The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today, fifty-eight Grade VI students from Ecole St. Patrick, Merrymeeting Road, St. John's accompanied by their teacher, Barbara Caule and that is in the District of St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the gallery today, nineteen students from the New Enterprise Store (Part of P.J. Gardner Institute at Memorial University in Newfoundland), accompanied by Instructor, Frank Doland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 18th, I informed hon. members that the Newfoundland economy is faring better in 1996 than expected. Today I am tabling the November 1996 "Economic Review" which explains the improved economic situation so far this year in more detail. This short report provides key highlights of all the major sectors of the economy, and includes government's revised forecast for 1996.

The Gross Domestic Product (a measure of all the incomes earned in the Province) is now expected to decline by 2.9 per cent compared with the 4.3 per cent decline projected last May. This 1.4 percentage point improvement is partly because of the strong caplin and shellfish fisheries, but mainly because work at the Hibernia construction site continued for longer than expected, and that was until October. This generated an extra 1,000 person years of employment beyond the 3,200 initially estimated. It also boosted total employment which is now expected to fall by 4.2 per cent, an improvement of 0.8 percentage point from the 5.0 per cent decline forecast earlier. The improvement in GDP was greater than the improvement in employment due primarily to the high incomes earned by Hibernia workers.

Government anticipated the provincial economy would go through a period of transition and adjustment following the conclusion of Hibernia construction activities. This is the norm when an economy has been stimulated by a mega-project. Accordingly, we expect the adjustments to continue into 1997.

As I stated when I delivered the mid-year fiscal update, while the economic situation is somewhat better than expected this year, it is still imperative that we maintain a sound fiscal position to ensure that we can continue to provide essential and sustainable public services. I am, however, encouraged by the current upward change in the economic forecast.

With this caution in mind, I would point out that upward revisions to economic indicators other than GDP also reflect a better-than-anticipated economic performance this year. Personal income, previously forecast to fall 3.5 per cent, is now expected to drop 1.8 per cent. As a result, consumer spending is better than expected and retail trade, previously forecast to drop by 3.5 per cent, is now expected to fall 1.5 per cent.

The single biggest improvement was in the housing market. Housing starts were previously forecast to fall by 8 per cent; we now expect they will rise by nearly 4 per cent. Indeed, in the first nine months of this year starts were up by 7.1 per cent with improvements in both rural and urban areas. The Goose Bay area recorded particularly strong growth with starts up more than five times from only 14 in the first nine months of last year to 78 this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: The real estate market has generally been strong this year as home sales in the first nine months were up nearly 20 per cent. Lower interest rates, the lowest in thirty years, and the fact that net out-migration has been less this year than originally expected, are also key factors in this much improved situation.

I also note that exports in other sectors of the economy are performing well. Specifically, we are seeing improved performances in the Province's manufacturing and fishing sectors and we predict a positive year for our mining industry. As well, we are seeing renewed investor confidence in our oil and gas industry. This is facilitating increased exploration and new project development as demonstrated by the recently announced Terra Nova development project.

In summary, this government anticipated the provincial economy would go through a normal period of transition and adjustment following the conclusion of the work at the Hibernia construction site. The upward change in the economic forecast I have outlined is significant and encouraging. I would encourage hon. members as well to peruse the Economic Review as it outlines impacts on each of the major sectors of our economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is funny, in all these years that I have been here I don't think I have ever seen a Ministerial Statement on economic review. I say to the minister, you must be thrilled that our GDP now is down by only 2.9 per cent and total employment is down by only 4.2 per cent. And I bet the best one for you is that personal income is down by only 1.8 per cent. You are accusing me of being negative when your own negatives are not as negative as you thought your negatives were going to be. Well, Minister, when you add up all those negatives you still don't get a positive. Keep working at it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is on a point of order.

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House will recall that in June of this year, the government announced that it would provide Marystown Shipyard Limited with an increase in the loan guarantee for its operating line of credit. Now, this was required in order to proceed with the implementation of a five-year business plan that had been presented to Cabinet by the Board of Directors of the Marystown Shipyard and by senior management of the Yard as well. At that time, we had also authorized a performance guarantee for the $45 million contract to refit the federal D and D vessel the "Quest".

Honourable members will also recall that support from government was contingent upon firm commitments from the employees at Marystown Shipyard to work toward productivity improvements. At that time, Mr. Speaker, Local 20 of the Marine and General Workers, as well as Local 904 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, agreed to an 11-point agenda to bring about the productivity gains that were required. This agenda focused on productivity improvement and the formation of a working committee, which was given a six-month mandate to arrive at a firm agreement to achieve a minimum 10 per cent productivity improvement at the Marystown Shipyard.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion, indeed a great deal of negotiation, that has taken place amongst the working committee process which involved representation from all employee groups as well as senior management at the Yard.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform members of the House that an agreement on productivity improvement measures has been reached within the context of the full eleven-point agenda items.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: One of the key issues on this agenda was trade flexibility. Management and the Board see the progress made in this area as an excellent platform from which to build, and are confident that the members of that union are prepared to embrace the changes in work practices at the Yard. In fact, Mr. Speaker, and I think here we should reflect and applaud the membership of the union, the employees of the Yard themselves in a recent vote, 96 per cent of Local 20's membership supported the measures agreed to by the executive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I commend the union, the senior management and the Board of Directors for their commitment to the future of the Marystown Shipyard. Things are indeed looking brighter. Hard work is beginning to yield good results. I am pleased to announce today that Marystown Shipyard Limited has just won a contract with AMFELS Inc. of Brownsville, Texas, for the fabrication of pontoon parts that will be used to cover existing pontoons on oil rigs now being used in the Gulf of Mexico.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The work is valued at approximately $8 million, will involve approximately 150,000 person hours of work for the Yard, and is expected to contribute up to $1 million towards covering overhead costs in this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, upwards of 500 employees will go back to work in the next few weeks at the Marystown Shipyard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: In addition to measures agreed to as part of the eleven-item productivity improvement agenda, Local 20 has made a no-strike agreement with the Shipyard for this contract and has also agreed to a modified shift schedule. As well, supervisors at the Shipyard have voluntarily agreed to a wage roll back, further improving the Yard's competitiveness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Province will, of course, provide performance guarantees on behalf of the Yard in order to proceed with this contract, as we have done on several occasions, at no cost by the way, in the past. Members will recall that Hulls 53 and 54 completed for Maersk were constructed under this arrangement.

All parties involved in this process have made a serious commitment to proceed with turning Marystown Shipyard into a profitable business. Based on past commitments, the present spirit of co-operation, the benefits that will accrue as a result of future changes, I am confident that the Marystown Shipyard is well positioned to become a leaner, more efficient operation, and a significant player in projects like Terra Nova and like Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, change is always difficult, but change was necessary in Marystown. The Shipyard must stand on its own. The government can no longer provide for continuing subsidies year-in-and-year-out, and the managers, and more importantly, the employees, have taken up that challenge for change and they have met it with courage and maturity and with decisive action.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks today by paying tribute to the board of directors, by paying tribute to the Member for Burin -Placentia West, the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who have worked extremely hard to bring about this positive result today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am quite pleased to see a very positive outlook for the Marystown Shipyard. Certainly, it is indicative by the commitment that the workers have given there, the local people. It is a commitment of their pride not only in their job but in their quality of work.

It is certainly my understanding that this particular contract, which was a contract on work that could not be performed in the U.S., and they heard of Marystown and their reputation, and their ability to do the work. And it was on their own reputation and initiative, that of the management and the workers there, that they were able to have a skilled workforce ready to do the work, and to be able to do it within the period of time in which it needed to be done. That is positive, that we have and maintain in this Province a very skilled workforce. We do have a lot of skilled people here in this Province, and it is important that we take advantage of this opportunity. And if it does require at times for government to put up the money just for the working capital to ensure that those contracts are able to be carried out here, and to be done on a profitable basis, it is important.

Through efforts in their wage roll-backs, in meeting strict deadlines, on the eleven points that are mentioned here in the statement, it is indicative of the people in those unions. I congratulate them, and I hope there are great things to come for the shipyard at Marystown, and that our Province can move on and be prosperous in an area in which they have great skills and expertise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

The new harmonized sales tax is applied to the current GST base, that means the RST act will now become redundant and I am sure we will be seeing legislation in this House to that effect in the near future.

Now, the Province not wanting to relinquish its RST base completely, has decided to implement some new taxes or levies namely: a 15 per cent insurance tax and a new 15 per cent tax on the private sale of vehicles.

Will the minister confirm if there are any other taxes planned, and how many millions of dollars does he project our Province will receive in revenues from these two new taxes?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the two taxes that the hon. member mentioned are two of the three essential measures that we are going to undertake in order to make the overall tax reduction from approximately 20 per cent to 15 per cent a reality in the Province. What we have done is, we will tax the sale of private vehicles between individuals at the rate of 15 per cent; we will also adjust insurance premiums up from 12 per cent to 15 per cent.

The other measure that we are undertaking is to preserve alcohol and cigarette prices at the same level they now are, so what will happen after harmonization is that, if you are a smoker or you drink alcohol, you will pay in the liquor store or wherever you buy your cigarettes the same prices that you now do. Were it not for that, you would have a decline in these prices. We believe these measures are acceptable. Even with these, Mr. Speaker, the Province will lose approximately $105 million in revenue, our total take will drop from approximately $570 million down to about $465 million, so these are minor adjustments upward, otherwise our tax losses would have been much more substantial because our projected take on the GST would have been approximately $380 million.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, how many millions does he project these new taxes will account for?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The total take is approximately $90 million. In rough terms the cigarette and tobacco tax adjustments are approximately $25 million of that. I can get the hon. member the exact figures; I used them in April when I went through it, I recently did again, I don't have them with me. The insurance tax is approximately $25 million and the vehicles are somewhere in the same order, so that is roughly the distribution of it, Mr. Speaker. There are some adjustments we are doing as well on other grants and that.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the benefits of harmonization was a full system of input tax credits which would result in the removal of barriers to interprovincial trade and also to help reduce activity in the underground economy.

Will the minister indicate if these two new taxes on insurance and on the private sale of vehicles can be claimed by businesses as input tax credits or, would business have to absorb the full impact of these taxes?

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

MR. DICKS: I am not sure if I understand the hon. member's question correctly, Mr. Speaker.

Under the GST tax system, you can only claim GST input tax credits so if I understand it, will they be able to claim these, the taxes paid to the Province? The answer to that would be no.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to make sure I'm clear. The minister has indicated that businesses cannot get the impact of these taxes. They will have to absorb the full impact. I understand that is what the minister said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. There is a growing concern that the Harmonized Sales Tax will be largely inflationary, rather than stimulating growth in the region. Historically that has happened with new taxes. I just recently read an article to that effect by an economic review. When the $348 million runs out in three years, I just want to ask the minister: What plan do you have in place to meet the revenue shortfalls?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would disagree with the hon. member that there are any substantial studies. It is an accepted opinion that the GST is inflationary. The GST, in this case, is actually going to be deflationary with our harmonization, because what we are basically doing is lowering the price of goods to consumers. We expect that our tax revenue will drop from $570 million down to $465 million. So in effect, we believe it to be deflationary, at that level, rather than inflationary, in our particular economy, particularly on the prices of goods.

The second aspect of his question dealt with how the Province will deal with any revenue shortfalls. What we project is that this will add approximately eight-tenths of a percentage point to our GDP in each of the next four years. That whole loss is being made up by the federal government over this period of time. We expect that we will have substantial year over year growth in the order of 4 per cent to 5 per cent that will yield the additional tax revenues in that period of time. We think that will substantially make up the tax loss in the fourth year.

The other thing that we are including at this point is projections that our economy will grow substantially starting in the year 1999, and forward, and we believe our economy will grow more than sufficiently, and we will have more than sufficient revenues, to offset any tax loss that might be projected four years out.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With implementation of taxes - while companies may increase profits, they haven't always been passed on to consumers. This has historically happened. I'm sure economists and so on will tell you that in various analyses. It is important that - what about if it doesn't? Does the Province have a contingency plan to deal with this tax revenue shortfall in case the economy doesn't grow to that effect?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, I think the hon. member's question is not entirely clear. The whole issue of businesses passing on the GST savings that they will get as a result of the input tax credits is separate from the economy growing. What we will do is we will take measures to ensure that the GST savings through input tax credits are passed on to consumers. If they are not, the government will consider particular measures against those industries that do not pass them on. The impact of the GST when this was brought in in the early 1990s by the federal government, and the experience in economic analysis I've seen, indicates that within a year there was a full 100 per cent pass through of GST input tax credits to consumers. This is quite evident in sectors such as the automobile sector, where the manufacturers tax came off and it was very clear what the savings were.

PREMIER TOBIN: The PUB just asked for the same, a decision on (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Yes, and it is interesting that this matter is being quantified by the PUB, for example. We believe that it will, in the nature of a competitive economy that we have in Newfoundland, perhaps one of the most voraciously competitive in the country, it will be passed on. But let me assure the public and the hon. member that if those savings are not passed on we will do so through the tax system in one form or another, so we will ensure that they are passed on to consumers.

Secondly, the growth will occur, as I say, through consumers having additional money in their pockets to spend to get into the economy that will create additional demand for both goods and services in these sectors, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has indicated it would be passed on, if not in taxation in some form. I would like to ask the minister now: Will he confirm that our Province has now given up its autonomy by agreeing to conditions under the HST that would see New Brunswick and Nova Scotia interfering with our ability to set retail and service taxation rates?

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

MR. DICKS: No, quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. Cooperating is not giving up autonomy. What we have done is we have entered into a formal agreement with the other provinces - Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - and the federal government. What is going to happen in this country, I suspect over the next ten years, is a great amalgamation of various taxes. This will be one of them. We already have the same system in corporate personal income tax. It works much better. There are savings as a result of having integrated administrations. There is a lot to be said as well for having similar rules in different provinces. We believe that it is a very progressive measure. We don't see it as a loss of autonomy. We believe it is a progressive tax measure in this country to move toward a system where you have an integrated tax management and tax policy system throughout the country, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are for the hon. Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, now that the Senate has dealt with Term 17, as was their right and duty by law, and it has gone back to the House of Commons for a final decision, this party, this Opposition, Mr. Speaker, once again expresses its desire to see the constitutional amendment passed by Ottawa with the urgency that it so greatly deserves so any education reforms hinging on this amendment can be implemented. My question to the minister, Mr. Speaker, is what specific actions will this government take to urge the Chrétien government to deal expeditiously with the Term 17 amendment and to bring it to the House of Commons for a final vote during this fall sitting?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the question from the hon. member because it is an issue of significant importance to all of us in the Province. I must say that in the past and as today we continue to appreciate the support of the Opposition with respect to this issue, with respect to the support of the NDP party, the support of all members in this House, Mr. Speaker, not like yesterday where we have an issue with every bit as much importance with respect to renegotiation of the Churchill Falls contract whereby the members of the Opposition yesterday found some excuse or reason to not support the government in trying to get a good deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

With respect to Term 17, we do appreciate the continued, unanimous support of this House, with respect to the issue. We have been making contacts again today with the elected parliamentarians in Ottawa and are urging them to find the first possible opportunity on the calendar in the House of Commons to reintroduce the motion and have it pass. I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to provide a date or a time frame other than that they understand the need in this Province for the matter to be brought to conclusion before the Christmas recess, both in the parliament in Ottawa and this Legislature, if at all possible.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But I say to the hon. minister, let's not forget the whole point of education reform and changing Term 17 and that is to bring about reforms to improve the education of our children in the classroom and nothing less. The bulk of these changes, the government already has the constitutional authority to make anyway. I ask the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker, for example, why has the government sent the special education report, the report which was tabled in this hon. House just over a week ago, why has that report been sent back for more study and more recommendations when the report identifies very serious deficiencies in addressing children with learning disabilities and tells the minister how to fix them?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I hope that that is not a signal that the Opposition is going to try to play politics with something as important as the Special Matters Report. The reality, as I have explained in Answers to Questions previously in this House, Mr. Speaker, is that we had a group that studied the issue and made some recommendations. All of the people potentially impacted by those recommendations, particularly the students and their parental representatives and advocates, had never seen those recommendations until a week or ten days ago. They - and I have indicated this in the Legislature before, Mr. Speaker - want some time now, even though they have made some presentations to the committee, they want some time to consider the impact of the recommendations made.

These are suggestions to the government. These other groups have other suggestions to make and they want some time to decide whether or not they agree or disagree with the recommendations made in the Special Matters Report. We feel that it is only prudent, Mr. Speaker, to provide for some period of time for the stakeholders and all of those who advocated and worked on behalf of the students in the school system, to reflect upon these recommendations, to consider the impacts of them and to see whether or not we can move forward on a timely basis with the majority of them if it makes sense to do so. But no report has ever been accepted before, to my knowledge, on one day, and then it be said: We will implement all of these even though we have never had a real look at them. This is the first time we have seen them, but we will receive the report on Monday and we will implement it on Friday.

It takes some time to consider, and we will not unreasonably delay the implementation; you can be assured of that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on a supplementary.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I say to the hon. minister: The Royal Commission Report is almost five years old. Why has the government let so many child-focused, classroom-centred recommendations for reform go unheeded?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I gave a report card to the Home and School Federation at the beginning of Home and School Awareness Week about three weeks ago. If people want to review that, again you will see that a great number of the recommendations of the Royal Commission Report of 1992 have been, actually, already implemented. A number of the key issues cannot, unfortunately, be implemented until we deal with the legislation that we will table in this House of Assembly very shortly after Term 17 is completed in the national Parliament. There is no intent to delay on any of these initiatives.

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

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

In view of the fact that my colleague, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair is also standing, and she has not asked questions in the House, I would defer to her if that is satisfactory with you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

It is my understanding that the Provincial Government has entered into a joint environmental assessment with the Inuit and the Innu people of Labrador on the proposed Voisey's Bay mining development. It is also my interpretation of the Environmental Act that Aboriginal groups must have land claim issues settled before a government can enter into joint environmental assessments with them. Can the minister confirm that this is a requirement of law?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not confirm that for the member. What I will confirm is that we have an MOU which is historic in Canada, as a matter of fact, in dealing with environmental assessment in an area where land claims have not been settled. We have, and very much appreciate, the co-operation and the willingness of the Innu and LIA to enter into this agreement to work towards an environmental assessment for a mining project in a region where land claims have not been settled.

The Federal Government, the Department of Environment, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, have also participated in this whole arrangement and whole effort to work towards a proper environmental assessment procedure which would be inclusive of native groups that have not had land claims settled. This is an historic document that we have worked together to put forward, and we believe it is going to work quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse-au-Clair, on a supplementary.

MS JONES: I commend the minister for the efforts he has made in bringing this issue out with the Inuit and the Innu in Labrador. I ask why the 4,000 Métis people in Labrador have not been included in this process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question. Indeed, I congratulate the member on her questions in the House of Assembly today on behalf of the interest of the people of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the reason there has been a four-way environmental review process negotiated between the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, the LIA, and the Innu - and that is the list of groups involved, in particular the Innu and the LIA - is that a claim has been accepted for negotiation by both the Federal Government, and by the Provincial Government in the case of the LIA and in the case of the Innu. In fact, the claim that has been submitted, the work that has been done - there has been, I think, over half-a-million dollars of funding provided by the Federal Government, by the Labrador Métis Association - has been submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs, and the last that I heard, had been referred on to the federal Department of Justice for consideration.

I know the member appreciates the distinction between claims that have been filed and claims that have been accepted for negotiation. In the case of the LIA and the Innu, the member will appreciate that these are claims which have been accepted for negotiation. In the case of the Innu, a framework agreement is in place, was signed here indeed a few months ago. The member, I think, was present on that occasion. In the case of the LIA, not only is there a framework agreement in place but there is an accelerated negotiation process now ongoing, indeed in the city of St. John's, with all negotiators present in one location, with a view to, if possible, settling a claim as early as is reasonable in 1997. That is the reason for the distinction.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, on a supplementary.

MS JONES: I fully recognize the progress that has been made with both the Innu and the Inuit, the speedy progress, I must admit. My concern is for the Labrador Métis people in that their claim has been submitted, as the Premier says, to the Department of Justice. It has not yet been fully accepted by the Federal Government. It is in that process. However, the Métis people do have overlapping claims in Labrador in this area, and they, too, are impacted by this development and this assessment. I ask the Premier if he can assure me that the Métis people will be included in some way in this environmental assessment, and that the impact on their people will also be recognized with regard to this development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give an assurance to the member that every single citizen of our Province in Labrador or, for that matter, elsewhere in the Province, who wants to have an opportunity to be heard on this process will have an opportunity to be heard through the panel review process.

I believe you will see that as the panel is structured by the Minister of Environment and Labour, and by his colleague, the federal Minister of the Environment, there will be a very considerable opportunity for all those voices who want to be heard to be heard in an appropriate fashion.

I thank the member for her recognition of the distinction of the progress in the claim's process so far between the Innu, the LIA, and indeed the Métis claim. That is the clear reason, and it is a powerful reason, why there is a distinction in the way in which this four-way agreement was arrived at.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Social Services.

On October 8 an official of the minister's department wrote all district managers to inform them that all home support cases with funding of $3000 or more would be subject to a mandatory review. Your official gave a listing of suggested cost-saving measures, reduction in hours, the sharing of staff, etc., etc. You admit in the memorandum that your suggested list is not inclusive, and that social workers would be encouraged to be creative in discussing and exploring possible other options for further reductions.

Given the lengthy list that you suggest in your memorandum, can the minister now inform the House of these other creative measures that were found by social workers to further disadvantage the disabled people of this Province?

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

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

There was a memo sent out to all the people who were receiving home support over the $3000 limit, and we also stressed in a memo that we wanted our social workers to work on an individual basis with each of these families, and individuals, to come together with an appropriate resolution. For me to list the number of alternatives would be to identify perhaps the number of people that are involved. They are many and varied, and every person, and every individual has their own issues that can be resolved on an individual basis.

Some of those maybe resolved through alternate forms of living and some of them may have involved reductions in the hours of service, but the crucial point is that no reductions were made without the families' involvement and agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a supplementary.

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

Your memorandum also eliminates the department's share of administrative funding for those families who access home support help. Is it to be assumed that these costs therefore will be absorbed by the families themselves? Given the cutbacks already noted, where does the minister expect these families to find the money to be able to pay the administrative cost?

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

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

The direction that was given with respect to the administrative cost was given based on, again, an individual assessment. Where possible the administrative cost would be reduced. Where it was not possible, that money would be maintained for people to do that administrative services and, I think, the most important point to remember is that every cent is being put back into that program so that we can continue to provide existing services and allow new individuals to enter into the program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have never before seen so many people so happy to see cutbacks to the disabled in the Province. What in-service programs have been introduced by the department, Madam Minister, to familiarize families with the bookkeeping requirements of Revenue Canada, for example? What procedures have you introduced to ensure that financial processes used are consistent with good accounting practices? What in-service programs have you offered to the families involved who now must assume the responsibility for their own bookkeeping and their own accounting practices?

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

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

I would like to start off by saying that the money savings from this program is being put back into the program to allow more people to avail of the services. We do not see it as a cutback. We see it as a way to obtain more funds to spread it around so more people can access the service when all people are in agreement with those types of changes.

With respect to the administrative cost, our social workers are assisting people. We also have engaged the services of some of our Federal Government colleagues to assist us in doing this. Nobody will be expected to do it without the proper abilities to conduct that service. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health. Will the Minister of Health tell us why, in the short period of June and September of this year, the Health Care Corporation of St. John's spent $744,545 of public money on twenty-nine expenditure items without sending any of them through the public tendering process?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member puts forward a figure and quotes a number of purchase arrangements that were entered into laying against that figure, and asks me to explain what these twenty-nine purchases represented and on what basis they were entered into. I would simply say to the hon. member that if can provide me with some more detail of some substance that has a lot more depth to it than the questions he was putting forward yesterday, and which the Health Care Corporation roundly and soundly put straight -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If he will put forward some questions of substance with some supporting evidence that there is some factuality to his question, then I would be glad to undertake to get the answers for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what world -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - this minister is living in -

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

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: I told him at a meeting one night if he thought everything in health care was okay, he was living in a dream world. I believe that now more than ever. The figures that I just quoted, Mr. Speaker, were figures that were tabled in this House. The information is there. You read it, I read it.

Now then. My next question is: Will the minister tell us why - I will given him a few incidents now if he wants a couple. In September the Health Care Corporation of St. John's gave $9,522 in a printing contract for Littledale School of Nursing to Dicks and Company, instead of public tendering the work, and justified it by saying it was quote unquote "a pressing emergency". Is this the type of health care expenditure the minister would call a pressing emergency?

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

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

In terms of providing good judgement as to whether or not a specific activity is of a pressing nature or a pressing emergency, I will seven days out of seven and twenty-four hours a day out of twenty-four accept the judgement of Sister Elizabeth before I will accept yours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, no answer. I am going to give him another one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: We are asking the questions, the information is tabled, and he can't answer it, so you tell me what it is. Will the minister tell us why the Health Care Corporation of St. John's sidestepped again the Public Tender Act in August to purchase $9,951 this time, Mr. Speaker, in sheet metal work for the Janeway Hospital, to do what again it called a pressing emergency because the move of the Children's Rehab Centre was preset and `this work was unforseen when planning was originally done.' What happened to all the planning the minister was supposed to have put in place for the movement of this centre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very briefly, the action was taken and the purchase was made in the fashion in which it was because in the judgement of the Health Care Corporation it was the appropriate thing to do at that point in time. If the hon. member has allegations that the Public Tender Act is being not followed as per the requirement that is placed within the act then let him bring forward further evidence to that effect.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the House yesterday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology told us that it was the government's policy to eliminate the payroll tax when the timing was right. The Minister of Finance today has told us that the impact of the shortfall in retail sales tax, due to the harmonized sales tax would be greatly offset by benefits of increased consumer spending and economic growth that go with the reduced tax rate. If the government really believes this argument to be true, then why has it not considered the same argument in looking at ways and reasons to reduce or quickly eliminate the payroll sales tax and stop punishing the people that are creating employment?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we want to create growth in the economy. I have to say to the hon. member, as his constituent in St. John's South, how ashamed I am of my member for voting against Labrador Wests resolution yesterday, in this place, to rearrange and reconstitute the Upper Churchill contract which is just outrageous. Everybody agrees with that. Mr. Speaker, even SNC Lavalin, the largest engineering firm in the country, residing in Quebec, came out in full support of Premier Tobin and the government of Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me quote what they say, `Cognoscente of the vast potential in Labrador, Premier Tobin is concentrating his efforts on development; the Lower Churchill, Trans Labrador Highway, Voisey's Bay and in that regard SNC Lavalin supports Premier Tobin and the Newfoundland Government in their efforts to resolve the inequities of the Upper Churchill contract!'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, let me say this to the House –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FUREY: - not only could we remove the payroll tax but we could remove all of the equalization payments if we could take what is owed and owned by this Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TULK: The hon. gentleman wants leave to finish his line of questioning. Feel free - by leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we move to presenting Reports of Special Committees I want to acknowledge the presence of a former member of the House of Assembly for the district of Green Bay, Mr. Alvin Hewlett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled - and I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition - "Ac Act To Implement The Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of Newfoundland And Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us see how you will re-act.

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

WHEREAS the current policy regarding the wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary differs significantly from the policy regarding the wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police operating in this Province; and

WHEREAS the training of officers of the RNC with respect to firearm use and other police matters is of an excellent quality that is comparable to that of officers of the RCMP; and

WHEREAS there is no justification - do you want to listen to it or not? - for disparity for sidearms policy between the two police forces based on demographic or any other factors; and

WHEREAS the number of firearms seized by the RNC officers between April 1 and October 4, 1996 totals thirty, and the number of weapons excluding knives seized in that same period totals fifty-six; and

WHEREAS the number of approved written requests by RNC officers to carry firearms between January 1 and October 4, 1996 totals 568; and

WHEREAS the current policy which compromises the accessibility of firearms to RNC officers may jeopardize the safety of the officers and of the general public in the areas served by the police force; and

WHEREAS recent events involving the illegal use of firearms in the area served by the RNC have raised public concerns about the capacity of the RNC to protect them against the consequences of firearm-related crimes; and

WHEREAS the RNC Association has made a compelling case for the elimination of the disparity in sidearms policy between the RNC and the RCMP in this Province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make the appropriate changes so that the policy regarding the wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary will be consistent with the policy regarding the wearing of sidearms by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police operating in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair called for Petitions but nobody stood.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No.2

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 2, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries And - Oh, sorry. Motion No 2.

MR. TULK: Motion No. 2, first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St.John's Act," carried. (Bill No.25).

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, it is the wrong one, I am sorry, it is Motion 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting Judgement Enforcement," carried. (Bill No. 44).

On motion, Bill No. (44) read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act".

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3, second reading of Bill No. 21.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some comments regarding this Act. The purpose of the Act, the Fish Inspection Act, is to give the Province control over certainly, quality, and other matters pertaining to fish inspection within this Province. The Province has a certain responsibility in that specific area.

One of my concerns is that in the amendment to clause 4 of that Act, there is a new subsection added, 4(f), which states, "which relate to the regional distribution of processing licences, the development of the fishing industry of the Province and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality."

In the Fish Inspection Act, if you look at all other parts of number 4, it is about requiring and providing for the licensing of persons engaged in the handling, the processing, the storage, to ensure that we are going to have a good quality of fish, a good quality product that is going to go out of this Province at a fair standard.

We know it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to regulate the inspections and standards of products that are going outside our Province. If we look at clause 4(b), it refers to the licensing of establishments used in connection with the handling, processing, storing, grading, transporting and so on, again pertaining to an emphasis on the quality of the product that we have.

Our Province has a responsibility there, certainly, to monitor and ensure that we are going to have certain standards. As my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South said, years ago you would back in a dump truck; you would probably carry gravel or asphalt in it all day, and then back it in and carry fish in it.

That day has certainly passed, no doubt, but the Province still has a responsibility to monitor and ensure this. Of course, federal inspection has been very active, and they have a role because most of their product in this Province, we know, is exported. It is an export product, and there has to be a federal regulation of this, and that has been going on for some time.

It says: requiring and providing for the licence of vehicles used in the transportation of fish, which is a provincial in-Province, on-land responsibility here, the transportation aspect. So that is a provincial responsibility. But when we get into 4(f), "...and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality." In other words, it is saying that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will have control of all matters not relating to fish quality under the Fish Inspection Act.

MR. EFFORD: Sure, we have that now.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, why do you need it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) court decision.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you do not have it then.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) of the Act.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes, I am familiar with it, I say to the minister. I am very familiar with it.

If you have the authority now, why do you need to amend the Act to get it?

MR. EFFORD: The court said we did not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, you do not have it then, if the court said you didn't.

MR. EFFORD: What do you want, a freehold system?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, we are not talking about that, I say to the minister. We are talking about this amendment, that is now going to - the development of the fishing industry of the Province is a very, very broad category. In what manner - there has been no consultation, to my knowledge, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: Well, you don't have much knowledge.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I don't, but has the minister consulted people out there, the stakeholders? I understand the Minister of Health consulted on the Act that went through earlier this week, on Tuesday, I believe, that we passed here in fifteen or twenty minutes. There was consultation done, and the Nurses Act went through. There was general agreement.

This specific area is an area of concern in which there seems to be no consultation giving control and powers to matters that do not relate to the quality of fish. The amendment made in article 5 says: "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."

In other words, the minister may make conditions that the minister considers appropriate, including conditions relating to matters that the Cabinet was given authority over. Section 4 deals with the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, deals with the Cabinet. Then section 5 says, the minister now has power under conditions he considers appropriate, including matters related to in section 4. Are we saying that the minister then can overrule, the minister can make decisions that supersede the powers of the Cabinet?

MR. EFFORD: No, no minister has that authority.

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, what is the minister's explanation of those terms, I ask him. "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." Section 4 outlines the responsibilities of Cabinet, section 5 the duties of the minister. The minister now can set the conditions pertaining to any matters in section 4 of this Act, or clause 4, which means the minister has powers where he considers appropriate to supersede the power of the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South:

That the motion for second reading of Bill 21, which is now before the House of Assembly, be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefore:

"That Bill No. 21, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Resource Committee of the House for further study and consultation."

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to have a copy of the amendment and just recess briefly to have a look at it and see that it is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has had a chance to review the amendment put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, Paragraph 673, and as well to the authorization of amendments given on Page 314 of Beauchesne. In both cases it is obvious that this amendment is in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I feel it is important that with any bill coming before this House there should be at least an opportunity to have it discussed at a committee level, or have input into it, and I do not feel there was sufficient time to have input into it. After sufficient input and discussion, we very well would probably support it in its current form, or maybe in some altered form; or some other minor wording in this particular bill would have been acceptable there.

We have seen too many instances of a lack of consultation on various bills. I know there is concern being expressed. I know the minister has had concerns expressed to him regarding this particular bill and the lack of consultation and various input. I think it is important that there be an opportunity for that.

We have seen many instances in the past where the public have been very upset with the lack of consultation. Now, we were promised consultation. Whether you follow what people say or whether you do not, that is one thing, but at least there is an opportunity to have input. No one person has all the answers, I can assure you. Sometimes, listening to what everybody has to say, input from government officials, input from the public at large, input from stakeholders in the industry, are all a part of the final picture and should be looked at before bills are passed in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are many bills here on this Order Paper that we would pass in minutes, because we do not see the need to unduly delay a bill unless we think there should be an avenue followed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We feel it is our right, I say to the minister. Even if a minister is right, it is no reason not to follow normal procedures that are given to the House here, to have adequate time to discuss it.

MR. EFFORD: I can tell you one thing, you know somebody who will be very unhappy if we did not do it now.

MR. FITZGERALD: I know a lot of people who are going to be unhappy if you do it now.

MR. EFFORD: No, Sir.

MR. SULLIVAN: To be honest with you, I am not going to worry about who is happy or who is unhappy. If we do not follow a proper procedure here in the House, and a proper avenue of opportunity, maybe there is reason to be happy or unhappy, I say to the minister. There were a lot of unhappy people when we said there were no cutbacks in health care. Did we talk about consultation when we looked at health care restructuring here in the city? Did we talk about consultation with pharmacists on dispensing fees, when it has put pharmacies out of business? There was no consultation.

Just to take a meagre $61.00, I think it was, I say to my colleague-

MR. TULK: Did you see the (inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I have not.

MR. TULK: Oh, oh! Don't tell lies in this House.

MR. SULLIVAN: The ones with lights on them?

MR. TULK: No, no. The one I sent over to you.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: You saw that one?

MR. SULLIVAN: I did not get to read it but I glanced at it, yes.

MR. TULK: But you will.

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: So far you are only in the free fall.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I admit, but at least I am down at the point where my feet are on the ground, I say to the minister, and sometimes it is good to have your feet on the ground.

I say, to take $61.00 from the people who could least afford it; there was no consultation in the process.

The minister stood here in the House and talked about eliminating public exams when the exams were made up, students had -

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the price of fish?

MR. SULLIVAN: It talks about consultation, that is what it has to do with it. It has to do with consultation. Students were prepared for public exams in June, teachers were prepared, the money was spent on making up the exams, the exams were ready, and all of a sudden here in this House in late May, to let students know that in two weeks time or a week-and-a-half they are not going to be doing exams, is not a proper procedure to follow. Whether public exams should be eliminated or not is another question but it is not the proper way to deal with people out there.

Now we have to look at other aspects. Tax harmonization: During this past campaign there was no talk of tax harmonization, none, but when the election ended there was a Memorandum of Understanding on tax harmonization, a Memorandum of Understanding where they said there would be a six-month period, or several months, before an agreement would be signed and there would be plenty of opportunity. There was no public discussion, no information out to the public on what the implications might be, until on October 23, in secrecy, an agreement was signed on tax harmonization. We might very well have supported many aspects of it. There are parts of tax harmonization that I support. There are parts of various policies of government, lots of them, that I support. If you support 98 per cent and don't support 2 per cent, people say you are not supporting government and you are being negative. If you don't support 100 per cent of what government does, if you cannot support the government, you are negative. I support many things they do.

I support educational reform. I said here in this House, and I said before, that our own Premier when he was in Ottawa for two months after we passed that reform, he was our minister and it still did not come to the House of Commons. Seven months later they decided to bring it up with summer coming on. Dragging their feet has a tendency to cause problems. It did in this case. I just hope in this instance that the House of Commons, in their wisdom - and I am sure the Prime Minister and his government will see that it is important to have this back in the House of Commons before Christmas and have it passed so we can get on with any legislative changes that are needed here in the House of Assembly. We will cooperate with government.

We passed one piece of legislation here in a matter of fifteen minutes because the Minister of Health took the time to consult with the people affected by it, and it went through very quickly. The Minister of Fisheries does not consult with anybody because he is afraid he might learn something. I say to the minister, I asked the minister a question in the House on June 17: Will the minister confirm that the crab stocks are declining in the recruitment crab? The minister stood up and his quote; I don't know but it is here. I asked the minister a question in the House last year -

MR. EFFORD: What was the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: I got it here. Here it is, `Johnny'.

MR. SULLIVAN: Here is what I asked the minister in the House on November 17 - this gives you his knowledge of the fishery. I said: Will the minister confirm that scientific evidence indicates recruitment is declining - that was in reference to the crab - and this trend is likely to continue for the next two years in 3L and the catch decline indicates a decline in the commercial biomass may have already occurred in 2J and 3K? The minister stood up and said: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. In fact there are areas now out in 3L and other areas around this Province where crab has never been so abundant.

MR. EFFORD: And that is true.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said: Not only that, DFO has just made a decision to increase the quota from 32,000 to 37,000 tons. He asked me, what was I talking about? Here is what I said: I am referring to DFO's stock status report and I am referring to the snow crab management plans released just recently. That was last June. I went on to indicate to him.

Now, my colleague asked questions in the House yesterday, the same follow-up, the same line in this House, and the questions -

MR. EFFORD: What did I say?

MR. SULLIVAN: He asked the minister - the whole crab stocks are under review by scientists. There is some concern about regroupment in different areas around Newfoundland and Labrador. There are concerns, and rightly so. Conservation in all species must be utmost in everyone's mind. The Member for Bonavista South asked him, if he would confirm that there will be a reduction in the quota of -

MR. EFFORD: Of 50 per cent. I said, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: - 50 per cent in Bonavista Bay. When he asked about the 50 per cent in Bonavista Bay -

MR. EFFORD: And 35 per cent in (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. He said: The management plan will be down in January. There are concerns expressed about it, no decision has been made, and signs certainly indicate that there will be some reduction in the amount of quota. Then the member went on and asked, if there would be a reduction in White Bay of 33 per cent. The minister went on, again saying, just a few months later, when the stock status report -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) November. That is six months later.

MR. SULLIVAN: Five. June 17.

MR. EFFORD: June, July, August, September, October. It is November.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there are five, that is what I said, five.

MR. EFFORD: You can't count.

MR. SULLIVAN: June 17 to November 17 is five months. He asked the question a little over five months and a week or so. So, I say to the minister: What happened to the crab stocks in that time? Because the minister hadn't read a report on the fishery here in the Province - the (inaudible) Minister of Fisheries didn't even know what the snow management crab stock status report was. I asked him that, and it is here in Hansard for anybody who would like to read it. It was on June 17.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it isn't. It isn't a matter of being smart. It is a matter of reading information that pertains to your ministerial area. You don't have to be smart to read it.

Now the minister talks about all the consultation he is doing. I mean, where was it? We talked about the mining and mineral rights tax act. I asked the new `minister of finance,' not the current Minister of Finance, the new `minister of finance,' the one who handles mining taxes, who sits behind or to the right of, I suppose, the real, or supposed to be Minister of Finance there.

By the way, while the Minister of Finance is here, I wouldn't want him to run away, but this new economic review, I can tell you, is on a very strict diet. I must say, it is very concise.

MR. DICKS: A good point. I like the hon. member's comments.

MR. SULLIVAN: You like my comments, I say to the minister? I'm sure he is going back to work on those right away, and hopefully the good news next year won't be that the economy or jobs are down by 4 per cent. I hope they will be up by 10 per cent next year, or even more.

Mr. Speaker, it is an example of a lack of appropriate consultation. It isn't too much to ask to consult members of the public, to bring to the public's attention, bring to the minister's attention, certain concerns. When a bill came to this House, the first day it came up for discussion, to rush in a bill, try to sneak it through without anybody knowing about it so we could get it passed before the public is aware, isn't the proper way to deal with a bill. You should run it by the stakeholders, see if they agree or disagree, at least listen to their comments, take them under advisement, and then make the decision that the department feels is the best decision to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not finished with the Minister of Health yet, I can tell him. If you want -

MR. MATTHEWS: What do you mean? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe I will be back to revisit you tomorrow. By the way, I say to the minister, since I provided those names and other people who wished to remain anonymous, others have agreed to let their names be used. If you still want other names I can give you names to follow up. I still have others. On the list I gave you, some who wished to remain anonymous, I can put a name now at least with one of those other three; if you want to follow up and find out if what I'm saying is factual.

I don't think I should have to come to the House or the minister to find out if it is factual. I'm sure if the minister consulted with his colleagues, the minister representing Grand Bank, and the member for Burin - Placentia West, I am sure those two are very much aware of concerns on the peninsula. I do not think I would have to come here to relay their concerns. I was very surprised that the minister is not aware of those concerns because, I say to the minister, they are very, very legitimate concerns, and I can tell you it is a very serious matter. Many of these instances are, and it is not a matter that anybody takes a great delight in seeing happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: If they are serious matters, we will take them seriously.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I certainly hope they are taken seriously and I hope it will be corrected in the future, because that is a role of the Opposition. If we do not get the results - it has been happening for the last few months. A month ago I brought up an issue pertaining to it in the area, nothing was done, and I brought it back again to the House. It is part of our responsibility, bringing to the public view.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, when I have an opportunity to ask on health. The question I would like to ask minister is: Would you like me to be the health critic again?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he would.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, well maybe I will get back to him on Monday or Tuesday or maybe tomorrow.

MR. MATTHEWS: I love substantive questions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: I do not like questions that have no basis.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, and what the minister does not like, I can tell you, are the substantive answers that I provide to him in writing. That is what he does not like. I can tell you, when I ask you a question there will be a substantive answer, because if I do not consider it to be factual, I say to the minister, I won't throw it out there. Any questions I have brought to this House on health matters, I say to the minister, I took great pains to ensure they were accurate because it is not an area where we would want to put out to the public something that is not true.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not true (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. My colleague raised some very valid points, I say to the minister, very valid points. There are a lot of concerns out there. Look, life is a learning experience. When you stop learning, there is something wrong, and when you think you stop learning, something happened probably a long time before that. You are absolutely wrong then. I will encourage my colleague to get back again to the minister and bring it to his intention.

Before I get back to my topic, I must say to the minister, while he finds the view very good from where he is, I do not find the view any better from where I am.

Seriously, back to -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but there is less hair. The colour is different. The suntan, I must say, is a lot more, a lot greater. I ask the minister: Does he ever get any calls from health care when he is out of the Province to bring his attention to things I have been raising?

MR. TULK: I don't know if he is getting on your nerves now, but he is getting on mine.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay. Well, it does not have to be serious to get on the Government House Leader's nerves, I can assure you.

Now back to this section of the bill. My amendment is to refer this back to a committee. I mean, the committee might be able to deal with this in a matter of a day or two and get it back to the House again. I think it is important. When the government has a reason for not wanting to put something to a committee, there must be something about it they do not like. I can assure the minister it does not have to be in committee very long.

I believe the bill we passed here the other day, the Minister of Health's bill on the Registered Nurses' Act, we must have dealt with that in about fifteen to twenty minutes. I asked the minister: Did you consult with the stakeholders affected by this?

MR. MATTHEWS: Absolutely.

MR. SULLIVAN: Absolutely, and that is the point. The minister in this act has not consulted. There are certain, serious matters and points of concern in what is in this act, not only giving authority to an area that has nothing to do under the Fish Inspection Act. It is not proper and is giving the minister some powers to override the Cabinet. Section 5 gives the minister power to override the Cabinet, and that should not be a condition set down in the act. It is not appropriate, it should not occur and I think government has to look at doing appropriate consultation on that before we should be bringing legislation to this House.

Now, I do not want to belabour the point unnecessarily. I think I have made the point and I have stated the reasons why I think it should go to committee. I have stated some of the problems encountered with it, that could be dealt with if the committee had an opportunity to deal with it on a short-term basis, and we could end up dealing with this in a very short course if that manner is followed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak on the Fish Inspection Act amendment. The reason I stand is because I have some very dear concerns as to what the amendment will empower the government to be able to do. Cabinet can now make regulations without bringing the matters back to the House of Assembly for approval, which on such an industry as our fishery, which was at one point the lifeblood of Newfoundland and Labrador, and while right now it is suffering to make a comeback, it is still a very, very important industry to our Province, I feel that the House of Assembly should have the ability to make regulations and change regulations, and not just the Cabinet of government.

Could these regulations say where plants can go and cannot go, how many plants can go in a given area, whether or not licences can be transferred from fishermen, and so forth? Who knows? That has been left unclear. The amendment is a very, very open-ended amendment which gives considerable power, not only to Cabinet but to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. It does not make any difference who is sitting as the Minister of Fisheries at any given time. No one person should have that much power when it comes to an industry such as the fishery.

Where is the accountability in this new amendment? Where is the voice of the people, or the vote of the people's representatives on these matters? They lie within the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and within the Cabinet of the government, whichever party should hold government at any given time. There was no public input or consultation on the amendment, after government had preached and vowed they would give consultation on important issues.

The second amendment adds a subsection giving the minister new powers. It says, "(2) 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."

The minister will have the power to determine whether section 4 applies or not; not the Cabinet, not the Members of the House of Assembly. The minister will have this discretion solely.

The term `appropriate' is left undefined. That is up to the discretion of the minister.

The phrase, "...subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate..." is also left undefined, completely at the discretion of the fisheries minister.

There was no consultation with the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, or other stakeholders in the fishing industry. These decisions were made by the present Cabinet, and future decisions can be made solely by the sitting and acting fisheries minister. It just goes to show a continuation of government's unwillingness to consult, after promises of consultation in the most recent election, such as the tax harmonization. Government failed to seek public input before signing on to the Memorandum of Understanding. They failed to seek consultation before signing the interprovincial deal in the fall, and people still do not know the details of this harmonized sales tax deal. They still do not know the implications. There was a lack of consultation.

There was a lack of consultation on the public exams issue. We were notified that public exams were going to be cut out at the end of the last school year; no consultation with the students, no consultation with the teachers, no consultation with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association. It did not consult with university students here, college students or the education experts before eliminating public exams and it did not listen to the input of the interested parties afterwards.

On education reform; the former Premier failed to consult. If it were not for the Senate there would be no substantive consultations on this issue at all, and even with the consultations of the Senate, it has gone back now for the House of Commons to vote on.

Social Services; government did not consult before eliminating regulation aid assistance, the emergency assistance. Government did not consult before cutting dispensing fees to the drug stores. They did not consult with the drug store owners, the pharmacists and they did not consult with recipients of social services.

On health care restructuring; there were no public consultations on major changes affecting the Grace, the Janeway, the Children's Rehab, nursing homes, personal care home funding and so on. The government has shown a complete unwillingness to consult and this new Act, this new amendment shows as well their complete unwillingness to consult, not only now that the Act is before the House of Assembly but if the Act is passed there will be absolutely no consultation, there will be no need to consult because the fisheries minister himself will have the full power to make very important decisions on the fishing industry. There is absolutely no need for him to consult with Cabinet, no need to consult with the House of Assembly, no need to consult with the fishing industry, no need to consult with anybody, any of the important stakeholders.

AN HON. MEMBER: Finally got a good man in the Premier's chair.

MR. OSBORNE: I say to the education minister, he should not be talking of consultation after the recent cuts in education.

Another example is the Crown lands and cabins; there was no consultation with Crown land owners, no consultation with the public and no consultation with the House of Assembly before this very important decision was made during the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) fish in St. John's (inaudible). What do you know about fish?

MR. H. HODDER: There was fish in St. John's when you were -

MR. OSBORNE: Yes, there was fish in St. John's before you were around.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: I know there is more bubbling out of that minister than there is out of a regulator in a fish tank.

The fisheries minister would have enormous powers over which fishermen get licenses, towns get fish plants and effectively what communities can survive. The fisheries minister would have unrestrained new powers to make decisions subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate - the minister himself, without requiring those decisions to go back to the Cabinet or the House for approval. Should this minister or any future minister be permitted to decide for himself and by himself, for his own private reasons which people get licenses and which do not? That can have very, very dear and very grave concerns and repercussions for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we are to ensure that we do things right in making decisions for the future, we need to open up the decision-making process, not close it. We need to open up the decision-making process and provide more opportunity for consultation and careful evaluation before changes are imposed. People should not have to go begging to the Minister of Fisheries, whoever that minister may be at any given time, to secure a future in the rural fisheries of the Province.

This new Act or the amendment to the Act has very, very dear concerns, as has been proven over the past week by people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, feedback through the media, calls to the open line shows, and so on. The people of our Province have very grave concerns over the powers that the Cabinet, and indeed the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would have with this new Act. And not only for the people of our Province but for future generations, if power is given to one man to make very important decisions, to decide who gets licenses and what areas of the Province can have fish plants, there is a very, very great reason for concern.

This concern goes far beyond the members of the House of Assembly, and as I mentioned, far beyond the people of our Province today. This concern will be echoed by generations to come if this bill is passed. So I urge members of the House of Assembly to take a very serious look at this amendment, a very serious look at what this amendment will do to the fishing industry, and what it will do to our Province. The repercussions it will have in years to come and the power it gives just to one person, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that power and control should not be left in the hands of one person and not left in one person's office.

This should be an area where each representative of each district in the House of Assembly should have a say in the future of the fishery. The fishery is still a very important industry to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with many different species. And hopefully, with the recover of the groundfish stock the fishery will continue to be a very, very important industry to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people of our Province and to generations to come.

We need to work on rebuilding the fishing industry, and putting the power to make these types of decisions with one man, with one person, I think, would be a very big mistake. I think we have to seriously consider what we are doing here today. I think we have to seriously consider what effect this would have on the future of our fishery before we sign this and give consent to change the Act and to make amendments to the Act that are being proposed.

It is unfortunate but I feel this Act and the amendments to the Act will go through and be passed by the House of Assembly because of the number of people sitting on the other side, people who are supposed to be representing the people of our Province. Many of the members sitting on the other side represent fishing communities and I think it is very, very unfortunate for those fishing communities, the people living in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, that these amendments are going to pass without the consultation of the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to ensure a successful fishery down the road and rebuild the fishery today we have to make the -

MR. EFFORD: Who should have the authority to issue licenses? Tell me, who?

MR. OSBORNE: Not one person.

MR. EFFORD: The Cabinet makes the decision but I am the minister responsible. Don't be so stunned!

MR. OSBORNE: But the amendments to this Act would give you the powers and abilities, and I think those responsibilities should be given to the House of Assembly and not to one Cabinet and not to one man. I think it is very, very important. This should be open to consultation.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Cabinet. They always did.

MR. FITZGERALD: Why are you changing it, then?

MR. EFFORD: Boy, don't be so foolish! (Inaudible) court decision. Sit down and I will explain it to you.

MR. OSBORNE: I will give you leave if I can get up again.

MR. EFFORD: Yes!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture have leave to speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. SPEAKER: He is not closing the debate, is he?

MR. EFFORD: No.

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

MR. EFFORD: Just an explanation to hon. members opposite speaking on the Fish Inspection Act. Mr. Speaker, I have said time and time again, this piece of legislation was brought in on the advice of the Department of Justice because of a recent challenge by a fisheries plant to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture on the exportation and transportation of fish. The court said that the only authority the minister had was based on quality. It had no other authority. Because of that decision by the courts, we had to put the words in there to satisfy the court that we had authority to issue licences, something which every minister in the Department of Fisheries has always had.

There is absolutely nothing different. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, there is no change, just a clarification of the power the minister has always had, because of a recent court decision - no more, no less. Right now, according to the court, I don't have any decision except for quality. That means any fish plant in Newfoundland can do anything it wants. Is that what you want? You don't realize what you are saying and what you are doing.

MR. OSBORNE: (Inaudible) changes.

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

MR. EFFORD: Because of a court decision. The court said that the minister only had authority on quality.

MR. OSBORNE: The second amendment here says that: "`The minister may issue licences under the Act subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate, including conditions which relate to a matter set out in section 4.'"

MR. EFFORD: Other than quality.

MR. OSBORNE: The minister will have the power to determine whether section 4 even applies. The term "appropriate" is completely left undefined. The phrase "subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate" is left completely undefined. This gives the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture tremendous power that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture did not have before. It gives the Cabinet powers that the Cabinet did not have before. Decisions that had to come back to the House of Assembly.

MR. EFFORD: Aha! The Cabinet has the power to do anything it wants to do, at any time!

MR. OSBORNE: Based on the numbers that sit in the House.

MR. EFFORD: Make no wonder (inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down now and let my hon. colleague who has a much greater in-depth knowledge of the fisheries stand and speak.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak on the motion as amended, Bill 21, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act. I have been listening to the, I suppose, debate between the Member for St. John's South and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture back and forth.

I say to the minister - and to the Government House Leader - if he feels that the Opposition is so wrong on this bill, and we are so misinformed, then why is he afraid of not accepting the resolution as amended? All we are asking is it go before a committee of this House which was duly appointed, which is an accepted Standing Committee of this House, to attend to legislation such as we are seeing brought forward here today and this past week.

We, in Opposition, are not obstructionist. We don't stand here and oppose just for the sake of opposing, or stand because we like standing for half-an-hour at a time and hearing ourselves speak. We are standing because we have real concerns with this piece of legislation. I think it is incumbent on us to stand and point out the shortcomings.

In the line of questioning, some time ago I asked the minister if he had conferred with industry on this. He said: No, I have not conferred with anybody other than the Department of Justice. I ask the minister, what is so wrong with involving the industry and getting their opinion, and getting their decision and putting it before the Standing Committee of the House so we can bring it back, and if they say it is alright you will have it with our blessing.

MR. EFFORD: Will you take one question?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I will.

MR. SPEAKER: On a question or closing the debate?

MR. EFFORD: A question, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: I ask the hon. member, in all seriousness: Who does he think should have the power to issue licences to the fishing industries of this Province? And who has always had the power to do it?

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

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister opposite that if he is going to take on new powers, or if he feels that he wants to assume new powers, then why bring it in under the guise of the Fish Inspection Act? Bring in another piece of legislation that will grant the minister new powers. Bring in the legislation. The minister should do it in consultation with Cabinet, I say to him. He should do it in consultation with Cabinet. It is not all that clear, I say to the minister.

I know that Cabinet has the power, that the Premier has the power, to give the minister the flick - I know that - but it reads here, in section 1 -

MR. EFFORD: I know, too.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, you should know.

In section 1 it says, "which relate to the regional distribution of processing licences, the development of the fishing industry of the Province and other matters that are not directly related to fish quality."

If we are going to be dealing with other matters not related to fish quality, let us not bring it in under the guise of the fish quality act.

Then we go on down to section 2, paragraph (2) of section 5 of the act, which says, "The minister may issue licences under this Act subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate..." - subject to the conditions that the minister considers to be appropriate - "...including conditions which relate to a matter set out in section 4."

So all of section 4, and I will not go on to read it - there must be ten or fifteen sections there - and the minister has the power to have the last word on that as well.

MR. EFFORD: Who else should have it? My poor old grandmother?

MR. FITZGERALD: He asks who else should have it, and I tell him we are not the only ones who have concerns. I spoke with people in FANL; they have grave concerns about this. All I am asking, and all we are asking, is to allow it to go before the Standing Committee of the House. That is all we are asking.

AN HON. MEMBER: If Bud Hulan was still the minister we would not have this problem.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, you are right. Just to give the minister some praise, one of his colleagues, in private conversation, went on to say that the minister we now have is the greatest fisheries minister since Bud Hulan. I pass that compliment on to him.

Mr. Speaker, the editorial in the paper a couple of days ago: Is John Efford making a big mistake?

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not only John Efford. That is what scares me. It does not scare me that the minister may make a big mistake. What scares me is the people out there who will suffer with some of the mistakes that the minister may make. That is what scares me, the 30,000 fish plant workers, the 30,000 stakeholders that this piece of legislation can hurt. That is what I am scared about.

MR. EFFORD: Answer the question I asked you.

MR. FITZGERALD: You answer the questions I am asking of you. I gave you an opportunity. Why are you not using a committee of the House to put forward this piece of legislation? Since we have concerns about it, why do you not grant the House the wishes of the Opposition to put it before the Standing Committee, the Resource Committee of the House, and allow them to report back?

No, sit down now. If you want to get up you will wait your turn. You will not go shouting orders.

If you feel it is such a safe piece of legislation, and there are no problems with it, let them come back and we over here on this side of the House will have no problems with it. Is there something wrong with that? If you had done that in the beginning, Minister, you probably would have had your legislation now. But you decided to go the other way with it: We were not going to consult with anybody. We are not going to ask anybody what their concerns are. Because we say it is right, then you must accept it.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked with the fishing industry on this and they have some grave concerns about it. They have no concerns about fish quality, and I am not going to get into that because there is nobody here who would disagree with the fact that if we are going to be able to compete, and if we are going to have a fishery that is vibrant and provide opportunities, then number one on the list should not be production, and number one on the list should not be harvesting; it should be fish quality. If we cannot compete in the marketplace then we are not going to compete very long as it relates to giving opportunities and providing much needed employment in any of our rural towns.

We are dealing with an industry here that I do not think anybody had a grasp on, or knew how important it was to this Province, until we shut it down.

At one time you came into St. John's and talked about the fishery, nobody knew what you were talking about. They knew it existed out in rural Newfoundland and they knew some fishermen came in here on a Saturday and spent their money, but other than that, they did not realize the importance. They thought that if Bonavista's plant closed down or if the plant in another town closed down, it would not reflect anywhere else and as long as you did not live there, it did not matter. Mr. Speaker, we were soon to find out how greatly it did matter and how great an industry that this particular fishing industry was to our Province. That is the reason why we are here and that is the only reason why we are going to stay, the only reason.

We can talk about all the new initiatives, we can talk about the new technology and we can talk about being on the leading edge for this and the leading edge for something else, all good things I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, we need it and I congratulate you. You will never see me stand in my place here and knock you for going outside this Province and trying to bring back opportunities for our people. You won't see me do that, but by doing it, Mr. Speaker, and as important as that might be, let us never lose sight of the fact that the only way that rural Newfoundland and Labrador will survive is going to be with the return of our fishery. That is the only way, and as we go out into our communities today and see what is happening out there, Mr. Speaker, none of us I don't think, if we have any kind of a heart at all, can turn our backs on it, walk away and feel that it is not affecting us and what I have heard is forgotten about. It is far too deep for that now, what we are seeing and for this minister to want to control that particular industry, Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong.

I do not think anybody here, as much as we respect the Premier and as much as we respect the Cabinet minister or any other member who is sitting here in this House, I don't know anybody here who would say that we want to put the power of controlling the fishery of this Province into the hands of one individual. I don't think we should ever allow that to happen. We see all the mistakes made in the past, how were they made, I say to the Government House Leader, the mistakes in the past, how have they been made? They have been made because we saw fit to put great powers into the hands of one individual. One individual, Mr. Speaker, it happened on the Liberal side of the House and it has happened on our side of the House. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we lose sight of why we are here and we do not want to speak against something because somebody who raises his voice the loudest, somebody who is a little bit noisier or can gather support around them a little bit more than somebody else, we will fall in line, we will be like followers and we will allow it to happen. Mr. Speaker, that should never be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not the only one I say to the government members opposite, I am not the only one who has problems with this piece of legislation. There are nine people over here on this side of the House, individually, have problems with it. The fishing industry has problems with it. The union members have problems with it. Maybe all they need, and the minister thinks we are all stunned, maybe all we need is a little enlightenment and I can change my mind. I won't be, Mr. Speaker, the type of person who blocks everything else out just because I think it is wrong or just because I think it might give the other party an advantage, I am certainly not like that, and most of the people out there, if they are misinformed, then I ask the minister to put this piece of legislation before the committee and let the committee inform them.

If we believe in the committees of the House then that is what should be done. Yesterday, we saw a piece of legislation introduced here, where, the consultation process had taken place, a couple of members had some thoughts on it and they stood up, they were allowed to do that very quickly, they did not go and take a half-an-hour or twenty minutes, five minutes just to be on record saying what they wanted printed in Hansard to show their concerns, Mr. Speaker, to voice the concerns about somebody who had spoken to them privately or some other way, it should be done and that will happen with other pieces of legislation.

In fact the greater amount of legislation that we have seen come forward, we don't have any problem with it. We don't have any problem with it because the right process has been used. The process of consultation and if there was a problem there, Mr. Speaker, put it out to the Standing Committee, put it out to the committee of the House. The only time or most times that ministers bother to use the committees of the House here today is with the Concurrence Debate on budgets. That is the only time, Mr. Speaker, that many of our Standing Committees meet and we go through an exercise. As worthless sometimes as it might be but it is a good way to get some answers, it is a good way to have some dialogue with the minister and his staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I hate to interrupt the hon. member but it is 4:02 and under Standing Orders at 4:00 I have to announce the items for the adjournment debate at 4:30. The first one is to the Minister of Social Services, re the question on supportive services for home care recipients, from the Member for Waterford Valley. Question No. 2 is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, re my question on consultation as per Bill 21, from the hon. Member for Bonavista South. Question No. 3, to the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Crown land pricing policy and from the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, those are some concerns that I have had with this particular piece of legislation and the amendment that was put forward. I say to members opposite, if we don't believe in allowing our Standing Committee's of the House to deal with this - let's dissolve them. Let's get rid of them. Just because the former Premier thought it was a good idea - and I think it is a good idea - just because he thought it was a good idea does not mean to say that we should go through the motions to have Standing Committees and not use them, Mr. Speaker, it is a farce!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There are a lot of lessons, I say to the Government House Leader, that I have to learn. A lot of lessons but I believe in fairness, Mr. Speaker. I believe in fairness, I believe in consultation, I believe in involving people in decision making, especially when it is other people's livelihoods, Mr. Speaker, their future. The whole rural Newfoundland, all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be affected. It is not the point of not trusting the minister who is sitting in that seat today. It is not the point of not trusting him. It is the point of who is next? I know that we can go through the process of talking about, Cabinet has to approve it and it has to go before the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and all that. Mr. Speaker, this gives this minister great powers, unprecedented powers, I say to people opposite. Powers that should never be put in the hands of any one individual.

Now I know the minister when he stands he talks about his dream of being minister and all that but that is all good stuff. I think he probably has his heart in the right place. I think when he goes out and makes a decision, Mr. Speaker, that he will probably believe in his own heart and soul, that the decision he is making is the right one but you know and I know that they were not always the right decisions. They were not always the right decisions.

The Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago read from a report where he had asked him a question in the House back in June month, just five short months ago. He talked about harvesting crab, Mr. Speaker, and here he had 3L and 2J. The minister said there was no problem, there was an abundance of crab. Don't worry about it, we are going to increase licenses, we are going to increase the total allowable catch from 30 ton up to 37 tons. Don't worry about crab there are lots of them. Only to come back, Mr. Speaker, five short months later to find that we have a real problem. We have a problem today in Newfoundland and Labrador with the harvesting of crab. We may never see the quotas up to the levels that we see them today. Five short months ago there was no problem. The minister was not going to listen to anybody. It was his thoughts that there were lots of crab out there. We throw back the females, don't worry about it, it works.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, we saw the same minister bring in a caplin quota. He was going to bring in individual plant quotas. Go out today and talk to fishermen and ask them what they think of the individual plant quotas that were brought in last year. Ask them what they think of them, and they will tell you about the tons of caplin that were dumped last year around this Province because of the plant quotas. Just stop and think about it. What was to stop them?

I have two real problems with what the minister did last year as it relates to the caplin fishery. Number one: he has not implemented it yet but he is thinking about it, he talked about allowing fish plants to sell their quota. I think his words were: this is a way we can allow fish processors to get out of the business, and they can realize something for their investment. He is going to allow fish plants now to sell their caplin quotas, their caplin allocations. I do not know what it will be, whether it will be $2000 or $2.00 a ton, but how about the people left behind I say to the government member opposite? I do not know how much of a quota Beothuck Fisheries got in your district to process caplin.

MR. TULK: I can assure you of one thing, for sure and certain, Beothuck Fisheries will do okay.

MR. FITZGERALD: You are right, and I hope they do. They did alright before you went there and I say to the minister they will not need him because they have some good skilled people working there. That is the reason way, and they have a good member there, sure they have.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FITZGERALD: No, they never came asking for it, but if I were there in a position to help them I would be the first, I say to the government member, Mr. Speaker. I know some of them personally who work at that plant and they are good individuals. You do not hear them crying, and you do not hear them coming to government for handouts all the time. They are doing an excellent job there because they are doing something right.

I say to the member if it were not Beothuck, or if it is it does not matter, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy because he will probably pay more attention. What happens tomorrow if we allow what the minister is saying he might entertain, say in order for you, Mr. Way, to get out of the fishery we are going to let you sell your quotas. What happens? So, I buy them up in Bonavista and I take the quotas and leave Valleyfield altogether. Is that the right way to allow people out of this industry? How about the people left behind? How about the people living in Vallleyfield, Badger's Quay, Cape Freels and Lumsden? How about those people I say to members opposite? If you are going to allow that to happen you should do two things, Mr. Minister. Number one, you should make the license owner stay where he is and operate from the premise, and the second one, you should build in some kind of factor there whereby they must have processed that particular species for a number of years.

I have a fish plant in my district, in fact I have three, but I have one particular fish plant there where new owners moved in and they bought the fish plant for $1.00.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. FITZGERALD: Charleston. They bought the fish plant for $1.00 and they employed up to 427 people there at one time. Now, what happens if we allow that individual - just look at it, he got the plant for $1.00 and what's to stop him now, if he decides he is going to get out of the industry, no rules and regulations the way the minister was proposing, what is going to stop him if he decides he is going to sell his caplin quota for $2.00 per 100 or $2.00 per 1000 pound? He can see a chance where he can make $800,000 or $1 million and what happens to the people who are left behind?

MR. EFFORD: What are you talking about?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know what I am talking about. You know what I am taking about I say to the minister. If you were listening you would have known what I was talking about.

MR. EFFORD: You are asking it to happen.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not what I am asking to happen. Those are some of the thing the minister is saying he is looking at doing, he is considering.

AN HON. MEMBER: My son you are out to lunch.

MR. FITZGERALD: No I'm not out to lunch, I say to the member. In fact, it came back to you as a recommendation. So those are the things, Mr. Speaker, that concern me.

The caplin quota last year, before I leave that. Talk to fishermen last year who came in. Some of them had a good product. Because somebody said that the red feed count is over a certain percentage, they had to dump their caplin. I know you shouldn't market caplin with a certain percentage of red feed, because I know what happens. But, minister, a lot of people came in with a count of red feed and with a count of caplin much lower than was acceptable, and what they did with them was dump them over the wharf because the plant was afraid to take them. They were waiting for better caplin. In that way it wouldn't come off their quota. Those are the things that have to be attended to. The minister has to make those kinds of decisions before he looks for unlimited power to go out and take control.

Minister, I would like for you to find out how many - and don't do it by calling the plants themselves, but do it by talking to the stakeholders, talk to the fishermen. Find out how many tons of caplin were dumped last year. Find out about it before you start implementing new changes, or before you start grasping and wrapping your arms around the individual plant quotas in another year. Just ask some of the fishermen. This is the very thing that the minister is saying that he is trying to stop, that he is trying to prevent, and it shouldn't happen!

How important it is to include other people in the decision making. The minister, whoever he is, is there today and gone tomorrow. How about the people out there with millions of dollars of investment? How about the people out there with thirty years and fifteen years and ten years seniority? We are going to go and put the livelihoods of those people, and put the future of those investors, in the hands of one man. It should never be allowed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The minister says we are wrong. Maybe we are wrong. But if you people know that you are so right, and if the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Here again, that is your view. There is no point in doing it. If you gave every member an opportunity over there to say what they wanted done, and say it privately, or not have to say it to the minister or you because now they know your views, I can assure you that it would come back. I say to the Government House Leader that you could have had this piece of legislation if you allowed it to go through the standing committee of the House.

MR. TULK: No, we aren't putting every piece of legislation that you want (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: We didn't ask you to put every piece of legislation. There was a bill that passed through here the other day, very little debate. Most of what you have on the Order Paper will go through with very little debate. There will be a few things, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: That is your opinion, and you are entitled to that, and I will fight for it as long as I'm here for you to have your opinion. But that doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion is right. Other people have opinions and you should respect them as well.

MR. TULK: I respect them, but they are wrong.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe they are wrong, but all we are asking you is to give them the opportunity to prove that you are right. Like I've said, I've talked to people in the industry, people have called me.

I will tell you what I did with it, Government House Leader. I took the piece of legislation and said: Maybe I am wrong, maybe the minister is right, maybe the Government House Leader is right. I took the piece of legislation, and I can show you the letter - I didn't say what my views were, I didn't say what the Opposition's views were. I took a copy of Bill No. 21 and sent it to the unions and to FANL and to other people. I just asked if they had any concerns or suggestions about Bill No. 21. Right? I had answers back. I had one visit, Mr. Speaker, and I had about, I would say, four phone calls.

It was enough to say to me, and to, I suppose, verify that my concerns were real, and what I was asking for was not wrong. I only faxed it out to about ten people so half of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I do not know. That is up to themselves, I guess, who is a part of what, but the same people that you and I have been just praising, if you called those people - have you talked to the Ways down in Valleyfield?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Who did you talk to down there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, you are not going to tell me because you are afraid I will call them and ask if you did talk to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, I did (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: They have no concerns about it? No concerns whatsoever?

MR. EFFORD: No they do not.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe they do not. I am not saying they do.

MR. EFFORD: I am telling you they do not.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not saying they do, Minister. What I am saying is that we have a piece of legislation here that we have a problem with, that the stakeholders have a problem with. There has been no consultation other than with members of your own group.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) that legislation?

MR. FITZGERALD: I beg your pardon?

MR. TULK: Do you know why FANL is upset with that legislation?

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I do not know if they are upset with it. I heard Mr. Chapman on the news the other day, that he (inaudible). I provided him with a copy of it, and I will provide the minister with the letter to show him that I did not push our views on the individual.

MR. TULK: Do you know why they are upset with that piece of legislation?

MR. FITZGERALD: Tell me.

MR. TULK: You do not know why?

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know why. I guess they have concerns about it, like we have.

MR. TULK: Because they could not (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, if that is the case then that is wrong, but here is where your Standing Committee would come in. If those concerns out there are not for real, if they are not justified, then we will bring it back and you can get on to committee stage and have it within the normal period of time that it would take to go through the House rules and regulations in order to get the Lieutenant-Governor of the day to proclaim it.

The Minister of Education nods his head. He knows all about what I speak of, a very big believer in the consultation process - and I think the minister is. This is something that is trying to be slipped through. He is uncomfortable with it. He is saying that he needs it confirmed. He already has the powers, but if you already have the powers, why do you want it confirmed?

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know what has happened -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have that right.

MR. FITZGERALD: I have that right, and I do not know what has happened out in Southern Harbour somewhere a couple of years ago as it relates to somebody processing crab and using the export market and not having the proper licence for it. The minister probably does have a problem with that. I have a problem with that myself, and everybody else has. You should be licensed. You should only do it within the confines of the rules and regulations of this House, but allow the Cabinet and the Lieutenant-Governor to make the rules and regulations, and not the minister.

This is a bill that we have grave concerns about, and I will re-echo my thoughts once again before my time is up, that we are asking that this piece of legislation be referred to the Standing Committee, the Resource Committee of the House, and then bring it back, and if the Resource Committee has no problem with this particular bill then I can assure you that we on this side will have no problem with it either. I do not think that is asking too much. I do not think it is being unreasonable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: If the government of the day wants to operate within the rules of this House and have, I suppose, good dialogue back and forth, then please allow us to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few minutes to clarify the misunderstanding of the hon. members opposite. It is a simple and very clear understanding that this piece of legislation brought into this House at this time is to do nothing more than clarify the authority that the minister had thought he/she had always had as ministerial authority in the House of Assembly - or in his office, I should say - no more and no different than. It was because there was a recent court challenge, a challenge that had to be made, that was made by the industry and by a decision that came down through the court.

We need this authority that gives the minister, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the authority to issue licences to fish plants. If that is not done, then any fish plant within the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador can do whatever they so desire. The only authority that I would have to impose on them is to apply quality standards. If that is what hon. members want, then stand up and say that is exactly what you want. If the Minister of Fisheries, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, does not have that authority, who should have it? I asked the hon. member opposite the question and he would not answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cabinet.

MR. EFFORD: Cabinet has it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) override some of them.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, come on!

Mr. Speaker, if we followed the logic of hon. members opposite we would open seventy-five more fish plants, like they proposed during the last election. That is what we would do, bring in seventy-five more fish plants and open them on top of the 200 that we already have in this Province, and bring in $300 or $400 million worth of fish from somewhere around the world to process in the plants. That is the type of sensible statements that were made. We are hearing it now in this debate on this particular bill. It is the authority that the minister thought he always had. When this bill passes in the House he will now have it, and it is only to oblige the court in the decision it made.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

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

I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture if he knows the difference between open and reopen.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: There is a lot of confusion that is unfortunately being put out there among the people in the industry -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, I would like to make it clear that we, on this side, didn't open any fish plants. There has been one fish plant opened since the moratorium was announced, and the minister opened that one in St. Lawrence.

MR. SPEAKER: As the member said in his comments, it is only for clarification. There is no point of order, again.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, so the hon. member does learn something this afternoon, it was not one plant, it was two plants and possibly three. I can tell you, it is a lot better to open fish plants than to open greenhouses.

I think we have had enough debate on this piece of legislation. It is for the overall best interest of the industry as a whole in this Province. We have to make some changes, but in order to make some changes, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture must have authority to do so, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, to have the authority to impose conditions on the industry - simply that, no more complicated, no more change than that. Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 21 pass through this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All in favour of the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 21)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is 4:24 p.m. and the Late Show starts at 4:30 p.m. I am wondering if the Opposition House Leader is now ready to proceed with the Late Show. If he is we can do it and get it over with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes! Who do you want to ask a question? Who do you want to slap you now?

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

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will agree to begin the Late Show now. I was wondering of the Government House Leader could probably, while ministers are coming in, tell us what legislation he intends to call tomorrow, and in what order.

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

MR. TULK: I have already told the hon. gentleman out behind the Chair, but in case he didn't hear me: An Act To Amend The Jury Act, An Act To Amend The Lands Act, An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act, An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act (No.2), An Act To Amend The Urban And Rural Planning Act. If there are any more left, we will go on from there. We will call them all if he wants me to tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder. One of the ministers is not back, the Minister of Social Services. Who else is on the Late Show?

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. TULK: The two ministers are here, but the Minister of Social Services will be back shortly, She will be here at 4:30 p.m.

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

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

Before I get into my question, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is poking fun at the very serious resolution that I put forward today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, poking fun. We will see what he has to say now when we bring it forward in a week or so, Mr. Speaker. We will see what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has to say. I know the Minister of Education is going to support it, he is shaking his head in agreement that he is going to support it.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am up for a few minutes on the question I asked the Minister of Government Services and Lands, on I believe it was Tuesday, with respect to the pricing policy on Crown Lands, the pricing policy that he promised to makes changes to back in June, Mr. Speaker, and he could not deliver. He could not deliver on his promise to the people of this Province and promises he made in this House of Assembly, that he would bring changes to the Cabinet and have them approved. Of course, that did not materialize.

The people out there were expecting to see changes where the payment plan would be extended over a period of maybe five years or six years or seven years rather than having to come up with the payment in ninety days, so the people were being forced basically to go out and get loans to pay off the $3,000 or $2,500 or, if it comes to commercial leases, maybe $10,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000. We really don't know yet. We do not have the handle or the figures from the Minister of Government Services and Lands with respect to the commercial leases.

Now, when I asked him questions the other day, he was trying to be cute and smart, set up by some of the members on the other side. He read the answer from a press release that he put out on November 14, a press release, then he had another press release sent out the same afternoon saying the same thing that he had said on November 14. But in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious question that I did not get to the other day because time ran out. And seeing now that the minister can respond to my question, I would like to ask him this question - and hopefully he will respond without referring to a press release that was prepared for him by some civil servant.

The question is this: The people in the Province were told that there would be a pricing policy put in place. The minister did not deliver on that. He also said that nobody would lose their cabins, that there would be a policy put in place whereby anybody could go to the department and there would be extenuating circumstances and there would be a situation set up, a payment plan for those people. So the question I am going to ask the Minister of Government Services and Lands now, in all seriousness: Is there a plan put in place that would take a person beyond the ninety days? What is the criteria, Mr. Speaker, for that plan, and who, in his department, will have the discretionary power to decide who has to pay upfront and who will not have to pay upfront? Very serious questions, legitimate questions, people have been asking - I say to the Minister of Education: What's your problem, what are you saying?

MR. GRIMES: John Effort decides that.

MR. J. BYRNE: John Effort decides it. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture decides it. The minister who wants to walk on water, who wants to be recognized as the man who walks on water.

But, Mr. Speaker, those questions I put to the Minister of Government Services and Lands. He is being coached now by the Member for Labrador West. You know they are being coached by the preacher, a good coach I would imagine. I could go on to say a few more words about that but I won't.

But, Mr. Speaker, will the minister stand on his feet and try not to be cute, try not to be smart and answer the very serious questions: Who will have the discretionary power? Who pays upfront? Who does not pay upfront? And what are the criteria that are going to be used in that policy, if indeed there is a policy as the minister promised?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the questions that the Member for Cape St. Francis asked, but first of all, let me say to him that on the Private Member's resolution yesterday, had he gone through and voted in favour of that resolution, we would not have to worry about raising funds through the Crown Lands pricing policy, we would have the money from Churchill Falls.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is that what you told him to say? Get serious and answer the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he told him to say.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what he told him to say. Well, well, well! Could not come up with that on his own.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Answer that serious question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McLEAN: Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. J. BYRNE: The two from Labrador, ministers, the half-ministers, Mutt and Jeff. I am not sure which is Mutt though.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is after your job, Ernie, don't fall for it. You are too good a man, Ernie. Don't fall for that.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, eventually I will get to responding to the question.

The Member for Cape St. Francis seemed to think that the process and the program was not a very good one, but let me say to the member that when we put the program out in May, he was going around saying that nobody would be able to maintain their cabins or keep their cabins, they would all lose their cottages. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, nobody is going to lose their cottages. And let me tell you something else, Mr. Speaker, 95 per cent of the people in this Province who fell under this particular program and were required to respond to the program before October 31, did. Ninety-five per cent of the people who own cottages out there have come in and decided that they want to own the property that their cottage is on and, Mr. Speaker, if that is a bad program, I would like to see what they can do better than that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as part of this particular process, we had gone out with residential properties, which was not a requirement but we got 35 per cent of the people who have residential cottages come in and also want to own their properties.

Also, Mr. Speaker, 37 per cent of commercial property owners who had leases, want to own their properties, who came in and are willing to buy those properties and own them and be granted for that. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Cape St. Francis should review his notes because if that was such a poor program why are so many people taking advantage of it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: If it is that bad then we should have people at the doors of Confederation Building trying to understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a minister. I know he doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the people. No, I know he doesn't now.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, when we took the program to the people we knew how they would respond but we did not expect them to respond in such numbers. We anticipated, when we put the program out, that we would get a 50 per cent take because we knew that people would take some time to understand what the program was about but we think the people out there who own cottages - I say, Mr. Speaker, does the Member for Cape St. Francis own a cottage?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes he does.

MR. McLEAN: If he does then perhaps he should go and have a second look at the program because he should buy into it as well so that he can own his cottage.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the opportunity of a lifetime you need to tell him. This is the opportunity of a lifetime to own land at very reasonable costs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for Cape St. Francis that we thought we were going to have to do this program over two years but we got it all done in one year and we think that's a pretty good program!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, I think the next program that I do, I should do it perhaps the same way so that we can get as much take on the next program, if we need the dollars for the government coffers.

MR. J. BYRNE: Will you answer the question?

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, people taking advantage of this program to the tune of 95 per cent, I think that answers your question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my name appears on the Late Show but I have been asking this minister questions in the House for the last ten months now and I have not gotten an answer so I am not going to waste everybody's time here this evening with asking any more.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am not sure whether this is the appropriate forum to discuss a rather serious issue dealing with home care support because I think members are in a rather jovial mood.

I did want to bring to the minister's attention again for a moment this afternoon the issue that I raised earlier in the day, and it pertains particularly to a memorandum which was circulated by her department on October 8. In particular, it talks about the directives that were sent to social workers, calling upon them to be creative in discussing and exploring possible options with individuals.

I have great respect for the social workers of this Province, and I know that the minister does as well. I have great respect for the integrity that the minister brings to her position; however, I do have some concern when we have situations where social workers are given a list of directives and then they are told: Now, we want you to go beyond that and be creative, which says, look for every little thing you can find.

The directive is such that what it essentially wants is for you to be as individualized as possible. At the same time, I am not sure whether or not the compassion that needs to be shown is reflected in the directive. I am concerned that social workers getting this directive might read into it directives that the minister may not have intended.

I talked as well today about the administrative funding. I talked to the social workers in the system, and they tell me that there is not yet developed a proper in-service program to help people who are going to handle their own administrative fees to deal with Revenue Canada's requirements. I talked to some of the people who run their own homes, you might say, and have programs that are there to assist people in their own family setting, and they tell me that they have not had that kind of training either. I really have great concern that we are out there giving directions to social workers and saying: Be creative; go as far as you can. What pressure that puts on them, and also for the people who are in these homes, what we are saying to them: We are going to expect you to administer the program; we are not going to give you any in-service, but if you mess up we will be around to deal with you.

Therefore, without having the proper in-service available to these people, I am afraid that we might end up with some very sorrowful situations at the end of the day. If we do not tell these people how to do the financial procedures, how can we hold them accountable if they do not do it right?

I would like for the minister, if she could, to comment on that, and to assure the people of the Province, through the House, that she is sensitive to it, and that she will go and talk to the people out there who are encountering difficulties, particularly as it relates to the need for help with the financial and administrative functions.

Thank you.

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

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

I will reiterate what I said earlier today, that in relation to the two points that you made, one about reducing to $3,000, each one of those cases will be dealt with on an individual basis. Each individual will be assessed based on what they agree to reducing. There is no arbitrary imposition of reductions; we have made that very clear. People have also come forward on their own and offered mechanisms for savings, and we feel that we are very delighted to be able to put more money back into the program so that more people can avail of the services.

We also made the point in the memo that where possible the administrative services will be reduced. We will not take away the administrative monies that we are paying right now for those cheques and other services to be written if people are not able to do it. We have made that quite clear to people, and we will ensure that we will have an understanding of that process before we remove the funds. That has been made very clear, and that position has not changed. It is no different from what I said earlier. The $3,000 issue is done on a joint process where the individual and the social worker both agree, and the same thing with the administrative charge, if the person is not able to do the service the money will remain in place for them to do it. It is very clear.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 o'clock in the morning.