it seriously - he has been doing it since he came here, no question about that - if we pull together and work together, avoid assigning blame, avoid trying to score political points, and try to draw in a new investor, create an environment in which that investor can be successful, we may be able to see, I am confident we can see, the continuation of the dockyard. But if this important issue is reduced to either side, this side of the House or that side, trying to score political points, we may cause the very result that we say we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude - and I thank you for your tolerance - by saying, the offshore oil and gas industry, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has just pointed out, as the Minister of Mines and Energy has worked so hard for, is beginning to take off, self-sustaining, 100 per cent private sector investment. We are strategically well located. The workers know that. We have tremendous quality of workmanship in this Province, the best available in the world. They need the tools to do the job and they need an owner committed to the dockyard, and we are committed to working with them to acquire one for St. John's, Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to speak today to a petition presented by the Member for St. John's South. I am glad to see that the Premier does support the petition, and hopefully the minister will be successful in getting a company to take over and save, possibly, upwards of 800 jobs.

I will say to the Premier, the people who work at that yard - and some are in the gallery today - I am sure, do not want to be patronized. They want action.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of his speech the Premier was basically patronizing the people in the gallery. The spin-off from the dockyard over the past number of years was a great -

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I am not attempting to patronize anybody, and I would suggest to the hon. member that to subscribe that motive is doing exactly the kind of thing that I have said we should avoid, which is to politicize the issue. Now, it so happens that at the end of my remarks, and as well at the end of the remarks of the member opposite, there was some sign of approval and applause in the gallery. Perhaps they want us to work together and quit playing these games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Yes, no point of order is correct. Up trying to - talk about someone trying to make political points!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the people who work at the dockyard have genuine concerns. It was brought up in the House today about Irving trying to lobby Ottawa. The Premier of this Province has been associated with business long enough to know that a natural part of business is to lobby. As a matter of fact, there are paid lobbyists in Ottawa by big business, so in actual fact they have a genuine, legitimate concern with respect to that. They hear what is going on throughout the country and throughout the Province with respect to the dockyard. Obviously, where there's smoke there's fire.

The people who work at the dockyard have for a number of years been under a great shadow of doubt with respect to what their future will be. Their future -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Who has the floor, I wonder, Mr. Speaker? Does the member over there have the floor or do I?

Anyway, the people who worked at the dockyard and their families have been under a great shadow of doubt over the past number of years, in particular, the past two years. Granted, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is working hard to keep the dockyard open. All I am saying at this point in time is that I wish him every success, as I am sure every person who works at the dockyard, and every family member of the people who work at the dockyard, wish him success. Again I will say I am glad to see that the Premier is alongside, but then again, he does take every opportunity to make the political points that he was accusing me of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 900 people from the Port au Port - Stephenville - Bay St. George area. This petition relates to a matter which I have raised previously in this House, just some days ago, related to the use of helicopter and the hunt of big game.

The prayer of the petition reads as follows:

The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland strongly oppose the indiscriminate use of helicopters as observed to flush, spot and harass big-game animals during the big-game hunting season.

Whereas this practice causes undue pressure on the animal population, therefore we believe that hunters who use helicopters as a form of transportation should not be allowed to hunt until the helicopter has left the hunting area.

Therefore we the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to enact legislation prohibiting legal hunting within twelve hours after being dropped off by helicopter in wilderness areas. We also ask that existing laws that prohibit harassment of big-game animals by helicopters be strictly enforced.

Mr. Speaker, this action has been initiated at this point in time by virtue of the fact that there are increasing numbers of complaints from people who are engaged in the big-game hunt of incidents which they are witnessing involving the use of helicopters, as the petition reads, to harass and indeed to hunt big game. As the members of this hon. House would be aware, up until recent years the use of air transport would have been restricted primarily to people who are involved in bringing in hunters from outside the Province, big-game operators, outfitters. Primarily it would have been the use of fixed wing aircraft, but it is only in recent years that helicopters have been used. Of course, the difference that helicopters make is that there is no area of the Province that is not now accessible.

The people who are complaining and who are raising this concern with government are not objecting to the fact that people, in pursuing their business, big game outfitters, should not be allowed to use this type of transport to get their hunters into the country to participate in the hunt. What they are strenuously objecting to is the use of these helicopters to engage in the hunt itself.

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous complaints. I have heard of many myself and, as a matter of fact, as I stated in this House some days ago, I had the opportunity just a couple of weeks ago to witness firsthand certainly something that was of a questionable nature, a helicopter in the area circling for some thirty or forty-five minutes. We assumed that there was probably somebody lost, but then the helicopter went down and within fifteen minutes you could hear shots. One can only assume that something was happening. This is the sort of thing that has been played out over and over.

I have also personally spoken to people who have seen helicopters actually used in flushing moose. Now, if you can visualize that these are people who are claiming to be hunters, going into the woods, there is no problem locating them from a helicopter, and they are not safe within the woods because the helicopter just buzzes the trees and flushes the animals. This is certainly not a hunt. It is certainly not a good use of a resource, a resource that belongs to all of the people of this Province. As this petition states, it is a situation which must be dealt with, it must be ended, and basically all that needs to happen here, because this cannot happen legally. People are using helicopters to actually engage in the hunt, and this is an illegal activity. Basically what the petition is calling for is the enforcement of the laws that presently exist, and I call upon the minister and ask that he, through his officials, ensure that this sort of activity ceases to continue in this Province so that the resource may be protected and continue to be there for some time to come for the benefit of all the residents of this Province.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise in my place today to present a petition on behalf -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the petition?

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

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

MR. TULK: In answer to the gentleman's petition, I want to acknowledge the petition that was presented by the Member for Port au Port, and so ably presented in the fashion in which he did it. He, like the rest of us in this House, I am sure, and like the people in Port au Port who signed that petition, are concerned about the use of helicopters by anybody to harass big game rather than to engage in a fair chase hunt.

I want to tell him that we have recently become aware that this kind of harassment, this kind of so-called hunting, and this kind of so-called killing of big game, is becoming an increasing concern to us and an increasing concern to a number of people. As he said in the petition, nobody is objecting to outfitters transporting their guests to lodges, or transporting them in the woods, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to ensure that once the people have been transported into the outfitting lodge, or whatever, that they carry on a fair chase.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Port au Port would know, this was raised at the Liberal annual meeting, I believe by a person in his own district, again. We want to acknowledge that concern, and we want to acknowledge his concern, and say to him that I have had discussions with my officials and asked them to start stepping up enforcement for the rest of this year and indeed, if it is necessary, to put in place what those people call covert operations to catch somebody, because it is not even now condoned by the regulations.

I want to also tell him that I have asked my officials, as of yesterday, to start reviewing - and that again was more or less in response to a commitment I made to the Member for Port au Port - any relevant legislation across the country that might be available, and to see that indeed, come next year, while we may not agree with the twelve hours, that we will certainly see that the principle of espousing this position put forward by the people from Port au Port, if there is any way we can strengthen our regulations or our legislation for the next hunting season, to see that it is done. I have committed to bringing those things to Cabinet and hopefully get approval of this Legislature for the next hunting season.

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

Does the hon. the Member for Bonavista South want to reply?

MR. J. BYRNE: I give leave.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I just rise to support the petition put forward by the Member for Port au Port and responded to by the Minster of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

I say to the member that this is certainly nothing new. I am aware that this has been going on, and I have heard complaints of it for years and years. It is not new, and those people should not be too hard to identify or catch. We are talking about a helicopter. We are not talking about a trike, and we are not talking about a boat; we are talking about a helicopter.

I remember on a similar expedition, I did not take part in the illegal hunt, or I did not take part in doing something that was wrong, but I was in an area that witnessed a similar event that took part down in Labrador back in the early 1980s. At that particular time it was not hard to identify the aircraft. It was just a matter - I think somebody identified the plane. It was a certain colour. Most of the people who own helicopters have their names written on the sides. It carries their distinctive colours, and it is only a matter of making a telephone call to see who is there. It is not hard to identify who the occupants of the particular helicopter are. It is something that should certainly be looked after, because if we are going to realize the full potential of our resources here, especially our wildlife resources and the many dollars and the many hours of enjoyment that brings to our people, then those are the things that we are going to have to correct. I think some of our initiatives are working very well, the dial-a-poacher and similar other things that are on line now.

I think the whole of Newfoundland has taken a different outlook as it relates to poaching. One time it was an accepted thing; you would laugh at it, and you would share in the fun of it, but not any more. It is not an accepted action at all now.

I commend the member, and I commend his constituents, for bringing such a petition forward. I think that there would be nobody in this House of Assembly who would not support such an initiative. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to present a petition on behalf of some of the residents of Bauline. The pray of the petition is as follows;

We, the undersigned inshore fisherpeople of this Province, feel we have been discriminated against in meeting the CORE criteria. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the decline in fish stocks was a major factor in determining the income of fisherpeople in Newfoundland. As it stands now, only skippers qualify as CORE fishers and the rest of us are passed as Level II professionals, which means nothing.

Therefore we, the undersigned Level II professionals, feel that we should also qualify as CORE fishers and be treated fairly.

On that petition, Mr. Speaker, there are eight signatures. This is basically an extension of the petition that was presented here yesterday, which had probably twenty or thirty names. The people who signed this petition have a legitimate concern. They are concerned about their futures. When I say they are concerned about their futures, it basically boils down to - a fear that was expressed to me was that if in the future the CORE fishermen, which are classified as such, as time goes by, and we have crew members with the skipper or the head of the enterprise, and that skipper or CORE fisherperson decides to sell his license in the future, what will happen to the people who are classified as Level II professionals? They may indeed be out of a job. Now they may have a licence for certain types of species, but they are genuinely concerned that if they lose their positions with a certain skipper they may be left out in the cold. Now, of course, a skipper can pass it on from father or mother to son, or whatever the case may be, but that still does not protect these Level II professionals; so they have genuine concerns there.

Now with respect to the qualifications, and the people qualifying for the CORE fisher's licence, some of the years that were used to qualify these people were the years that the fishery was down, and some of the people who have made applications for the CORE were refused and they went on appeals, and I represented some of these people. For instance, an individual who worked as a crew member decided one fall, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s when the catch was down, that they wanted to fend for themselves, or basically provide for their families, their children and their wives, whatever the case may be, and they went outside the fishery to work for the fall, maybe at a construction company, anywhere. They got a job to get money for their families and to provide for their families, and this now is actually being used against them to qualify for the CORE fishery.

From my perspective, I think what they are asking is that basically anybody who qualified for TAGS or SEC, or whatever the case may be, or NCARP before that, that they all be classified as one, on a level playing field, and that there should not be certain classes of fishers within the Province.

I think, personally, that is a reasonable request, or something that is reasonable to expect from the fishery, particularly in light of the fact that some of these people have fished fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years, and now they are in a potential situation where down the road, a year or two or five, they may be excluded from the fishery for whatever reason. We listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as he stands in his place each day, and we know that there are major changes coming in the future fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, particulary, I suppose, with respect to the processing and the number of plants that are going to be licensed in this Province. There are going to be changes, too, I suppose, with respect to the licensing of the fishers and what have you. I think these people have a genuine, legitimate concern.

Another point I would just make before I sit down, and this was expressed to me by a couple of the people I represent, was that they feel they should not have to be put in a place where they are begging for their future, especially in light of the fact that they have put so much into the fishery over the years, and they feel they are now begging for their future. I think that is a legitimate concern also.

With that I would just like to say that I support the petition, and I support the ongoing actions of these people, and hopefully in due course they will basically achieve what they are setting out to achieve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition as put forward by the Member for Cape St. Francis.

I said yesterday here in this House, and I will repeat it, that this particular designation known as CORE is a designation brought forward almost to punish fishermen, or fisherpeople I suppose you should say, for having the initiative to go forward and take a job. In many cases there are fishermen in this Province who have taken part in this particular industry for fifteen, twenty, as much as twenty-five years, and because there have been a couple of down seasons at a time just prior to the announcement of the moratorium on cod stocks, some of those fishermen have had the initiative to go forward and take other jobs. Because they didn't make 75 per cent of their income from the fishery in that particular year, or because their boat was less than thirty-five feet they didn't have sales of over $3,000, or if their boat was over thirty-five feet they didn't have sales of over $10,000, they missed the CORE designation.

The government of the day continues to say: Don't worry about the CORE designation, it doesn't mean anything, you won't need it. Fishermen today don't believe that because they have seen already where they have been discriminated against by not being designated as a CORE fisherman. They have seen that when the crab permits were issued these past two years, a very lucrative fishery whereby with the amount of pressure that was brought forward by inshore fishermen the government of the day decided that it would issue permits. In my particular area, in the Bonavista Bay area, I think all enterprises that were designated as CORE eligible received a permit to catch crab.

This particular designation is still an active designation, I suppose, if you would, it is still there that you must meet the CORE criteria if you want to apply for certain fishing licences. Part of the criteria that is brought forward is that you must be the head of an enterprise. And in one particular case, it is a situation where you had two brothers fishing, they both had the same investment in the fishery, there was one boat, all the expenses were shared with the fishing gear that they used, but all the sales were made in one person's name. They were both equal partners but there was no need of the other individual having a groundfish licence. There was no need for it - he fished with his brother in the same boat.

Now, when they go back and bring in the CORE designation, only one of them is deemed to be CORE eligible. Both equal partners, both own the same boat, both paid for the same gear, both got into the same pick-up and went to the same wharf and went out fishing in the same boat, but you hand-pick one person only to be eligible for CORE, and to me, that is wrong, Mr. Speaker.

A few months ago, in this House, we brought in the professionalization of fishermen, Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker. Now, if we are going today to be sincere about professionalizing fishermen, and including the people from this industry in order to govern themselves, then let's throw out those foolish government rules and regulations.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to another foolish rule and regulation that is there. And maybe, the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods can take this one into consideration and that is, some of the rules that exist today as they relate to the cutting of firewood.

How many people in this House know today that if you went in and cut your own firewood and decided to take a skidoo load out in the afternoon and you have your wife or your husband on with you, you are not allowed to bring out your firewood; if you are caught, one of you may end up in jail. It is a violation in the Forestry Act to have your wife, or your son, or your daughter on your skidoo to bring out a load of firewood.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are some of the silly rules and regulations that we see today that we have to live by, and it is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we threw out some of those rules and regulations and got down to doing the things that make a little bit of sense in governing this Province and allowing some of our people to do what they always did and did not hurt forestry or the fishery by doing such things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would talk to his cousins up in Ottawa and let the people who were put in place to look after this industry, the board that was just recently appointed, to look after the rules and regulations that would deem who is a professional fisherman and who is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are there any further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition that has been brought to my attention. The prayer of the petition reads:

We, the undersigned drivers of the Arnold's Cove area, request that the Provincial Government move the present boundary line of insurance rating Territory 2 from its present location at Port Blandford further to the east, so that Arnold's Cove and the surrounding communities would be included in a revised insurance rating Territory 2, and be excluded from insurance rating Territory 1.

We live in a rural area where there is much less traffic flow than in urban areas like St. John's where the risk of accidents is much greater as a result of increased traffic flow etcetera, but we pay the same basic automobile insurance premiums as the drivers in urban areas such as St. John's where the insurance-loss ratios are much higher.

We think that this is very unfair and we are requesting that our Provincial Government take us out of insurance rating Territory 1 and include us in a revised insurance rating Territory 2.

Mr. Speaker, this is another petition as a follow-up to the petitions that I presented here yesterday, which was a 4,000-name petition, with a very similar prayer to it. The spirit of the petition is identical, just from a little bit of a different area, I guess. Yesterday I presented a petition from the Bonavista and the Burin peninsulas, and this particular petition comes from the Arnold's Cove area.

What they are asking is very simple.

MR. BARRETT: How many names are on it, `Roger'?

MR. FITZGERALD: They are seeing the injustice that has been brought about by having their communities included in Territory 1 and not in Territory 2, and they know that they live in an area that is not unlike a lot of other communities that are in Territory 2 now.

The Member for Bellevue asks how many names are on it. I say to the member there is more than three. The reason why this petition was not presented yesterday is because there was a different prayer on it, I say to the member. I had the petition in my presence. There is a different prayer on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are how many names on it?

MR. FITZGERALD: There are approximately thirty names on this particular petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: More people out there support it than that.

MR. FITZGERALD: A lot more people, I say to the member, and I think he is aware of it as well. This one particular individual in fact called me the day that he saw some - I think it was on the radio he heard that I was accepting the other petition, and he wanted to make sure that he got at least a few names from his area, because it was a big concern. He went on to talk about how if he had a bit more time he could have gotten thousands of names.

Mr. Speaker, I showed yesterday an example whereby somebody seventeen years old could purchase a vehicle in Territory 2, which is points west of Port Blandford, compared to Territory 1, which is points east of Port Blandford, and the saving was something like $1,854.72. That was just the basic coverage, the basic right to allow somebody to drive: Section A, $500,000 public liability, Section D, $11, and SEF-44, $13, which is the only thing that is included in that particular insurance policy. He could have gone on and purchased many other items, but in those particular items alone, with just a compulsory coverage on that vehicle, there was a saving of $1,854 should the territory be Territory 2 rather than Territory 1.

Those people are speaking out because they know that the risk is not the same as in an urban area. People know that the rate of accidents is completely different. People know that the risk of having an accident is certainly much greater when you drive in the traffic conditions that we experience here in St. John's, as compared to out in the Arnold's Cove area, Clarenville area, Bonavista area. It is certainly not any different from somebody living in another part of Newfoundland which is in Territory 2.

Those people are not saying that we should not be responsible and pay if we have a loss or if our claims, I suppose, are above the normal claim rates that you would normally see. If you go out and you have two accidents a year, or five speeding tickets, you still have to be responsible; but, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be responsible enough to pay those kinds of insurance rates which are certainly completely out of whack with the exposure to the risk that is involved.

Let me give you another example here of a - that was a young person yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion -

AN HON. MEMBER: No conclusion.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

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

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

I rise again today as I did yesterday to support the petition put forward by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South. The hon. member has very eloquently put forward the case for changes in the way in which insurance costs are allocated by the insurance industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, the variations you find between people who live on the Burin and Bonavista peninsulas and other parts of the Province.

I am sure the House was very encouraged yesterday by the statements by the hon. the minister. The minister indicated that before the Select Committee of the House brings forward its report, he will be looking at some special arrangements, some interim arrangements, and we certainly encourage that. Mr. Speaker, that indicates that the minister certainly is aware of the problem. He certainly has had, I think, prior knowledge of the difficulties that it is causing, and we want to say that to do otherwise would be only to foster the present system and foster non-compliance.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. the Government House Leader, that we over here are a very co-operative bunch. I simply complimented the hon. minister a few minutes ago, and I cannot find in the records of Hansard one occasion when the Government House Leader - he was the Opposition House Leader - was so complimentary. But we say it like it is. When the government is doing things right we say to the government: You are doing things right. When the government is doing things wrong, which is most of the time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. the minister that we appreciate his initiatives. We would like to see more details to see how he is going to implement it, to see the breakdown on how he is going to be able to bring reasonableness to the industry. We look forward to, probably in the next week or so, having the minister rise in his place and share that information with the House, probably through a Ministerial Statement or through some other way in which he can assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that he has heard the prayer and as his hon. colleagues have been indicating during this discussion, they have also had representation from their districts as well.

Mr. Speaker, I again acknowledge my support and thank my hon. colleague, the Member for Bonavista South for bringing this issue to the attention of the Province.

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, Bill No. 23, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act." (Bill No. 23)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will make just a few brief comments because the amendments that are before the House, with respect to the amendments to this bill, to the Registered Nurses Act, are for the most part housekeeping in nature and routine in terms of their effect upon the function of the Act. The Registered Nurses Act, of course, in the Province governs, controls and guides the practice of registered nurses as a very vital and important component in the health care system. By way of introduction for further debate, as the Opposition see appropriate, I will just make a few observations at this point and respond to any questions that they might have or any points that they might raise during the debate.

The first section of the Act that is being amended is Section 2(d) and 6.(3). These sections are amended to correctly describe the position of the executive director in the association as opposed to the current wording and certainly that is routine and housekeeping in nature.

The other sections of the bill, Sections 2(j), 8, 13, 15, 16 and 17 contain changes to clarify the issues surrounding registration and annual licensing procedures for registered nurses. Nurses, of course, have to meet an initial qualification in order to gain registration and have their names entered on the historical register. In order to practice in the Province, nurses must annually qualify for an obtained licensure and there are some housekeeping changes that are intended in these amendments that are being put forward.

Section 6.(2)(b) will make a change so as to allow two people, who are not normally members of the association, to be appointed to the Council of Registered Nurses. This is in keeping with trends in other legislation where the public appropriately should be represented in order to have a voice in an objective and an independent sense on bodies that govern the activities of professions in the Province, so this is not specific or new to the Registered Nurses Act. It will be common to what is in place in other situations as well.

Section 8.(2) (c) will make it possible to refuse registration to a nurse from other jurisdictions whose registration or licence to practice has been suspended or revoked, or who is under investigation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the issue of increased portability, and the recognition across jurisdictions of the acts in all provinces that govern professions, this amendment will impact upon people who want to come in and practice nursing in Newfoundland and, simply put, if they have a revoked registration or licence in another jurisdiction it would affect their ability to be able to be registered and practice their profession in this Province.

Sections 11 and 12 will reflect, really, the current practice regarding admission to schools of nursing and to the role of a board of examiners. As hon. members would know, we have had some changes occur in how we provide nursing education in the Province. We have gone to a collaborative approach, to a condensed one point of entry school of nursing for the future, and some changes of a housekeeping nature required to reflect the new way we are doing business in terms of nurses' education.

Some of the other changes that are contemplated here are changes to Section 21, 21(1), 21(2), and 21(3), and these changes really are a little more substantive in that they completely revise the procedure for the disciplining of members by creating a complaint's commission and a discipline committee. The discipline committee members, by virtue of the amendments to the act, are given the powers of a commissioner under the Public Inquiries Act. The committee may make findings of professional misconduct, incompetence or incapacitation, and may revoke or suspend licenses, impose restrictions on licenses, give reprimands, impose fines, and publish notices of findings. Procedural safeguards to ensure fair hearings, of course, are included. When it is in the public interest to do so, a nurse's licence can be suspended pending the hearing of the disciplinary matter. Appeals are provided to the Supreme Court Trials Division, and on points of law, of course, to the Court of Appeal.

Of paramount importance in any of the acts governing the activities and the working of a professional association, there have to be appropriate procedures in place to ensure that disciplinary hearings can happen and can take place, so that to the greatest extent possible the public of the Province is protected. We have a responsibility, as legislators in this House, to ensure that people who practice nursing, or practice any other profession, particularly in the health care section, are people who are appropriate to the job that they are being paid to do and to which they apply for employment.

It is not acceptable, simply put, to have people practice on any level in terms of health care where their level of licensure is not appropriate because they do not meet the requirements, or because of their actions or activities they cause either their professional ability to come into competence, or their personal practice in terms of ethics, and those sorts of things. So the significance of the amendments in terms of substantive matters revolve substantially around the amendments to Section 21.

Section 21(4) really says that where an employer of a nurse terminates that nurses employment for reasons purporting to constitute professional misconduct, incompetency, or something of that nature, that employer is also obliged to report the termination of the employment to the professional association to which that person or that nurse belongs. In this case it would be the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, these, as I have said earlier, are basically housekeeping amendments to the Registered Nurses Act, and I would be glad to take note of any question or comment that might arise from the Opposition if they decide to speak to the bill, and answer them as best we can today or at some future date in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I should say that I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to make a few brief comments today if I could concerning Bill No. 23. I would like to say that we on this side of the House support Bill No. 23, I guess much to the Government House Leader's delight.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: We support this particular piece of legislation. We have thoroughly reviewed this act clause-by-clause. We have contacted the Association of Registered Nurses, and they have told us that this particular piece of legislation is legislation which they themselves have wanted for some time. It is legislation that they themselves proposed to the minister, and I am glad to say that the minister has acted on their behalf. They have expressed to us that they are satisfied with this bill, and that the bill reflects their aspirations as the Association of Registered Nurses.

We have been told that they very strongly advocate the appointment of a lay representative to their council so that health care consumers can have representation at that level and can share in making decisions and offering input on matters of health care delivery. They have advocated the annual licensing of nurses, and the proposed new criteria for the Association membership, and the role of the Association members.

Nursing is an integral part of our health care system, and it has always been. Nurses provide an invaluable service to the people of this Province. This Province has produced and welcomed many fine nurses over the years. Many of them are doing an excellent job in health care facilities and occupations throughout our Province. Many have taken their skills and caring attitude to other provinces, states and countries, and have served as some of the finest ambassadors that this Province has ever produced. Far too many, however, have had to leave their home of choice because of inadequate health care funding.

This government, through unrestrained health care cuts in recent years, has done nurses a great disservice, has overburdened them, and put them in a position where they have even suffered injuries because of funding cutbacks. The serious consequences of the cutbacks were made crystal clear some days ago and will continue, I guess, over the many question periods to come.

This legislation is about nurses. It is about nurses taking very seriously their role in health care, and the delivery of health care in this Province today, which I am sad to say is very lacking. They have much to be concerned about when they look at health care delivery. When people are told to be at hospitals where their parents are, so that they can be fed, and on and on the list goes of things that are lacking in our health care system.

It is important that the government start listening to nurses and other health care professionals. In bringing forward this legislation it seems the government has indeed followed the lead of our nurses, and we support their initiative. We hope the government will not close its ears to nurses when the issue turns to matters of health care delivery and health care funding. We support this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker, and look forward to addressing the bill clause-by-clause in the Committee stage.

Thank you.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As my colleague has said, we on this side of the House support the principles that are the foundations of this particular bill before the House, the amendment to the Registered Nurses Act.

In doing so, we concur with the minister that this act is merely to update the current act to get rid of some of the obsolete language.

We also concur with the new structure of the board, the addition of the two lay persons. I would note, however, in Section 6.(2) where we talk about the new council, that there is not any maximum number that is indicated to the council. It says, "The council shall consist of: (a) that number of persons elected from among the members who hold annual licences as the by-laws may provide."

It does not say that there will be ten members, or that they have to be from various parts of the Province or represent different aspects of the nursing profession, and it does not give an absolute number. So I ask the minister if he might look at that and we will talk about that again when we come to the clause-by-clause. The minister is now paying some attention. It is Clause 2, and it is in Section 6.(2)(a). It talks about the fact that we have not specified, Mr. Minister, the maximum number of persons who shall sit on the council. Of course that may be governed by the by-laws of the nursing association, but that is not indicated here either. So I ask the minister if he would look at that. I am pleased to see two lay people. We do acknowledge that the government has tried to amend the various pieces of legislation to assure that lay representation is now a factor in most of these professional governing bodies.

I also wanted to draw the minister's attention to Section 5, where it says, "Section 9 of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: `9. The council shall approve schools of nursing that meet those requirements that may be adopted by the council.'". The minister, when he is giving his concluding comments at second reading, might want to give us some more detail on the power of the council and what you mean by approving the schools of nursing. Does that mean that they are approving the curriculum, or that the council may actually initiate the proliferation of more schools of nursing? I say to the minister that the trend, as the minister knows, in the past few years, is to decrease the number of schools of nursing we have in the Province. I just want to get his comments on that, and what the role of the council would be in approving schools of nursing.

I also want to see if the minister could comment as well on the continuing role we have between the Bachelor of Nursing program and the Registered Nursing Association, what the status of that is. We do know that by the year 2000 the registered nursing designation, RN designation, will begin to be phased out and all nurses will be, shall we say, expected to thereafter have the equivalent qualifications as laid down by the Bachelor of Nursing Program at Memorial University.

I wanted to say to the minister as well that we acknowledge that the minister and his officials have consulted with the members of the nursing association and we say that is a good idea. In our discussions with the Registered Nurses Association, they have acknowledged that they were consulted both at the initiation stage and throughout the consultations that have occurred over some months, and the result is a piece of legislation that is agreeable to the Nursing Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and because it was brought forward by the minister it is agreeable to the government - it has to be to the Department of Health - and we find that it is a very commendable approach. We only wish that he had recommended that approach to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and then we would not be bogged down the way we are in the House with that particular piece of legislation. It is the lack of consultation that occurred with that particular piece of legislation that is causing difficulties for the House.

Also, I wanted to refer back to something my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, said when he noted that we have extra duties being placed on nurses. Over the past number of months, since January, I have had occasion almost on a daily basis to be a visitor to one of the city hospitals. I can say to the minister that the obvious workload and the stress that goes with it, the increase in the workload, is pretty evident.

I want to commend the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, and those with whom I have been associated, in particular those who work at the Health Sciences Centre and St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, the two hospitals that I have been visiting on a pretty regular basis because of a family situation over the past ten months. I want to say to all of these people, and also to the nurses in this Province generally, that we as a society should recognize their great contributions, and that we look with some displeasure on the cutbacks and how they have affected the front-line service delivery. I can tell you that witnessing it on a day-by-day basis, I know of what I speak. However, I can tell you that nurses who come off a twelve-hour shift give their utmost during the last half-an-hour as much as they would give, say, in the first half-an-hour of their shift, and that is commendable.

I also want to say to the minister, I don't see much evidence here of the minister being willing to change some of the roles that nurses play throughout some of the parts of our Province. We know that many of the functions that are carried out by doctors could, in some cases, be designated as roles to be assigned to nurses. If we had a more co-operative approach between doctors and their mandates, and nurses and their mandates, we would, I think, greatly improve the efficiency that we could have in our health care system. However, that will require, of course, consultation of the Newfoundland Medical Association and the nurses association to really find some of the roles that we could expect from our health care system and the people who are working in it.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, particularly with the comments relative to the consultation, we find that we are prepared on this side to now conclude debate. I don't know whether one of my colleagues has anything else he may want to add. I think the Member for Cape St. Francis will have a few comments. We do not expect this debate to go on for any great length of time because of the role and the consultation that has taken place prior to it being brought before the House today.

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

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

I guess I will speak on Bill 23, I say to the Government House Leader. That is why we are here, to say a few words on any legislation on which we would like to speak. I am not going to take up a lot of time, to be honest. I just have a few comments. This bill, basically -

MR. TULK: You have to get on the record (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: There are reasons for everything we do, I suppose, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: I cannot hear you. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I can deafen you if you want me to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

I say to the Government House Leader, there are reasons for everything we do.

This bill basically deals with the Registered Nurses Association and indeed, of course, they are a professional association. It deals with tightening up the act, which has been supported, from what I can gather, by the nurses themselves and the nursing association.

One of the things that this bill is going to deal with, of course, is that it talks about members in good standing. Every association has to have regulations in place to deal with any person who may go outside the guidelines set by the professional association and, of course, this bill will address that and give the nursing association authority to deal with people who basically step outside the rules and regulations and the professionalism of the nursing association.

Another point that any professional association, of course, has to have is the authority and the power to register people and to register applicants into their association, and they have to be able to set examinations which are fair and compatible, I suppose, with the nursing associations in other provinces. This bill seems to address that concern.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to say a few words with respect to the nurses, and the nurses' workload in the Province. The Minister of Health has been on his feet a number of times in this House of Assembly, and any time we ask questions with respect to health care in this Province the typical and normal response from the Minister of Health is that health care is improving in this Province. I would suggest, though, that the Minister of Health go and talk to some of the nurses I have spoken to and get first-hand information from the nurses in the different hospitals in the Province, at the Health Sciences Centre, at the Janeway, the Grace, and St. Clare's.

He will quickly find out that the nurses in this Province today, and I would imagine it is common right across this Province, are overworked and understaffed. I have been in the Health Sciences myself recently, over the past few months, visiting people in there, visiting patients, some of them relatives actually. In one instance I know where there is one nurse on one of the floors in there taking care of something like seventeen patients. If you sit back and think about the amount of work that one individual would have to do, and the minister stands in his place and says that health care is improving in this Province, I would have to question what planet or what province the Minister of Health lives in.

Twelve-hour shifts is the norm for the nurses working in the Health Sciences Centre and other hospitals across this Province. That alone, in itself, from what I can see, would be a strain on any individual. But when they have to work twelve-hour shifts and be understaffed, you can understand why they would need an act, or amendments to the act, to try and basically keep nurses with the experience, to try and keep those people in their field, when I know many of them are stressed out, I would say. There are a number of nurses over the past number of years who possibly took leave because of the stress that they were under. I wouldn't have an actual figure on that, but I wonder if the Minister of Health would want to be forthcoming with those figures?

The minister stood and said that this bill basically is housekeeping, and it probably is mostly housekeeping. As he said, the act controls and guides the practice of nursing. The purpose of legislation of any professional association is to control and guide the practice of that profession. In this case, of course, it deals with nursing, and rightly so.

Also, I think probably the most important aspect of any professional association is the complaints and discipline of any association, and the members of any association. This amendment apparently gives the nursing association more power with respect to complaints and discipline, and rightfully so, to deal with the professional, or probably a better word would be the unprofessional, conduct of any members who may happen to be, and to deal with those members.

From my own personal experience dealing with the nurses, and from the treatment I received any time I was in the hospital, and there have been a few times, let me tell you, any service or any care I received was completely of a professional nature. But I suppose you have to be ready for any situation, and in fact you have to have a complaints and discipline committee to deal with any situations that may arise. Of course, when you have a complaints and discipline committee it has to also have the authority to set out penalties. This would address that concern.

Basically all I wanted to say was that the Opposition, or from what I can gather from this side, basically supports the legislation, especially in view of the fact that the nurses' association supports it, but basically brought it to the attention of the minister himself. Just in saying that, I would conclude by saying that hopefully when the legislation comes to pass and is enacted, and the Lieutenant-Governor gives his signature, that the nursing association in Newfoundland and Labrador will be all the better for this legislation, and hopefully the minister will be commended in the future for bringing it forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments and the observations that were made today by the speakers from the other side of work that they have lent to the bill. The Opposition critic on health, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, indicated that his caucus was supporting the amendments and we appreciate that gesture, not so much on our behalf but on behalf of the nurses of the Province who have had significant input into this bill and who have requested the amendments that have been brought forward.

I just make a couple of comments in response to questions or queries raised. The issue in Section 5 as to what is meant in saying, `the council shall include schools of nursing', really means this: that before government will fund schools of nursing that might be wanting - or might in fact be coming into existence, that we would require the Registered Nurses Association to approve the inception of, and the course of study, that would be put forward in that school. We believe it would be unwise, quite frankly, to have courses of studies put forward, or in fact schools come into existence for the training of nurses, that did not have the blessing and the support of the Registered Nurses Association.

MR. TULK: I would say.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, so that is what that means.

The hon. the member who used to be for Waterford Valley but is now from that new district whose name escapes me -

MR. TULK: Waterford Valley.

MR. MATTHEWS: Is it Waterford Valley?

MR. TULK: It used to be Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. MATTHEWS: I see. I am more up to date that I thought. I am running ahead of myself as usual. I am way out in front of myself, I say to the hon. Speaker, in terms of -

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be your member, right?

MR. MATTHEWS: That is right, he used to be my member, and I have to say to the hon. Speaker, and to members of the House, that whatever good he has done, I have to be honest and say he has done no harm that I am aware of in the district. I am not sure how much good he has done but I can tell you I am not aware of any harm he has done. So, in that context, the hon. the member put himself forward for re-election in a reconfigurated district and he won very easily, very handily, and of course he is to be commended for being able to achieve that distinction. He was one of a small and paltry group of nine from the Opposition who made it back to this House, so that speaks well of his credentials and his prior performance. Because I can tell you, there were a lot of members who sat around him the last time we sat in this Chamber who did not make it back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) it back.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. member and to the members of the House that they maybe coming back but I would have to say it may be in another life and in another century, because I see no prospect of any of the defeated PC candidates ever sitting in the House again in this century which is now coming to a close.

MR. TULK: In this millennium.

MR. MATTHEWS: In this millennium. The hon. the Government House Leader puts words in my mouth. It is not infrequent that he does that, because his years of experience in the House have gained him a wide and solid reputation as being a parliamentarian of great distinction, who knows the rules of the House, who knows how to debate in the House, and who even knows what is most appropriate to be saying in the House in terms of lingo, so I defer to the hon. the House Leader on many accounts.

Getting back to the point that was raised by the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, it is true that I believe there are some cases where a case can be made for an expanded scope of practice for nurses. I have supported the nurses in that area and have said to them that we should allow them to have the maximum scope of practice in terms of what they are trained to do. I have also said that to nursing assistants and to other health care professionals. We want to ensure that everybody enjoys the full ability to practice the skills for which they are trained. And to the issue of whether or not we can use them better in the health care system, let me share with the House that we do have, in fact, a pilot project underway at the moment, through the Health Care Corporation, that seeks to have nurses and other health care providers more fully integrated into a continuum of care setting that we are piloting on the Southern Shore, and that I believe will be beneficial all around to the health care system and the people of that particular area.

We appreciate, as I said earlier, the comments that were made and, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 23).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 2, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act." (Bill No. 21).

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on Bill No. 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act".

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East, I would like to welcome to the public galleries on behalf of hon. members, Mr. Ray O'Neill, City Councillor for the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to continue for a few minutes from debate yesterday with respect to a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act", (Bill No. 21).

Yesterday, we had discussion in this House, Mr. Speaker, of subsection 4 (1) (f) giving Cabinet new power to make regulations on the regional distribution of processing licences, the development of the fishing industry of the Province and other matters, Mr. Speaker, that are not directly related to fish quality. And it was the consensus by members on this side of the House that this was an extremely broad amendment, an amendment which gave unfettered and unrestricted authority to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in dealing with issues with respect to licensing, licensing establishment, licensing of plants and so on, for various individuals and corporations throughout the Province.

As a member of the Opposition, and as echoed by my colleagues, we had difficulty with the fact that Cabinet could make regulations without bringing the matter back to the House of Assembly for approval, and that is essentially why, Mr. Speaker, we take objection to the wording of the amendment because it makes it quite clear that the minister may issue licences under the Act, subject to conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, so this is completely unrestricted.

This is legislation which allows the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, at will, without any direction from the public at large, without any debate in the House of Assembly, to make decisions for himself, of his own accord, without any participation by the people of this Province. And this is essentially why members on this side of the House take strong exception, Mr. Speaker, to the section 2, subsection (2) of Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act".

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I ran through a number of examples where government - and this government has shown in the past where it has failed to consult and to invite the general public of this Province to be active participants with respect to various legislation and policy changes concerning, for example, health care; and we see the consequences of a government trying to make changes without what I consider to be, Mr. Speaker, the necessary and the requisite public consultation. I referred yesterday briefly to the dispensing fees, and how pharmacists were outraged by changes which seemed to just appear out of nowhere, resulting in policy changes which affected the very careers of these people.

Also, I spoke briefly on the issue of Education Reform, where it was my submission and certainly the submission of members on this side of the House, where the whole question of Education Reform and the whole confusion which continues to exist today, in November of 1996, well after one year of a publicly held referendum in this Province, where confusion continues to reign. The question I ask, why? Simply because there was inadequate public consultation from the beginning and the people of this Province were not allowed to participate, resulting in an education confusion today which continues to exist.

We see, for example, as a result of the consultation process which eventually was introduced as part of the educational process in a document which was tabled one day last week - I believe on opening day, Mr. Speaker, on Monday the 18th, as I recall - structuring the education system, a report of the ministerial consultation process. We see that with respect to denominational preferences, there was -and I quote from this government document: `There was no consensus as to how the preference for a uni-denominational school should be expressed.' I raised the question and I asked the question, Mr. Speaker, why is it there is no consensus? My response, Mr. Speaker, is simply because when the issue of education reform became a public issue and was debated in this House approximately two years ago, the public was not consulted. The participants in education reform were not invited to participate to a point that we would ultimately see an answer and a conclusion to the division which was caused when discussing the whole issue of education reform. The consequence of this approach, the consequence of making decisions without public intervention is that even today, two years after the debate started, one year after a referendum, we find ourselves still without consensus and the debate, I am sure, will continue.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned briefly as well yesterday the issue of public examinations and how this was imposed upon the people of this Province. The fact that the public examinations in Level III, or Grade 12, as it was once known, how there would now no longer be any system of public examinations, no standardization with respect to evaluation in Grade 12. And, Mr. Speaker, this, too, was imposed on the people of this Province, on the students of this Province, without consultation - a direct example, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, as to how and where an individual or a group of individuals make decisions without having the public involved. Again, I want to remind the members of this House, Mr. Speaker, that is why we have difficulty with respect to the wording and the thrust of the legislation as is found in Bill No. 21. It gives the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture unrestricted and unfettered discretion in dealing with many policy issues, many appointment issues, many issues of delegation of who gets what, when it is obtained, what communities will survive, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, in the number of examples which I alluded to yesterday and again today, the government has shown that to make decisions, discretionary decisions, without active participation by the public will certainly in most cases, if not all, be problematic. I have difficulty supporting this bill. I would encourage my colleagues opposite to reconsider. When one looks carefully at the wording of Bill 21, in particular subsection (2) where it states, "The minister may issue licences under this Act subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, including conditions which relate to a matter set out in Section 4." Again, it is complete unwillingness to recognize that the public of this Province and those who are involved on a daily basis in the fishing industry, have a right to participate. I would ask members to reconsider and again, I join with my colleagues in objecting to the wording of Bill No. 21.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

My colleagues and I have expressed some real concerns with the proposed amendment to the Fish Inspection Act, Bill No. 21, now before the House. In the debate a few days ago my learned friend, and I use that not as the former House Leader would have used it but my very learned friend from Bonavista South, who is the critic for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, put forward before this House a great dissertation on the reasons why we would be opposed to this particular amendment. The difficulties centre around the broad nature and the blank cheque that it gives to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, we note that when the present government was elected last year, they talked about consultation. We have seen consultation on the school reform. We acknowledge that the Minister of Education went across this Province in September and October and had something like twenty different consultations in a wide variety of communities of various sizes in all parts of this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We say that was an approach that we find acceptable. We cannot say that we agree with all of the conclusions that the minister communicated in the House the other day. We do not necessarily agree with all of his statements, but the process itself is okay.

Now, Mr. Speaker, by comparison the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture brings in an amendment to the Fish Inspection Act and there has been no consultation. There has been no consultation with any of the producers or with either of the two unions of the Province who have members in their ranks from various sectors of the fishing industry. There has been no consultation with the employer's group that is associated with the fishing industry in this Province. So, there has been no consultation. Because of that, we find that we here, on this side of the House, have to say, no, this is not the right approach. If we could be assured today that the Fishermen's Union and the Fish Processors Association, if these people were saying they supported this bill, then we would be able to say, yes, this is the right approach.

By comparison, a few minutes ago the Minister of Health rose in his place and introduced second reading to an amendment to the nurses act. It had gone through a very good process and was confirmed to us by the nursing association. As a consequence, we were able to give second reading to that piece of legislation in very short order. As a matter of fact, the whole time taken up by second reading was less than twenty-five or thirty minutes. That is because the process that we find acceptable was followed.

Now if the nurses of this Province, when they were consulted by the ministry, if they had said that the minister was putting in things that they objected to, we would have then consulted with them and would have made some analysis of whether we could support the proposals put forward by the minister or not. However, they have said that they supported the amendments to the nurses act in this Province.

However, when we look at that and compare it to what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has done, it basically says he wants the power, the very broad power, the unchallengeable power, to do what he feels is right. This has been confirmed by his statements in the media. What the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wants us to do is to give him permission to do through the front door what many people suspect he has been wanting to do through the back door for awhile, and we say no to that. We say, no, you cannot do that. That is not the way good government should operate.

So we, on this side of the House, cannot give, say, a blanket approval or a blank cheque to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. In essence, what it means is that, in the future, the Cabinet and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will make all of the decisions without consultation, because it says Cabinet can make regulations without bringing the matter back to the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, last summer we saw an example of where Cabinet made regulations as it affects the appeal process for people who were receiving and are receiving help through the home care system. Last summer, in the middle of the hot summer days of July and August, the Minister of Social Services had an amendment passed through Cabinet, an amendment to the regulations whereby the people who were going to be deducted 10 per cent of their home care costs, basically people who were disabled, were told: No, this is the final decision, there is no appeal.

So, Mr. Speaker, we say to you today, is that the right way to go? Is it right, that in the middle of the summer that the government would pass a regulation, in Cabinet, which denies people on social services the right of appeal? We say, no, that is a fundamental denial of what we deem to be good governance and good process. So, Mr. Speaker, we want to say to the House today, that that kind of way of doing things is not right. When the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture says: I want the approval of the House, in legislation, to be able to go and make regulations that will govern the future of the fishery, we do not want to bring it back to the House, we want a blank cheque, we have to say that that cannot be the way that we should be governing in the future.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Now, I would say to the hon. the Government House Leader, that many of the initiatives that have been undertaken by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in this Province, we can support. For example, the other day, when he was talking about utilizing the underdeveloped species - in fact he gave a speech the other day of which the first fifteen minutes were just rhetoric. Those of us who know the hon. the minister, we acknowledge that he is a good debater in the House, but in the last fifteen minutes of his presentation, he made some very good sense. The minister talked about working with Ottawa, he talked about confronting Ottawa, he talked about getting governance away from Ottawa, and we agree with all of that. We agree that Ottawa still has too much control over the fishery.

However, having said that these initiatives are fine with me - and I am speaking for myself on these matters - we want to say that we cannot give him the authority to make, alone or in consultation with his Cabinet members, decisions about where the plants in this Province can or cannot go. We don't want him to be able to decide on his own how many plants there will be in a given area. Yet yesterday, in the public media, the minister said: I want that authority. I want the authority to be able to go and say where the plants will be. I want to allocate fish processing on a regional basis. We are saying: Hey, we better go and have some consultation here. We had better be willing to talk to all of the players in the fishing industry.

The minister also said he would like to decide whether licenses can transfer, where they can transfer, and so on and so forth. Now, we want the Minister of Fisheries to become a full partner with the total industry and that means he is willing -

MR. TULK: Oh, he is. Do you know where the gentleman is?

MR. H. HODDER: I know he is in Gander today, I say to the hon. House Leader.

MR. TULK: What is he doing?

MR. H. HODDER: He is out there consulting with the processors, I understand.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman today is taking about consultation and becoming a partner, but he has to know before he makes a wrong statement in this House, and we would not want him to do that, that the present Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is today consulting with the processors, every processor in the Province, and it is the first time it has been done in the history of this Province. He has to know that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. Government House Leader has taken the opportunity to elaborate on the conversation to date.

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

I agree there is no point of order.

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

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

It is regrettable that the hon. Government House Leader has just confirmed my theory here, or my premise, which is to say that if the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture had gone and consulted before he brought in this legislation, then maybe our whole presentation here would be totally different.

What we are saying is that he should have brought in the legislation after he went to Gander. He should not go to Gander and say to the processors, I am here to tell you something. I am not here to listen, I am here to tell you. I am in a telling mode. I am not here to listen to you.

Mr. Speaker, consultation does not mean that you make up your mind and then you go and tell people, my mind is made up and now I am going to tell you, for your information, here is how I am going to be governing the fishing industry in the future in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not consultation. Consultation is when you go and consult before you have your mind made up.

Now, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has gone to Gander today to tell, not to listen. Now, I believe that the word `listen' in the alphabet comes before the word `tell', therefore he should listen first and tell after. Therefore, I say to my colleagues opposite, it is regrettable that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture did not see it incumbent upon his mandate for his office to go and consult first.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)

MR. H. HODDER: I agree. We find that we are waiting for the hon. Government House Leader to bring in some legislation so we can go and point out the errors, the faults, and the weaknesses. We will try our best to find some strength but my colleague here, his critic - we are waiting for this forestry review report to come in so we can do our job which is to point out the weaknesses in it. I say to the hon. Government House Leader, if he practices the same kind of consultation that his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, has practised in developing this legislation he can expect the same response.

When my colleagues opposite went before the people last February they went before them with a mandate. The mandate in the Red Book said: We are going to be a consulting government. Now we find that one minister wants to take rather exclusionary powers. In fact, what is being done by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is so inconsistent with the general philosophy and trend of this government that we are wondering how his colleagues can support him, because the situation is that there have been some efforts at consultation.

Mr. Speaker, it hasn't been all consultation, because we remember back in the spring when there was no consultation on closing college campuses. There was no consultation on that. It was just flick, like that, and people were called and told: By the way, your college is going to close. There was no consultation as well with the cabin owners. Cabin owners thought they had a legal contract with the government on the ownership of their land, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: It is called being forced. Cabin owners found out their legal arrangements for ownership of their cottages were changed overnight. There was no consultation there, either. We know the anger that generated, and is still generating, in all parts of the Province. We know about the petitions that were put forward in this House by my colleagues and by colleagues on the other side of the House who said that cabin owners were very upset by that kind of tactic. They were not consulted.

We know that there was no consultation with the seniors in nursing homes last spring when they found that their bills, monthly, were going to go from $1,510 to $4,000. Then, after the Minister of Health got into very much of a confrontational debate with some of the seniors, and after representation here in the House, the minister backed down, and now they are paying $3,000, which is still way beyond what they should be paying. There was no consultation with the seniors, not at all.

We know there was no consultation with the people on social services when they found that their top-ups were being cancelled and all of them were losing their emergency funding of $61 a month when regulation eight was changed. There was no consultation there either.

Then we could mention public examinations. Oh, how we remember the children in our high schools, the young men and young women, coming before this Parliament last spring and putting forward their pleas to have public examinations continue. There was no consultation with them.

Then we could mention about the new kindergarten curriculum. Again, we know that there were several hundred people involved in developing it, thousands of hours of work by the kindergarten teachers of this Province, thousands of hours by the consultants, and thousands of dollars spent on developing a new kindergarten curriculum. Then without any consultation, overnight, the message was: Put it back on the shelf. There was no consultation with the kindergarten teachers, no consultation with the school boards of Newfoundland and Labrador. Suddenly it was overnight: Let's cancel the kindergarten program, and let's say we are really interested in early childhood education. You can't have them both. You can't say you are committed to early childhood education in this Province and then say: We are going to cancel the new kindergarten program.

I want to say as well that we had a lack of consultation last spring when the RCMP changes were made, downsizing. We know that the RCMP detachments were closed; the number of officers throughout the Province was reduced considerably. Again, there was no consultation whatsoever with the communities. The same thing applied to the closing of the courthouse in Port aux Basques. Where was the consultation when the courthouse was closed in Port aux Basques? There was no consultation whatsoever when the courthouse was closed in Port aux Basques.

Then we note that there were changes to the monthly allowances to the disabled, and reductions to the home care costs in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, while the government will profess to be supporters of a consultation model, in reality they have fallen short considerably. The latest example is the lack of consultation on the fisheries amendment that the minister has put forward. There was no consultation with the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, no consultation with any of the other stakeholders. So what do you expect? Do you expect the processors to be happy? Do you expect the fishermen's union to be happy? The answer is no, because people nowadays are saying that you cannot promise us consultation and then only use it when you want to. You have to use it in good times on good issues, and you have to use it when issues do not favour you as well.

Mr. Speaker, we want to again say to the government: Do what you said you were going to do in your red book. When it comes to consultation, we know what happens when you do not consult; people get angry. The fishermen's union has called our office and said that they are upset because they were not consulted. We know that the processors have called our office and said: What is going on? We did not agree to give the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture a blank cheque. We want to have input into these decisions. That is what we find to be the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the government is that they announce a philosophy and then they want to use it selectively. Take, for example, tax harmonization. Here is a fundamental change to the way that we collect taxes in this Province, and the government failed to seek public opinion. As a matter of fact, the Memorandum of Understanding was signed last spring and there was no consultation whatsoever. The Minister of Finance went across the Province and the issue of tax harmonization did not get raised because it was the general principle. People did not have any facts on it, so therefore it was signed at the memorandum stage in the spring. Of course we know in the last few weeks that there has been a major deal made. We know that there have been significant implications that have been communicated in the press for ordinary people.

We know that the harmonization deal has not been accepted in the Province of Prince Edward Island. In fact, the previous Liberal government told those people who promoted tax harmonization to go home, forget about it. They were not interested. Premier Callbeck said, `No, thank you.' The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, and the Premier of New Brunswick, bought into Mr. Chrétien's program. However, the Premier of Prince Edward Island said, `No, thank you' and we wonder why? We wonder: Why would Prince Edward Island not buy into this program? We suspect that the Premier of Prince Edward Island, both the Liberal Premier and a conservative premier, are saying that this is not in their best interest. We wonder what the implications are really going to be. Are we, as a Province, buying into the Ottawa agenda? Certainly, in my opinion, tax harmonization is nothing more than, you know, a `to make Mr. Chrétien look good' tax, that is all it is. You could give it an acronym if you wanted to, I suppose, you could say it's the MCLG tax: Make Chrétien Look Good tax, so the MCLG tax with AKA tax harmonization, is what this whole process is about. That is what it is about, it is a `make Chrétien look good' tax. So, Mr. Speaker, we say that we do not favour that kind of -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all coming out (inaudible). It is backed up.

MR. TULK: Pardon?

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we say to the hon. the Government House Leader, we do not believe that tax harmonization is in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We want this government to stand up for Newfoundland and stop playing to the Ottawa agenda, so we want to say to the government, perhaps if you had gone out, if you had some consultation on tax harmonization, some of the weaknesses would have been brought out, there would not have been this rush to Toronto last week by the Premiers of this Province, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to try to sell the party in Toronto. Why these three premiers had to go to Toronto to have a press conference to try to sell tax harmonization principles is beyond me. You know, that did not make any sense, excepting if, of course, it was to try to persuade the people in Ontario how good it was. Well, I can assure you that the people of Ontario or the people of Quebec and the people of Western Canada are not buying into tax harmonization.

Perhaps the real agenda of the Premier is to prepare Newfoundland for further amalgamation with the other Atlantic Provinces. Perhaps that is his agenda, perhaps this is step one, to get our taxes harmonized so that we can have the effective capital of Atlantic Canada become Halifax. That is certainly where the Premier seems to be headed, or that is my opinion when I look at some of the things that are happening. So we have an Ottawa focus, an Ottawa philosophy to governance. We seem to be more interested in making Mr. Chrétien look good than we are in standing up for the interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we will suffer consequences because of that. So I say to my hon. colleagues that we have to remember, a Newfoundland and Labrador - it does not matter what flavour of the party that happens to be in power in Ottawa is at any particular time, we have to remember that we, as a Province here, have always had to stand up for what we believe in and not necessarily be ready just to be dragged along by somebody with an Ottawa fixation and with an Ottawa mentality. So we need people to stand up for our Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the same thing might apply to the Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act. Again, the Wells Government failed to consult before making the changes in 1994 and before proposing an amendment in 1995 - that amendment which failed, of course, because we were supposed to have consultations in January, and then we had the election, Mr. Speaker, so there were no consultations. So, Mr. Speaker, we say to the government that it is one thing for you to talk about consultation and something else for you to really, really go and be determined to put it into some kind of practice.

Mr. Speaker, this Summer, we saw what happens when we have bad legislations, and I refer to what is called the Kodak bill, which took up some days here this Summer, when we asked the Legislature to give the government the power to override the Public Tender Act.

Rarely in Canadian parliamentary history has there ever been such a piece of legislation passed, but we passed it this Summer. We gave the government the authority to supersede the Public Tender Act. That, in the annals of parliamentary history of this Province, is unique, to give a government the power to say: You do not have to abide by your own rules. Certainly, we know what happened was that the whole thing fell apart.

We say to the government today that on the fisheries issue we want to just make again a couple of further points. I want to make a couple of further points. Section 5(2) gives the minister again powers, and I quote: "The minister may issue licences under this Act subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate...." Now, what power! What absolute power! Someone said power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this particular case, we have given the minister power to issue licences subject to conditions the minister deems to be appropriate. There is no definition of the word "conditions", there is no definition of the word "appropriate." This again is left undefined.

We are giving an absolute blank cheque. We say: No way, it isn't going to happen like that without this Opposition exerting every influence that we can to say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: - to say no.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. TULK: Take another (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member by leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, my colleagues and I on this side of the House say that this particular amendment gives the Minister of Fisheries too much power. The power that he wants is not defined, or is ill-defined. We know that the minister, by his statements, has said that he is not willing to consult. He is going to be the kind of minister who is going to make his decisions, and then he is going to tell the people what he wants to do. Therefore, there is no power even reserved for the Cabinet. There is no power to the Cabinet, because it says the minister will make these decisions. What he has said in the public press is: If I don't have the power to do it I will merely make regulations to make it happen.

That kind of discretionary power is just too much for one man at any time in a parliamentary democracy. We talk about accountability. There is no provision here to make the minister accountable to this Legislature or accountable to the people of this Province. We are giving him too much power, and we say absolutely no, you cannot do that. It is not in the interest of good government, not in the interest of democracy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the little gift that the minister sent me over earlier.

I am glad to rise today to say a few words on this particular bill. It has raised a lot of concerns. Of course, as we read it and thought about the implications, and some of the negative implications of it - of course, now we hear it within industry. FANL yesterday made some comments about this particular bill and some of the implications and ramifications of it down the road, I say to the minister.

What really bothers me, I guess, is - let us not take the minister personally. Let us just say his predecessor had to be here at this time to bring in this same bill. Or let us say in five years time who knows who will be the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Therein lies the problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: His predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Food, Fisheries and Agriculture.

MR. TULK: Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

MR. SHELLEY: Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, whatever it was called at that time. It has changed so often. Mr. Speaker, the point being -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no category (inaudible) his predecessor to the current minister.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister of Health, he stayed as the Minister of Health, but the minister responsible, and his predecessor who was responsible for the Department of Fisheries - his predecessor, I will say that. Is that clear? Can you imagine?

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot say Efford and Hulan in the same breath. As Ed Roberts would say, it is an oxymoron.

MR. SHELLEY: An oxymoron. Somebody is an oxymoron. Mr. Speaker, the point being, can you just imagine if this bill was brought when his predecessor who was responsible for fisheries had full control over it? Can you imagine that? We will continue with another scenario, because there are scenarios that we should look at.

MR. SHELLEY: Because once you do put this into law, and once it becomes the law of the land -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) made a difference.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Government House Leader, my entire point, the other scenario being - just think about it - that maybe his predecessor will run again, and maybe he will go back into Cabinet and be responsible for fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: The most marketable commodity we had.

MR. SHELLEY: I say to the Minister of Health, he did say he was the most marketable, and in the District of Baie Verte we sold him. We took the job of selling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Baie Verte you never know; they might have second thoughts later on.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, according to the smelter on wheels, there were going to be a lot of smelters on the Baie Verte Peninsula and elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think Bud would have a chance?

MR. SHELLEY: I do not think I will comment on that, Mr. Speaker. I should not comment on a member who is not here, and I should not comment on a former member who is not here.

The point I was making before I was so rudely interrupted by the two hon. gentlemen opposite is that this, once into law, connects with the person who is there in that portfolio. That is the point. And God forbid that certain people would have that power, to determine the fate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: I know the Government House Leader is having a hard time even imagining that his predecessor who was responsible for fisheries would have this same power. It is a scary thought, the point being and the point made that the person who is in that particular portfolio has this law at hand now. What are the wide-ranging implications, which is what everybody should consider? Really what this bill does, when you talk about fish plants and so on in this Province, it is going to determine the fate of rural Newfoundland. That is how deep it can be looked at.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Labrador.

MR. SHELLEY: And Labrador, that is right, Newfoundland and Labrador. It can determine the fate of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, especially as it pertains to fish plants around the Province.

I agree with the Member for Labrador, that this does have far-reaching implications that are going to affect how rural Newfoundland is going to develop over the next two or three years, in a very short period of time. Even Stuffed Squid in LaScie wrote a song about looking at the empty buildings down there, and the empty fish plant, and deciding that they would have to leave and go away because their fate is determined by one minister, and his power to decide on fish plants and so on, and that is a scary thought for anybody.

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about people who are involved in the industry, the word `consult' always comes up. I know people are getting sick of hearing it because they do not find that there is anything really behind the word consult. The minister said today that the minister is out in Gander consulting with the processors. Well, good for him. I am glad he is out there, and so he should be, but what I say to the Government House Leader is, that should have been done before that bill was brought to the House. That is the point. I would say to the Government House Leader, in all seriousness, if this bill was not introduced yet, and the news was that the minister responsible -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) last spring on that.

MR. SHELLEY: Well you said it was the first meeting with processors.

MR. TULK: No, I said the first meeting with processors but you can consult with the processors by phone.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader made a good point, I say to him.

I applaud any minister who goes and deals with people within the industry, whether it is fishery, forestry, mines, or what have you, and we will talk about that with Voisey's Bay in a second. The point is that the minister is out in Gander today while we debate this bill in the House of Assembly to make it into law, to put it into law. Basically, the minister is putting the cart before the horse. If he is out there consulting today, and listening to those people, then he is going to listen and talk to FANL, if he is talking to the unions, if he talks to fisheries and so on, then I would applaud it, I say to the Government House Leader, but my point is that he should have done that before.

Imagine another scenario, that this bill passed last Thursday and now the meeting is scheduled for next Wednesday. It is something like the HST is it, where they had the big press conference away, very quietly. Where was the consultation with that, I say to the minister? Mr. Speaker, there is a whole list of them. I am just looking down through the list of consultations missed. They used the words `partnerships' and `consultation', almost synonymous, as the government went around and made their promises. They used the term consultation, but consultation does not have a meaning in the dictionary. Consultation does not have a meaning in the dictionary if it is after the fact.

MR. J. BYRNE: What did Winston Churchill say about consultation?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know; what did Winston Churchill say about consultation?

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to define consultation in the dictionary, it means to consult and then make decisions. Isn't that the reverse of what this government has been doing, which is make a decision and then consult? That does not make sense.

The Government House Leader stood up to make a very good point; the minister is in Gander today. What about if we had passed this legislation last Thursday? It doesn't make any sense.

What is really fearful, and it is a huge issue also, is the Voisey's Bay issue. The same thing. Who are the Premier and the Cabinet taking their advice from? What consultants in the industry and the economy and so on are they taking their advice from?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, they would be a lot further ahead than what they are now, I say to the Government House Leader. They would at least be listening to somebody. It seems like the way you talk to the hon. colleagues opposite, nobody knows what is going on with Voisey's Bay. Now they are putting money into a hospital in Goose Bay, which I say is wonderful, and I wish they would put money in a hospital in Labrador City also, and also upgrade the services on the Labrador Coast. Who is not going to applaud that? I am all for that. That is great. I hope they upgrade the hospital in Baie Verte, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is not the point, Mr. Speaker. The point I am making -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Baie Verte?

MR. SHELLEY: What is wrong with the hospital in Baie Verte? Mr. Speaker, I could go on for a long time, I say to the Government House Leader, with the problems of the hospital in Baie Verte.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell the Minister of Health in all sincerity that if you want to really listen - I mean, they are so tired of talking about it, I could say to the Minister of Health, that they got sick and had to go to the hospital, and then get transferred to Corner Brook because they couldn't take care of them there. That is what happened. They got sick of talking about it, Mr. Speaker. You cannot have a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, the normal procedures of a hospital.

I had a situation - I will give the Minister of Health one if he wants an example. I will give him 1,000 it he wants, but I will give one. Here is a situation: a lady in La Scie, in labour, comes to the Baie Verte hospital, which is a bad enough road as it is, a forty-five minute drive. Then she is sent on to Corner Brook, another two hours drive. There are lots of examples if the minister wants them and if the Government House Leader wants them. But the bottom line -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) something wrong with the building?

MR. SHELLEY: No, the building itself is fine, it is the services that are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) facilities are good.

MR. SHELLEY: The building structure itself is fairly good, I will say that, but the equipment is a problem, and, of course, the service is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The equipment, there is none there.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is none there.

MR. SHELLEY: Very little there, Mr. Speaker. They had a birthing room that the former Member for Baie Verte had there while the election was on, but there was a catch.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MR. SHELLEY: Listen to this, now. The former Member for Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, my predecessor -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't have to mention names. The former Member for Baie Verte bragged during the election of the birthing room at the Baie Verte hospital, but there was a little catch that he forgot to mention during the campaign. You can't use it. It was just a birthing room to be there so that he could say during the election: There is a birthing room in the Baie Verte hospital. But there was a little catch, you couldn't use it. It was there for a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: The equipment wasn't available and the doctors would not perform births at the hospital, I say to the minister. And, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, it is a very serious issue with me because it is a health issue and I am sure every member here has reasons or an issue that drove them into politics or led them into politics. I am sure we all can tell our stories, and my story is the same as it was three-and-a-half years ago. It is the health issue, Mr. Speaker, and the fact - my predecessors had a little bit to do with it, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I could do a better job.

But, Mr. Speaker, to stand on the Baie Verte Peninsula these days, and towns around the Baie Verte Peninsula, twenty-one communities that put so much in tax dollars into the economy of this Province –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I have said that many times, I am on record. You could look at Hansard, where I said to the Minister of Mines and Energy the other day on Burin Minerals, that the EDGE status and going to re-activate that fluorspar and so on, I could compliment the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, I have never did say it. All I have ever said - and I will get the Hansard and deliver a copy to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: How long did you teach?

MR. SHELLEY: If he did teach, Mr. Speaker - but a basic fundamental that is a problem with this bill we see now before us, Mr. Speaker, is that, this minister, nothing personal, but this minister has the autonomy to -

The problem with the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue tomorrow, I have a few more things to say yet but I will conclude now in a second. The main point, Mr. Speaker, that this minister, as we discussed before, or his predecessor would have had this power to determine the wide-ranging effect on this, is the bottom line in fact on rural Newfoundland. He will be determining the fate, one of the major factors in determining the fate of rural Newfoundland and that is a scary, scary thought, Mr. Speaker.

I have a lot more to say on this tomorrow so I will save up my points and I will adjourn debate for today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: The hon. member has adjourned the debate and will carry on again, I guess, on Thursday if we re-introduce the bill. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be introducing the Private Member's resolution put forward by the Member for Labrador West. It is for Private Members' Day.

Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Nov. 27, at two o'clock, and I move that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, November 27, at 2:00 p.m.