June 5, 1998                      HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLIII  No. 40

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):  Order, please!  

                      Statements by Ministers  

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN:  Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for not having an opportunity to send across the floor of the House a copy of the statement I'm about to make, because I don't have a prepared text.

I've just heard from Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet on an important development, I think, for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.  That is, that the Government of Canada has committed some $68.7 million, as approved last night at Treasury Board, for the completion of the Argentia clean-up program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  The multi-year funding in the amount of $68.7 million will begin, Mr. Speaker, with work this summer.  This new amount of money brings the total funding for Argentia to $81 million, and will result, in 1998 and 1999 alone, in an additional 300 short-term jobs being created this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  Mr. Speaker, in passing along this information, which has just been conveyed to me by Mr. Fred Mifflin who indeed brought this plan before the federal Treasury Board last night and saw it approved, I want to acknowledge in the House the incredible energy and the dedication and the perseverance of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's who travelled not once -

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  - but three times to Ottawa over the last twelve months as the representative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and personally made the case on behalf of government to have this funding approved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  Mr. Speaker, while we are on the issue of jobs - and these are indeed temporary jobs as part of the clean-up - I do want to comment on the latest employment statistics which have been released.  The labour force survey for the month of May was released this morning, and it reports that employment in Newfoundland and Labrador rose by 6.3 per cent, or 11,500 jobs, last month.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  That 11,500 job increase comes on the heels of a 5.3 per cent, 9,300 job gain in April, bringing the average gain over the first five months of the year to 3.7 percent.

The unemployment rate, Mr. Speaker, declined by 3.9 percentage points last month and by an average of 2.3 percentage points in the first five months.

Many national forecasting agencies, such as the Conference Board of Canada, are predicting that Newfoundland and Labrador will lead the country in economic growth this year.  The positive trends in the labour markets support these forecasts.  1988 is shaping up to be the best year the Province has experienced since the late 1980s.

In the eight months from October of 1997 to May of 1998, employment gains have averaged about 3.8 per cent or about 6,000 jobs a month.  This compares with an average gain of 2.8 per cent nationally.  Mr. Speaker, job growth in Newfoundland and Labrador is outpacing the increase in job growth nationally in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  Mr. Speaker, I believe if we stay the course, if the Province remains fiscally responsible, if we made remain dedicated to an appropriate fiscal plan, do not allow our deficit once again to get out of control - this Minister of Finance has delivered the first real, Mr. Speaker, balanced budget effectively in the history of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN:  Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work of the Minister of Finance in creating the climate, with his guidance in the finance ministry, to allow us to see our economy grow.  Mr. Speaker, if we stay the course, if we stay prudent, if we have modest expectations but we stay confident and positive in our outlook, I do believe we are entering a period of time where growth in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, will be real, will be sustained and, yes, will bring a better day for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

It reminds of the Open Line Shoe, free for all Friday.  I should say to the Premier:  Is there anything else you would like to speak about in Ministerial Statements before we go ahead.

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE:  Free for all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE:  Mr. Speaker, with respect to the clean-up at the Argentia base, obviously it is good news, timing is critical.  As the work continues down there, it is my understanding that there may be more monies needed, but obviously the timing of that clean-up is essential.

The next question that must be asked with respect to that is with regard to the bases in Goose Bay and Stephenville.  When can we expect timely announcements from the federal government with respect to the environmental problems that are occurring out there?  My understanding is that it could be happening any day.  Any day is what I hear, but we will see.  It will be timely announced I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the increase in the number of jobs created in this Province, the Premier was quick to add, with respect to our growth compared to Canada, that we are outpacing Canada. The statistics certainly indicate that, but the reality is, for employment in this Province and the unemployment rate in this Province, that we are sadly behind the rest of Canada with respect to the unemployment rate.  While this is good news, we have many, many roads to travel and many ways to go before we can reach a national average where employment is at least equal to the national average.

I look forward over the coming days, weeks and months in debating a variety of issues with the Premier and government with respect to how we can create long-term, long-lasting jobs in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi,  does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:  By leave.

MR. SPEAKER:  By leave.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond briefly to the Premier's State of the Union Address this morning.

With respect to the Argentia clean-up, we are very pleased that the government of Canada is taking its responsibility.  Of course, when the bases were passed back to the people of Canada and Newfoundland, the Americans were not required to do the job and the Canadian government took that responsibility.  I hope they will similarly meet that responsibility with respect the Harmon Base in Stephenville and the DEW Line in Labrador.

We are also pleased to see some progress in the job numbers, Mr. Speaker, but we always have to remember where we are coming from.  We are still playing catch-up, we are coming from a long way behind. The gains that we have, although impressive, are, in fact, modest when it comes to the unemployment rate.  Often, all you have to do in Newfoundland is look at the national unemployment rate, double it and that turns out to be the rate for Newfoundland.  I hope we can change that forever.  It will take a lot of work to do it.  It is nice to see we are making some progress.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MS KELLY:  Mr. Speaker, since 1952, the provincial Arts and Letters Competition has made an invaluable contribution to the artistic and cultural life of our Province.

The competition represents government's ongoing commitment to providing incentive and recognition to talented and ambitious writers and artists in Newfoundland and Labrador.  Last night it was an honour and a privilege to attend the annual awards ceremony for the Arts and Letters Competition.

More than fifty awards were handed out in a variety of categories, in everything from poetry and prose to musical composition to visual arts such as painting and photography.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of my department and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, to congratulate everyone who received an award or an honourable mention.  The Arts and Letters Competition is one of my department's oldest and most important annual initiatives, and it has continued to prosper and thrive in these times of fiscal restraint.

Again this year, more than a thousand Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, young and old alike, submitted entries.  The competition is really a celebration of the incredible depth of artistic talent we have in this Province.

Many of our Province's finest artists and writers first flexed their creative muscles through the competition.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the Arts and Letters Competition has made an immeasurable contribution to our culture and our heritage.

I would like to thank the Arts and Letters Committee for hosting last night's awards ceremony and for doing an exceptional job with the competition.  I would also like to thank the judges and volunteers for their valuable time and effort.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Assembly here today to join me in congratulating all the Award winners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MS KELLY:  I encourage my colleagues to visit the Provincial Art Gallery between now and June 14 to view a special exhibition of the award winning and selected other Visual Arts works.

I am delighted and proud that my department continues to support and encourage the artists and writers of Newfoundland and Labrador through the Provincial Arts and Letters Competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the Premier, it is a very lovely, pleasant day.  I would say to the Premier and to the minister, that we as well on this side of the House, would like to certainly congratulate all the award winners who won awards last night and indeed all the people who took part and all the volunteers who work each year to make this thing a success.  I guess if this community had one wish it would probably be that the minister's department would probably be able to contribute more money to them.  But other than that it is certainly good news and we, on this side of the House, would certainly like to congratulate all the award winners and all the people who took part.

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

AN HON. MEMBER:  By leave.

MR. SPEAKER:  By leave.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join in congratulating the winners of the Arts and Letters Competition.  I also recognize that it is one of those institutions that encourages and provides an opportunity for exposure for amateur artists and writers as well as professionals to engage in the competition.  It is one that has been going on for a long time and deserves the kind of support the department is giving it.

As the Member for Conception Bay South has said, perhaps we should try and find a little bit more support for this type of competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier's statement received such an enthusiastic reception by members opposite that I thought I would add a few more details.

The employment gains to which he referred continued to be broadly based in May, with job increases recorded for a number of industries, including the fishery, manufacturing, transportation, and services.  Of particular importance to workers in rural parts of the Province for which we have particular concern, given the changes that are taking place, was the 2,800 gain in the number of fish processing jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS:  Mr. Speaker, that was in May, and that followed an increase of 2,600 in April and 1,300 in March.  A successful caplin fishery, together with higher catches of shrimp, crab and cod, will be instrumental in ensuring that these job gains in the fish processing sector continue.

Employment gains have been accompanied by sharp declines in the Province's social assistance caseload.  I believe this is critical.  The number of employable cases declined by 19 per cent in the first four months of the year, following a decline of 11 per cent in 1997.  That represents, in actuality, more than a 20 per cent decrease this year.  The total caseload declined by nearly 10 per cent in the first four months and by about 5 per cent in 1997.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, consumer confidence is also continuing to increase.  This reflects employment and income growth, falling unemployment, and the beneficial affects of the lower sales tax rate that accompanied the implementation of the HST last year.  The value of retail sales was up by 4.6 per cent in the first three months of the year, following a gain of 5.7 per cent last year.

These are not the only positive indicators.  The value of manufacturing shipments rose by 14.3 per cent in the first three months, while the volume of iron ore production was up by 2.9 per cent in the first two months.  Of course, Mr. Speaker, our continued growth will be affected by the post-TAGS program, and we look forward to seeing a proposal that adequately addresses the needs of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this turnabout has come around, and it is no secret in this Province and certainly not in this Legislature.  Members of all parts of the House, and those in the gallery, realize that it is the fine leadership of our Premier who has been here for a short two years that has brought about this dramatic reversal in our fortunes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope he will also take credit for the largest out-migration in any quarter in our history, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN:  The Finance Minister should not get too excited overall.  You have to look at the year in total, not just the quarter.

If you remember, I say to the minister, the crab settlement was not reached until July last year.  It was settled in April this year and there are thousands of workers who went back in the fishing industry who were lying idle last year.  So we have had an earlier start, and the winter last year did not disappear until April.  The milder winter has contributed to some projects and construction getting under way.  I would look at the total analysis, Finance Minister.  You have not looked -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  I am optimistic to see employment increases here.  I am delighted to see it, I say to the Premier, and I hope they will not be completing their work earlier and there will be no work beyond July in the fishing industry where it began in July last year.  Sustainable employment is very important.

We are still experiencing tremendous out-migration in this Province day after day.  We are seeing our young people, people who have been here for twenty-five and thirty years - a family in my district left this week who spent thirty years in the industry and they are now working in Alberta.  It is sad to see it happen.  If the jobs are short-term, inflated seasonal jobs, it is not the answer.  We have to look at an economy that is going to be built on a longer period of employment, I might add, and curb this growth of out-migration here in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:  By leave.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is great to be able to get the economic indicator before anyone else and make a statement like this before anyone sees the full picture, because that allows the minister to cherry-pick the statistics, avoid the seasonally adjusted characteristics of them, and bring out all the good news and ignore the perspective that is buried there.  If there is any progress as well, Mr. Speaker, it may be a reflection that your unemployment rate goes down as the number of people you are dealing with goes down as well.  So let's have the full picture, Mr. Speaker, and then we will see whether we can praise this government for its efforts or not.  The full picture is needed before we do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

Before I call Oral Questions, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today eighteen Grade V and VI students from New World Island Elementary School, in the district of Twillingate & Fogo.  They are accompanied by their principal, Roland Hamlyn; teacher, Chris Osbourn; parents, Donna Gidge and Patsy Gidge; and bus driver, Arthur Gidge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear! 

                                Oral Questions 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  My questions are for the Premier or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, whichever one would like to answer or prefer to answer.

In the last couple of days we have heard a federal government ruling which allows companies from outside of Canada to do seismic work - a report on the radio this morning actually - outside of twelve miles off our coast in the oil and gas industry, that would also allow foreign companies outside of Canada to bring foreign workers with them - no obligation to hire Canadians - while there are at least 2,000 Canadians who are trained, who are ready to go to work in that industry.

I would like to ask the Premier or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology:  Have they heard this news?  Are they concerned about it in view of the fact that it flies directly in the face of the Atlantic Accord?  I would like to ask the Premier and the minister:  Are they going to make representations to the federal government on this issue and to the C-NOPB?

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN:  Mr. Speaker, I have heard, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has heard, by way of a journalist medium, a report of changes that have been made to the way in which the immigration policy of Canada is applied.  Mr. Speaker, I have no information directly from the federal government.  This is a matter that I have asked my officials in Intergovernmental Affairs to look into.  I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that first of all I think it is appropriate to raise such a concern.  Secondly, I am looking into it through my office both as Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.  Thirdly, yes, we certainly concur that we have to ensure that every opportunity possible comes to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and then after Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, where we do not have the skill set, to Canadians.  Come to the people of this Province first, Canadians second, before we go offshore to fill these highly skilled and high-paying jobs.

This was the position we took last year.  The Leader of the Opposition and his party took the same position with respect to the barge that came in here and the diver contract that was let, and the fact that there were no divers from this Province first and from Canada second who were involved, and it is the position we take again this year.

It is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that I was happy to stand in the House a week or two ago - the Leader of the Opposition joined me in this regard - and welcome the appointment of our new Chairman of the C-NOPB, to ensure that benefits come first at C-NOPB, and we will certainly be following up on this important question.

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

MR. E. BYRNE:  Mr. Speaker, I hope that when the Premier says he will be following up...  It is an important issue for this Province.  The amount of seismic work that is about to take place, and scheduled to take place, on the coast of this Province is significant and could produce significant long-term, high-paying jobs, highly skilled jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are now ready to take advantage of that work.  But this ruling flies in the face of an agreement signed by the federal government, known as the Atlantic Accord.

Mr. Speaker, my next question deals with an announcement last spring when the Premier turned over the keys to the Bull Arm site, in terms of the facility, the use of that facility as a world-class facility.  Would he like to comment on recent news reports where that facility is being dismantled, that much of the infrastructure at that facility is being dismantled, such as the bunk-houses, the infrastructure that has been there?  And, as a matter of fact, that marketing that facility, or the ability to market that facility, is being seriously diminished because of the dismantling that is taking place at the Bull Arm site?

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

MS FOOTE:  Mr. Speaker, what is happening at the Bull Arm site is certainly in keeping with what we intend to see happen with that site in furthering the development of the oil and gas industry in this Province.  There is an agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible) dismantled.

MS FOOTE:  No, Mr. Speaker, there is no dismantling taking place at the Bull Arm site.  In fact, what is happening our there is being done in concert with PCL.  We have an agreement out there with PCL for part of the site, for the industrial use of that site.

There are bunk-houses out there that are, in fact, being given by this Province to the Winter Games.

AN HON. MEMBER:  The Canada Winter Games (inaudible).

MS FOOTE:  To the Canada Winter Games, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE:  It is unfortunate if, as a government, we cannot do that to support a volunteer organization for the Winter Games out on the West Coast of this Province.  That is what is happening at the Bull Arm site.

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

MR. E. BYRNE:  Mr. Speaker, certainly there is more than the bunk-houses being dismantled.  If there is anything on that site that is owned and operated by the Province that can be used by other people in the Province to enhance a project such as the Winter Games, nobody is going to stand in the way.

I would like to ask the minister this:  Is she aware today that there are people who are doing the work, both in dismantling and people who are on the tugs out there right now today, who are not from this Province?  Is she aware that there are people in this Province who are eligible, who are trained, who are skilled to do that type of work, but there are people from outside the Province doing that work.  It would fly right in the face of the Atlantic Accord?  Is she aware of that?

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

MS FOOTE:  Mr. Speaker, what is happening at that site in terms of the union activity in this Province, we have an agreement in place, a first-class agreement, with thirteen of fifteen unions on that site, and the work that is taking place at that site will be done in a non-strike environment.  It will ensure long-term employment for the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.  The fact that there are two unions outside of that contract is a matter for the unions, not for government to get involved with.

What is happening at the site in terms of the equipment, the only equipment that is leaving that site is anything that has been determined to be surplus to any future activity at that site.  If it is not in use for any period of time - and PCL has told us they will not be requiring the equipment that has been sold - then it would just deteriorate and be of no use to anyone at any point in the future.  The point is that what is been sold is surplus assets.

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

MR. E. BYRNE:  Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question.  I could preface my last response to her answer in saying that if there are materials on that site, if the bunk-houses on that site can be used for other projects that are taking place in this Province that would enhance them, that would improve their ability to deliver a quality product at the end of the day, such as the Canada Winter Games, fair enough, you will get no opposition from anybody on that.

The question I asked the minister was:  Is she aware -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE:  Hold on, now.  No, I didn't.

I asked the minister:  Is she aware that there are people who are working on that site right now with respect to the operations of it who are not from this Province, that there are people in this Province who are skilled and ready to go to work there but were not given the opportunity?  That is the question I asked the minister.

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

MS FOOTE:  Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am not going to be drawn into any dispute between the unions who are on site at the Bull Arm site.  Whether or not there are people out there from out of the Province, whether or not there are people there from outside of the Province doing the work that the skilled workforce in this Province can do, we will certainly look into that and see if that is in fact the case, and if it is, what the rationale is for that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There are many problems, I say to the minister, in the child welfare part of your responsibilities that need to be addressed.  There are severely overworked social workers with unmanageable caseloads, and children are not getting the help they need from your department because of many of those problems.  The turnover of child care workers is alarming, and burnout is occurring frequently.

On April 8, Minister, I wrote to you asking for answers to some very basic, simple questions regarding child welfare, and to this day you have not provided one answer to my general questions.

Minister, are you failing to provide the information because you do not want the basic information to be made public, or because the people in that branch are so overworked and so preoccupied with child protection that the information cannot be provided?

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

The question certainly gives us an opportunity, as minister and as a government, to restate the types of initiatives that we have in an issue in a way to address the concerns around children.

Mr. Speaker, we have allocated over $10 million of new money for children and children's programs in this Province.  With respect to the letter, Mr. Speaker, the letter has been prepared and signed.  If he does not have it, he should have it any minute, any day.

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is in the mail - two months.  I hope the postal service will get a little more prompt, if it has been in the mail for two months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN:  I say to the minister, we have to raise awareness in child abuse and the protection of children.  There is something wrong when, for breaking and entering, someone gets twelve months, and for twisting and breaking the leg of a child, gets four months.  I think we need to put more attention on the system today.

I am asking this question of the minister:  Could the minister tell me - and some of the basic questions I ask are very simple - if she could provide, when I asked her on April 8, the current caseload that social workers have - a very simple question - the average tenure of a social worker here in the Province?  That is not too complicated.  Could the minister just give me the answer to that simple question that I asked two months ago?

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

The average caseload for child care workers is around thirty cases, and the average length of time working in this high, stressful area is about one-and-a-half to two years.  Collective agreements allow for various workers within the arrangement, under the collective agreement, to transfer and to move in and out, and that certainly addresses social workers being able to move out of the system.

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister made reference that the turnover is very, very high because of burnout, people working weekends, long hours, I must admit.

I want to ask the minister one final question.  Minister, where is the much needed child welfare legislation that we were promised and were supposed to see?  Where is it?

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

As the member knows, we have been working together on the integration of the new department.  We have been working in consultation with the whole review committee looking at child welfare legislation.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, because when I had my first orientation to the new Department of Social Services by the then deputy minister of that department, who no longer works with government, he said to me, and I quote:  If there is one area that we failed in here, in this department, is the fact that we have not done one thing with child welfare over the last twenty-five years.

So, Mr. Speaker, some two years later we put in action a whole review.  So for that person who left and felt like this was such a failure, I can reassure him that there will be new legislation coming forward this fall, but we are doing all the analysis.  It has been over twenty-five years.  It is a very important piece of legislation.  We have looked at the whole issue around strategic social policy, the National Child Benefit, and all the needs that have been addressed by the advocacy groups.

Mr. Speaker, it is important and we won't rush it, and when it is ready - we said it would be available to go through this House of Assembly this year and it will go through this year, but not until we have addressed the issue, because we take the issue of child welfare very seriously.  We are looking at the whole scope, ranging from all the issues that had not been addressed over the last twenty-five years.

Mr. Speaker, I, as my colleague for the Department of Human Resources and Employment, social policy and government, are very proud of the work we have done in the past two years that had not been done, Mr. Speaker, over the last twenty-five years, and we look forward to bringing it into the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope I am not hearing correctly when the minister said the reason why is because when she moved into her new department she had to be oriented with the new department.  Minister, you were the Minister of Social Services before you became the Minister of Health and responsible for that department.  Is that the reason why you are delaying?  Could the minister clarify that?  That is what she said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Oh, oh!

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  That is what she said.  Read Hansard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD:  What I said was, when I came as minister for the first time in government to the Department of Social Services, the then Deputy Minister, who no longer works with government, said to me:  If there is anywhere that I feel this government has failed, and my role here, is that I have not been able to move forward the issues around child welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD:  No, Mr. Speaker.  Immediately, upon arriving at the department I and my new Deputy Minister put in place a committee to begin the long overdue role of reviewing child welfare in this Province.  We have gone around this Province through committee hearings, and not only that, Mr. Speaker, as it moved along, we have gone and talked to all of the advocacy groups.  We have had it through social policy.  It was also raised under the Strategic Social Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in the interim we aren't waiting.  We are putting in place $10 million worth of new programs for children, including early childhood education, family resource centres and community youth networks.  So, we are not sitting on it, we are moving very quickly towards addressing the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  My question is to the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

A few days ago I asked the minister a question on the Gander River management plan, entitled: It Can Be Done: From Concept to Implementation.  The minister at that time said that part of this particular plan was approved and part wasn't, by his department.  He wasn't quite specific on which part was approved and which part wasn't.

In this report it clearly states, Minister, and I quote:  That a controlled terminal harvest of surplus fish will be managed by the Gander River Management Association.  An initial target will be 5,000 fish and revenues from the sale of those fish will be targeted towards river management.

I ask the minister if this part of the management plan has been approved, and if the minister's department condones netting salmon in inland waters.

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD:  Mr. Speaker, as I said the last time the member asked a question, that part of that plan has never been approved, and is not going to be approved.  A number of suggestions have been made.  There are a number of recommendations in that plan.  The plan is about a year and a half to two years old.  The only recommendation that has been considered was the river specific licence, and that was for a pilot project for two years.  We are into the potential second year of that project right now but nothing else in that plan has been approved.  They are recommendations and suggestions made by a group which have done a lot of hard work to bring the Gander River back to where it is today.

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

MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In The Gander Beacon, Minister, on April 13, 1998, page 3, the Gander River management plan's secretary is quoted as saying: this association intends to use a trap in Gander Lake to catch salmon after they have gone up the river.  I ask the minister if the secretary of this management plan is speaking on behalf of his department or expressing his department's management plan.

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD:  Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of misinformation that creates confusion.  I think it is time for the member to do his homework.  Watershed management is volunteer consensual decision making where you get together with groups and individuals who are interested in development of the watershed.  They may have suggestions to the governments, both federal and provincial.  The governments may decide that they will act on them or they may decide not to act on them, Mr. Speaker.  I will make it very clear that that recommendation is not being acted on.  The only one that has been was the river specific licence.

Why should management groups have done a good job of developing and enhancing watersheds working with both levels of government.  They have no legislative authority, they have no legal authority in that way, Mr. Speaker, but there are volunteer groups we are trying to help.

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

MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, no wonder total confusion exist on this particular issue of river management and watershed management.  You approved part of a plan and people out there today do not know which part of the plan is approved and which part is not.  You have executive members saying one thing, and you have the minister saying something else. I ask the minister what he plans on doing, what his department plans on doing, in clearing up this total confusion that exists with river and watershed management in rural areas of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD:  Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite is the only person confused.  For the last number of months this has been explained.

AN HON. MEMBER:  Read the papers, Minister, (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD:  I can read all the papers I want, Mr. Speaker.  No means no, and that is the case.  So, therefore, if groups come forward and want to volunteer ideas, we welcome the ideas.  But at the end of the day the government will decide whether it goes ahead or does not go ahead.  You can beat up on watershed management, the groups and the volunteer groups that have been involved all you want to, as a member of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the ideas, but we are looking at the possibility of a White Paper to develop a policy to go forward on and we will consider doing that.

The member continues to create confusion.  Everybody else understands it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It has come to my attention, that over the last little while and before the 1998/99 fiscal year in government, that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing have purchased, in very short order, somewhere in excess of 200 fridges and stoves for houses around the City of St. John's to get rid of some of their budget.  I do not know where they bought them.  I would like to ask the acting minister this morning:  If this is true, why were they bought, when the residents living in these homes did not even ask for them?  They received a phone call saying:  We have a new fridge and stove coming to you.  When the fellow comes in, find the space in your house so we can store the old one.

I would like to ask the acting minister this morning, if this, in actual fact, really happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know whether they bought fridges, stoves, vehicles or anything else.  I will check into it and find out.

Let me just say, that the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has a budget of $100 million.  It administers right now in excess of 10,000 housing units in this Province.  It has taken them over more from CMHC.  It is primarily responsible for social housing in the Province, and it has a mandate to look after that.

I am sure, if the member wants, I can give him a full list of all the inventory and equipment they bought.  They also employ people to paint apartments.  They provide a lot of accommodations and services for elderly and disabled people.  If they bought fridges and stoves, it would not surprise me.  I will check and find out for you.

If I may just say, if anybody in government - we made the point very strongly with all our executives and our managers that there is to be no dumping of government money, Mr. Speaker.  As the hon. member knows, we do not penalize departments for not spending money.

One of the questions that came up in the estimates, as the member well knows, was, why when a department spent less in a particular category last year, we did not reduce them.  We do an assessment each year as to what a department should realistically spend.  If there was evidence of somebody dumping government money, they would be held to task.  I will check on it.

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

MR. FRENCH:  It is very interesting to note that we bought in excess of some 200.  Now, we are not against people receiving new fridges and stoves.  Although, through the department of Social Services, as we all know on both side of this House, it is very difficult now to receive furniture.  I guess the question is:  Why did it happen?

There is also, I say to the minister, Buckmasters Circle where there are tremendous amounts of money now being spend, and there are actually law suits ongoing.

I would also like to know this morning, as well, where we are with the law suits.  What brought about this particular work?  It seems to me, minister, that in these purchases, and, as well, with what is happening at Buckmasters Circle - a lot of this money we certainly could have used to purchase new drugs.  We could have used it to help injured workers.  I am one who doesn't believe because the money is left at the end of the year it should be spent on things that we really don't need to spend it on.

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

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

MR. DICKS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government has many responsibilities, among them is to provide for the needs of people who are less fortunate for a variety of causes.  Those needs are not always simple, they are often complex.  Sometimes it is a need for food, other times it is a need for shelter, other times it is a need for heat, for clothing, for fridges and stoves, among those things.

He mentioned drugs.  People need to eat in order to avoid need for medical necessities at times as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

MR. DICKS:  I don't know what was on at Buckmasters Circle in particular.  I mentioned to the hon. member that there are something like about 12,000 units that NLHC now maintains in this Province, a very substantial number.  They have a substantial budget for repair, renovation and, as the hon. member knows as well, fridges and stoves are often provided as part of any apartment complex.  Not all of them but the majority of apartments have fridges and stoves provided.  So any assortment of equipment needs to be renewed on an annual basis.

However, we will check into it.  If there is any evidence that the expenditure was not justified then we will deal with it appropriately.

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

MR. FRENCH:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also ask the minister, while he is doing his checking, if he could find out what happened to the old ones?  Because the information that I have says that when the new stuff came in, the old stuff would be taken and stored somewhere in a home.  I don't know if they are still there or if they have been moved out.  Were they given to somebody to auction off?  I wonder if you could also check on that and let us know exactly where they went.

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

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

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.  They concern the unfortunate incident a short while ago when $100,000 went missing from the Department of Human Resources and Employment.  My concern focuses on how the department could allow more and more public funds to go missing over a period of three years and go completely undetected.

Is the minister convinced that the conversion to the new Central Cheque Processing Data Centre is enough to ensure that the funds that are intended for the clients of the department don't go missing again?

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

MS BETTNEY:  Mr. Speaker, it is because of the improved internal audit procedures and investigations procedures that the incident to which the member refers was in fact first realized, picked up, further investigated and subsequently provided to the Department of Justice, and the charges laid.

In relation to our central processing system for cheques and the improvements that we are making in this system, I have every confidence that as we continue with our changes to the income support system, the development of our new procedures and policy, and also more importantly, the improvements to our information systems which provides a much better accounting of all of the transactions that take place in the department, that we will have far better control procedures in place in the future and that we will continue to improve our services to our clients as well.

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

MS S. OSBORNE:  What new efforts is the department implementing to ensure that its employees are given thorough background checks prior to being hired by the department to help care for some of the most vulnerable people?  What level of screening is done?  Are Certificates of Conduct required?  How deeply into the background of perspective employees does the department dig before giving these people power to affect the lives of individuals who may not be able to look out for themselves?

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

MS BETTNEY:  Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, the hiring for the permanent positions, full-time positions within the public service, are hired through the Public Service Commission.  In that regard, there are very good recruitment and selection policies in place which define not only the credentials and the qualifications and skills that people need to have in order to work in professional positions throughout government, but also define the kinds of protections that are required for different positions when they work in areas that are considered sensitive and areas that deal with people who we would all consider to be vulnerable.

Again, I would have to say that as a policy throughout government there are quite adequate and in fact good policies in place around recruitment and selection which provide the kind of protection that the member suggests.  I would say again that this is something that within the department, because of the sensitivity of the responsibility that we have, we also pay particular attention to ourselves.

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

MS S. OSBORNE:  In view of the fact that the particular person involved in this incident had a record of thirteen counts of fraud, I say to the minister, how good was the checking at the Public Service Commission?

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

MS BETTNEY:  Mr. Speaker, again, the member would refer to the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

MS BETTNEY:  Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a specific case of one individual, and the thirteen counts she refers to are all related to the same incident which has now proceeded through the courts.  So this is not to suggest that because of one particular incident there is a major problem with screening and selection throughout government.  Our employees for the most part, I would say, in the experience I have had in this department, throughout government in other departments, and as a former employee of government myself, are highly professional in the way they dispense their responsibilities, and they do a good job for this government.

There will always be cases, I am sure, given the size of the public service, where you have unfortunate incidents such as the one being described, but I stand on the level of professionalism and the honour and credentials of our public service as they perform their duties throughout this Province.

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley, time for one quick question.

MR. H. HODDER:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  My questions are for the Acting Minister of Education.

Given the fact that the school boards have not received any information relative to the results of the air quality studies - I do understand the information has not been communicated to the school boards - of the first 150 schools, and that therefore the tender documents have not been prepared, and given the fact that school boards need some lead time for advertising and the work that needs to be done in that phase of the remedial action, I ask the minister:  Can the minister now give assurances that all of the remedial actions that are necessary to correct the air quality problems in the schools will indeed be completed in time for school opening in September?  Contractors have said to me they have doubts about it, the school boards have doubts about it.

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

MS KELLY:  Mr. Speaker, much of the work has been completed, some is still in its final stages, so you cannot give an assurance that everything will be done by a certain time frame.  Until everything is evaluated there may need to be some very major work that needs doing that will continue on as the school year progresses.  As much work as possible will be done, and of course the work that will be done first will be the work that will cause the least interruption to students.  The major work will be done before school opens.  All of that is in the assessment stage now and will be rolled out in the next few days and weeks.

Thank you.

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

                             Orders of the Day 

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

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

                      Committee of the Whole 

CHAIR (Penney):  Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Order No. 3, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act". (Bill No. 20).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Order No. 4, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act", (Bill No. 21).

Would the hon. the Opposition House Leader like to recess for five minutes to talk with him?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I would like for us to recess because I understand there is a discussion going on that is needed.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I will just get this in order here.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy for the hon. gentleman, let us recess for five minutes.

CHAIR:  The House will recess for five minutes.

                                         Recess 

CHAIR:  The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I want to call Order No. 4 next, but before I do that I want to move that the House not adjourn at 12:00 o'clock.

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

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Aye.

CHAIR:  Opposed.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Order No. 4, Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act to Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act."  (Bill No. 21)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Order No. 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act to Amend The Income Tax Act."  (Bill No. 22)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think, as I mentioned the last day, it said, a corporation producing an eligible film - that is 8.1 in the Income Tax Act or clause l here in the bill, "...producing an eligible film or video in the province may apply to the minister."  What will constitute an eligible film or video, I say to the Minister.

We are not opposed at all to making changes in amendments for the film or video industry.  We would like to see more film, more videos or movies here in our Province to entice people to come.  We have lost business in this Province to other provinces because we were not progressive enough in making changes that were necessary.

So I am just wondering, for my information - I am not aware what constitutes an eligible video.  There must be a certain standard of content or the location having to here, a certain per cent basically of that on location or what -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN:  It is Bill No. 22, clause 1.  That is in 8.1: "A corporation producing an eligible film or video may apply to the minister."  I am just wondering if the minister could tell me what is the criteria determining what is eligible for this tax?   Because, for instance, they may come in here and do a shoot of a segment of a movie and then they complete it elsewhere.  They may come in and do the whole thing on location here.  There must be some point at which we are going to say:  Hold it there!  You are not getting a credit for that because we do not have any additional people to get employed here, people who may have no role in the actual acting itself, but other support people who may be employed here in the Province, additional people where it is not practical to fly people in from their location; those type of things.

I am just wondering - we do not want to be giving a carte blanche to these people, because if we do, they will do what is convenient when they come in here and just do a few a shoots and so on to get a credit.  If the minister could enlighten me on this.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the hon. member knows, the criteria are established under Section 32(1) of this act.

I will just give the hon. member a little background.  I cannot answer his question directly.  If you look at Subsection 2, the eligibility requirements - and I believe another member of the House raised some questions about the amount of tax credit that will be prescribed by regulation.

Now, if I can say to the hon. member, two things:  One is that the final decisions on this have not been made, and we will looking to what an appropriate regulatory scheme is.  I can tell him that we have looked very closely at all the jurisdictions across Canada.  Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have some interesting aspects to their regulation of this industry.  I will deal with the amount and then I will come back to eligibility because I think that will make things clearer.

The film would have to be filmed to some extent, or the video made in the Province.  What is eligible for a tax credit is only those wages paid in the Province.  So, you know, the wages to people who are of Newfoundland and Labrador residency.  So it is a method to help employ people here in this particular industry.

Nova Scotia has, for various reasons, a very booming industry, and a large part of it is the tax credit.  Now the way they do it in Nova Scotia - and my figures may be off in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  I meant to take the material with me this morning and I don't have it.  I believe they give a credit of 30 per cent or 35 per cent, and I believe New Brunswick gives the 40 per cent tax credit.  Some of the Western provinces are much lower.

In Nova Scotia, I believe they have a two-tiered system.  If you do it in the metropolitan area of Halifax you get a 30 per cent credit, if you do it outside you get 35 per cent.  Those figures may not be exact but it is of that magnitude.  In other words, there is an incentive to do it in rural areas where there is less of an activity.

What people get is they get back a portion of the wages as a payment that reflects roughly what the tax would be.  What you do is you have to ensure that you are not overpaying people and giving them more.  What you are trying to do is help establish the industry and get more economic activity, which leads you to the question of eligibility.

I think the eligibility of which films would be able to claim the credit would be less important than the types of expenses that you have that are eligible.  Because whether they do 10 per cent of the film here or 100 per cent, it doesn't really make a difference, if all you are giving them a rebate on is a portion of the salaries they spend here.

I think that should probably answer the hon. member's concerns.  Frankly, although Cabinet hasn't made a decision, I expect we would set something competitive with the rate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.  We would be in the range of 30 per cent to 40 per cent in order to be competitive.  That I suspect will be something in the order we would come to.

What I would say to the hon. member is, what will be less important is not which films are eligible, but rather the type of expenses.  We will ensure that only those expenses are eligible which meet the criteria of having been spent here in Newfoundland or Labrador that would not otherwise occur.

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

CHAIR:  The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Basically it would have to be, if I understand the minister, based on the wage portion you are paying.  Because the corporation would be from outside the Province, outside the country probably, and we wouldn't be getting any direct corporation tax from it anyway.  So it basically would be a credit based on your employment and the wages you would pay to people in our Province.  It would be just geared to that.

What about the corporations from our Province?  Would the same apply, I wonder?  I know they will pay taxes and they pay their corporation tax to our Province anyway, but would the same credit be applied to any particular part of the industry?  A Newfoundland company would have the same, if in event somebody wanted to set up a company and incorporate a company here in our Province, a subsidiary, a company for the purpose of doing filming on location here.  Who knows, hopefully in the future that might happen there.  I am sure they will set up their place of business where the tax rate is most preferential to them overall from a tax perspective.  Many companies do that.

I think the minister is implying that this would apply to a Newfoundland company too, the same basic credit, in addition to any other credits that might occur because they are a corporation in our Province.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, that is the case.  I would say the focus really, as the hon. member suggests, is not on the corporation, and ultimately it is not on the film, if you understand my intent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS:  It is the members of the Catholic Women's League who cause the most noise in this House, as I recall, Mr. Chairman, and I don't mean the female members of the Catholic Women's League, as the hon. member well knows.

Yes, it will be available to Newfoundland corporations and people making films, and really it's focused on the expenses in order to create employment in this industry in this Province.  So whether the corporation is a U.S. or British or Canadian or Newfoundland and Labrador corporation, it really wouldn't matter.  It's available to the whole industry.  The only expenses that are eligible are those that are paid to individuals here in the Province.  I trust that allays his concern.

As I say, as of yet we haven't had a chance to fully review and establish a rate, but it will be competitive with the other jurisdictions.

On motion, Clauses 1 and 2, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act."  (Bill No. 22)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Order No. 11, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991, Bill 19."

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

Shall clauses 1 to 10 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I'm just trying to find the clause number here now, Mr. Chairman, that I'm referring to.  Okay, clause 6 is the only one I wish to make a comment on.  It is clause 6, page 22.

I just want to ensure - it is 294.1 of that.  In subsection (2) it just says, "In a campaign period for a general election, in addition to the contribution permitted by subsection (1)..." which is $8,000, "...the total value of all contributions shall not exceed (a) in the case of an individual, the amount of $16,000."

Now, one way it might be interpreted is to say that is $16,000 on top of the $8,000, but the intent, as I understand it - I want to make sure on the record - is that the total an individual may contribute during an election is $16,000 in total.  There could be a little ambiguity in saying in addition to the contribution.  So those words, in addition, might give the impression - page 22 in the bill.  It is 294.1 of the act, clause 6, Part III of the act.  So I think the Government House Leader knows where I am coming from there and maybe he can respond.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, in actual fact there is some ambiguity there, and for the record I think we should say that in an election year the total amount they will be able to contribute is $16,000 in the case of an individual, and in the case of a corporation, $40,000 and not $24,000 and $60,000 as it would seem to indicate in this clause.

So the intent is that in a non-election year an individual will be able to contribute $8,000 and a corporation $20,000.  In an election year an individual will be allowed to contribute $16,000 and a corporation $40,000.  So that ambiguity should be cleared up.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Okay.  That is really including subsection (1) rather than in addition too.  So basically in total.  So I just wanted to make that specific point, whether - there could two interpretations drawn from that.  I just want to be sure of the right interpretation.  It may not need an amendment to that effect.  I am not sure if the minister feels that is necessary.

MR. TULK:  No, we have it on the record.

MR. SULLIVAN:  The Government House Leader has indicated that that is the intent of it, that is what it should reflect and I am satisfied with that.

CHAIR:  Order, please!

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

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Elections Act, 1991."  (Bill No. 19)

On motion, clauses 1 to 10 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Order No. 10, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act."  (Bill No. 33)

CHAIR:  Order No. 10.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act."  (Bill No. 33)

On motion, clauses 1 to 5 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Order No. 8, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."  (Bill No. 30)

CHAIR:  Order No. 8.

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."  (Bill No. 30)

On motion, clauses 1 to 4 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Order No. 7, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An Intergovernmental Join Purchasing Agreement And to Repeal The Provincial Preference Act," Bill No. 25.

CHAIR:  Order No. 7.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial Preference Act". (Bill No. 25)

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

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Order No. 9, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The Province". (Bill No. 31)

CHAIR:  Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Just a brief comment on this one, Mr. Chairman.

The minister yesterday made reference, I think, so it may not invoke a direct question, I say to the minister.  I just want to state that there is a lot left here to regulation, very much to regulation, and not a big amount to legislation.

One of my concerns in any instance is that the legislation is too general.  Then we depend on regulations, depend on Cabinet, and depend on the minister, then, on the regulations.

Especially, like under two, there is a great difference in people under two and over two.  Now, for the first time, it is also putting in regulations for people under two, under thirteen in total.  Before it did not cover the earlier period.  Over all the legislation, the principle of it, is important.  It depends on how it is applied and the specific regulations to distinguish between those two particular areas there.  That is the particular concern.  If we see the regulations, it may be of no concern.  I am just saying there is a lot in the regulations.  It is important that - it give a fair amount of authority to the minister on regulations, as I guess regulations always do.  The more it is legislated, the more teeth it really has into it and the less it is subject to alterations.

One down side to legislation, I suppose, is that once it is there you will need the House of Assembly to make changes, whereas in regulations it does not.  But overall in child care it is an important step and I certainly support that particular aspect of it.

I just wanted to indicate that we need to be looking at commitments to children - a period, not just in child care.  I think it is important to have a commitment in child care.  It is a very, very important part of development to see that we have the proper environment for young people to be able to grow, to be nurtured and so on, particularly preschool people, because it is at a very important age in their lives where you really shape their behaviour and set them on a path for the rest of their lives.

I look forward to seeing regulations that follow there and seeing exactly what it accomplishes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  It was not really a direct question.  I do not really need an answer.  It is not a question.  It was my comment.

Order No. 9, a bill, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The Province". (Bill No. 31)

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

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Order No. 2, Bill No. 28.

CHAIR:  Order No. 2.

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law," (Bill No. 28).

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, if I could, I understand we have just passed three or four amendments which are really not very consequential to the Opposition House Leader which he has had a chance, I take it, to look at.

MR. SULLIVAN:  This one here?

MR. TULK:  Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I just spoke with (inaudible).

MR. TULK:  I understand there is no problem with them.

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, I am quite familiar with what you are looking at there.

MR. TULK:  Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the House, I am going to move all of the amendments at the same time.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Okay, fine.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments:

Clause 4 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed paragraph 109(2)(d) the words "who is licensed under the Public Accountancy Act".

Clause 5 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the proposed paragraph 109(2)(d) the words "who is licensed under the Public Accountancy Act".

Clause 18 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the words "certified management accountant" the words "licensed under the Public Accountancy Act".

Clause 20 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the citation "82(2)" the words and citation "and subsection 287(2)" and by adding immediately after the proposed paragraph (d) the words, "licensed under the Public Accountancy Act".

Clause 23 of the bill is amended by adding in the proposed section 60 the words "licensed under the Public Accountancy Act" immediately after the words "certified general accountant".

I think, Mr. Chairman, the Explanatory Note says:  These amendments would clarify that an auditor for the purpose of those provisions is one who is licensed under the Public Accountancy Act.

CHAIR:  The House is aware of the five amendments that have been tabled and read into the record.  I will call the five amendments together.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Aye.

CHAIR:  Opposed?

On motion, amendments carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3 inclusive, carried.

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

On motion, clauses 6 through 17 inclusive, carried.

On motion, clause 18 as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 19, carried.

On motion, clause 20 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 21 and 22, carried.

On motion, clause 23 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 24 through 30, carried.

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

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I ask you to correct me if I am wrong but I believe the only Order - not a Motion, I understand we have to do Motion 2 - that has not been called is Committee of the Whole on Order 6.

CHAIR:  That is correct.

MR. TULK:  "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act".  (Bill No. 24).

CHAIR:  That is correct.  Is the hon. Government House Leader calling that one now?

MR. TULK:  Yes, I am.

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

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on the Public Tender Act again today.  I want to be on record that I do not support this bill, this amendment to the Public Tender Act, for a number of reasons.  I said here before in the House of Assembly, and I am going to repeat a few of those in Committee so it will be quite clear, the reasons why I do not support this Public Tender Act and the changes to it.

There are some points with which I can agree, a couple of changes with respect to the registry of local manufacturing.  It is a positive move.  As I said before, I think this is where all these changes came from.  They are using this one positive step to make some changes to circumvent the Public Tender Act, generally speaking. 

The minister talked about going around this Province on public consultations.  I think most of the recommendations made were related to the local manufacturers and producers.  I don't think he got a lot of presentations saying that they should change it from a level playing field to some sort of other system whereby political pressures could come to bear and contracts could be awarded now instead of on price, qualifications, expertise and what have you.

We will go back to the 1960s and it will be going on who you know and how many political contributions you may have made.  I am not just saying that to the administration in power because if these changes are made, no matter what party is in power, the same pressures will come to bear on that group administering the money of the Province.

A couple of the more specific problems I have with it, of course, is that Section 3(2)(i) means the government will not have to invite public tenders "where, in the opinion of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology... the work or acquisition is for an economic development purpose..."  Now to me, again, as I said before, that gives the Administration in power a wide latitude, "in the opinion", because everybody's opinion can vary on any given situation.

With respect to economic development, there is no definition in there for economic development.  If the government decided to go down and put down one kilometre of pavement that could be considered for economic development.  If someone in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing wants to build a few houses for social housing, although they are getting out of that, that could be considered economic development.  They may not have to go to tender because the minister says this is for economic development.  If this is to be changed there should definitely be at least a definition there for economic development.  As I said, the minister should not be given that authority with which to do what she or he wants, depending on who the minister is at any given time.

Another paragraph, of course, seeing that we are in Committee, is 3(2)(j), which means the government will not have to invite public tenders "where, in the opinion of the head of the government funded body, inviting a tender would not achieve the best value and the government funded body has, through the minister responsible for it, obtained the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council..."  So they can carry out requests for proposals based on the permission given to them by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

We saw what happened before in this Province back in the 1960s before the Public Tender Act was put in place.  We saw the abuse of what went on in this Province, and contracts given out right, left and centre, cost-plus contracts to buddies, to affiliates of certain parties and what have you.  Now we are seeing ourselves going back by changing the Public Tender Act to the exact same situation that was happening in the 1960s.  We saw what happened only within recent years with Trans City.  We saw what happened with Kodak, where they were bringing in legislation to circumvent the Public Tender Act, a big deal, hundreds of jobs.  What happened?  It fell through.

Again, if you can show where in the - not only in the opinion of a minister but in the opinion of Cabinet, who were trying to do that for Kodak, they were wrong there and they will be wrong again.  I am after saying to the minister there is no doubt in my mind I will be asking questions in the future in this House of Assembly to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and to any other minister, when it comes to pass that what I am saying here today is right.

The minister can get up in the House of Assembly and try to rationalize all he wants, but he cannot justify these changes.  He can justify the changes with respect to the registry of local manufacturers, and I support that, but he cannot justify these changes in section 3.

Also there is a section here, with the repeal of subsection 5(3) the provision allowing government to make change orders and extensions to expand award of contracts is loosened up.  So the government will be able to give contractors extra work without tendering that work.  The minister says section 5(3) has no impact, by taking out or repealing the subsection it has no impact.  So why is he changing it in the first place?  That is the question that needs to be asked.  If the minister is persistent in doing this, what is going to happen according to that section - there are limits there, but now with the changes being proposed here there can be a cumulative effect and you can circumvent that with these changes.  That section there, in my mind, should not be changed also.

Also, the new clause in the exemption area of the act, points one and two above, will give broad discretionary power to the government to avoid calling public tenders.  That is the whole point we are trying to make on this side of the House.  That is the whole point, that whenever the government decides they want to put out some work to some buddy or some friend or what have you, they can avoid calling public tenders.  I have members over on the other side shaking their heads in agreement with what I am saying, yet they are going to vote in favour of this because the Premier told them to vote in favour.  Sheep, Mr. Chairman, sheep, that is all I can say, when they know in their own heart and soul this is not right.  The level playing field that is there now is being weakened.  The Public Tender Act is being weakened.  It is almost being repealed.  They may as well take it, tear it up and throw it out the window.  Those are some of the points I have been making in the past.

Also, Mr. Chairman, public procurement is in an area of governmental activity that can be subject to enormous pressure to direct purchasing that is not in the public interest.  That is a point I made earlier in this House of Assembly when we spoke against this.  As a matter of fact, I was on the Open Line show yesterday morning speaking against these amendments and I am going to continue.

Also, Mr. Chairman, these amendments throw wide open the opportunity to opt out of public tendering for vague reasons.  The minster was up again yesterday or the day before - I am not sure which - trying to justify these amendments, and there is no way in my mind he can justify them.  There is no way he can justify to me that the government or a minister can end up giving a contract to anyone with no definition for economic development, and in the opinion of the department head for the best value.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE:  I am just being on record, Mr. Chairman.  I have said it all.  I pointed out - and certain members on that side of the House, as I said earlier, are shaking their heads in agreement - that they should tear this up.  So I am wondering if the minister should basically withdraw this?

Also, Mr. Chairman, the changes here will destroy fairness and accountability in public procurement in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.  This Public Tender Act was brought in by the Tories back in the 1970s - I think 1972 or 1973 - somewhere around that time.  It has been on the go for quite some time now, so why is it necessary to do this?

The previous Premier, Mr. Wells, I think, tried to circumvent the Public Tender Act, as I said earlier, with the Trans City and got caught.  The courts decided that it was wrong.  There are ministers sitting in the government benches who were involved with the Trans City and now they are trying to change this to make it legitimate to do what they want.

Another point now, if the government circumvents the Public Tender Act there are certain legal requirements and they can be taken to court.  But if they make these changes, the legalities of the whole situation completely change and the government then cannot be called into question as they can today.  Mr. Chairman, we have to point these out.

The Opposition, of course, their duty as members of the Loyal Opposition, is to point out these faults in legislation, to provide constructive criticism to government, which is what we are doing.  It is to provide constructive criticism to government and that is what we are doing here on this side of the House.  We have done it in the past and we will continue to do it, I am sure, all members on this side of the House.

I don't know what to say any more than that, Mr. Chairman.  We can propose amendments all we want on this side of the House, and I did give some consideration to proposing amendments to this legislation, but I have made my points.  I know that government has a majority so any amendments we want here they are going to vote down anyway.  So that is an effort in futility in actual fact.  All we can do is make our points over here and hopefully the government will listen, but I don't know.  It is hard.  Sometimes you have to wonder.

Also, Mr. Chairman, the Public Tender Act came into being because of a report by a judge, Judge Mahoney, when they looked at some illegal activity with respect to government years ago.  Actually, a person was sent to jail because of the situation that went on.  We did not have a Public Tender Act and the illegal actions were taken by certain people.  We put in a Public Tender Act to try to avoid that, and now we have the Administration basically saying they are going to tear up the Public Tender Act, go back to the days of the 1960s and leave it to the will of any individual minister, or even a department head of a government funded body, to do what they want.  I am not going to be able to support this.  I hope members on this side of the House are going to say no to this public tender amendments. 

I think I will sit down now and let someone on this side, if they wish, say a few words.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I just wanted to rise again today and have a few comments relative to the Public Tender Act that we are now considering.

Basically, I think the Member for Cape St. Francis has raised some question as to the wisdom of the changes, and I wanted to repeat some of the things I said yesterday to the effect that we are not against changes that make the whole system more open to contractors.  We certainly are not against making it possible for all contractors in this Province to participate in the bidding that goes on when government services are required, or when tenders are called for the completion of construction, or for other services that government might need.  In fact, we believe that is a good feature of this particular piece of legislation.

What we are afraid of is the fact that this particular bill may open up certain, shall we say, provisions or windows whereby some contractors might be able to get extra work for which they would then have an advantage over some other contractor.  For example, the new act would mean that certain contractors might be able to have their contracts extended.  When you start extending contractors unreasonably, just extending and extending, it means that the people who were involved in the original contract may have been seriously disadvantaged.  In other words, if you are going to have a contract and you are awarded it, lets say, for $50,000, and the next highest bidder was, say, $52,000, but if you knew that the government would be likely to extend that contract for extra work that could amount to tens of thousands of dollars more, then you might certainly, shall we way, be inclined to take a loss leader on the original contract.  Mr. Chairman, that is where we have difficulty.

We accept the minister's word that that is not likely to be a dominant feature, but when we look at situations like the Trans City deal we see how the letter of the law can be used to circumvent the intent of the law.  Certainly in that particular case we know that government went out for proposals and then used the letter of the law to give them the power to (inaudible) circumvented or changed the intent of the Public Tender Act.

We certainly express great caution to the government when they bring in laws that are open-ended.  It is the open-ended feature of this particular piece of legislation that causes us some concern, because we know that if the integrity of government is to be maintained in the public eye we have to have laws that govern the way in which we conduct the public business.  When we have laws passed that have the possibility of reducing a level playing field approach, then we certainly have to express what we consider to be the lack of wisdom in that particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side have raised these points.  They have been raised by the Member for Cape St. Francis.  We raise them as concerns, and we say to the government that we will be watching very carefully to make sure that the provisions of this act are not used in a manner that circumvents the integrity of the public tendering process.  In fact, as far as the provisions of the act that let all contractors and all bidders have information rapidly, and let us do away with this idea of calling three preferred bidders, that kind of thing, we think that is a good idea. 

This particular bill has some very desirable features, but it also has some places where we feel there might be certain possibilities that may not have been intended by the government, certain loop-holes, certain windows of opportunity that were formerly protected but which are not now as protected as they were in the previous piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was to correct the weaknesses of public tendering that the Peckford government brought in the Public Tender Act many years ago.  It was to correct the difficulties that were so evident in Newfoundland and Labrador in the 1950s, 1960s and indeed into the 1970s, and to make sure that public money was not only spent as it should be spent, but to give the authority of the Legislature to command the government to make sure that the public money was spent wisely and fairly, and that all contractors doing government business would have an equal playing field and equal access.

Mr. Chairman, we know that some of the provisions of this particular piece of legislation have been adopted in some other provinces, and as far as computerizing the whole system, that is a very positive thing.

However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to, again, alert the government to listen to what the Member for Cape St. Francis, the critic, has said on these issues.  Hopefully, when the implementation stage comes, there will be assurances that we do not use this particular piece of legislation, the changes to the Public Tender Act, to facilitate a process that would be more reflective of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s than it would be of the public process that is more evident into the 1980s and 1990s.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether we have any further speakers on this side.  The Government House Leader is now free to call the question.

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

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, Motion No. 2, To Move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Advancing or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill No. 11.

CHAIR:  Motion No 2, To move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Advancing or Guaranteeing of Certain Loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, Bill No. 11.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise again today to echo my negative thoughts towards Bill No. 11, thoughts which I think other people on this side of the House will put forward as well.

It is a situation where this bill, An Act To Amend The Loan And Government Guarantee Act, Mr. Chairman, is doing exactly the opposite of what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Premier and members opposite are saying that they are not doing and they are getting out off; and that is providing money, fund loan guarantees, to the fishing industry of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, I can understand when the Member of Twillingate & Fogo stands and says that he supports this particular bill.  I can understand when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo stands in his place and says that there is nothing wrong with extending a loan guarantee to the Fogo Island Co-op from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000.  I can understand that.  The member is doing his job, and he is representing a fish plant that employs people in his district and in one of the biggest communities that exists on an island in his district.  I can understand that.  I would do the same thing.  I would probably be one of the people that would be knocking at his door asking the government of the day to provide a government guaranteed loan for a plant that employed people in my district.  I would probably be doing the same thing, but that doesn't make it right.  If we are going to go and get out of the fishing industry -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD:  I hope you will.  Let's start treating everybody alike.  Let's not be going out around this Province, on the one hand, standing on a soapbox saying we are not putting money into the fishing industry, and on the other hand going to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and securing government guaranteed loans, Mr. Chairman.  That is what is happening here in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as you read Item 1, and go on down to Item 2, you see where expiry dates have been taken away.  You see where loan guarantees have gone, with Integrated Poultry Limited, from $1 million up to $6 million with no expiry date.  When I see no expiry date I wonder how long this can be on the books.  How long are the taxpayers of this Province going to be on the hook to Integrated Poultry Limited with no expiry date of that particular loan having to be paid back?

You can go on now, Mr. Chairman, to another $6.5 million loan guarantee to Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation.  This guarantee has no expiry date.  The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is a businessman here.  He knows he can't go to the bank and get a loan of money without having a time frame to pay it back.  Anybody in this House who has gone and accessed money knows that you have to have a commitment -

AN HON. MEMBER:  Most of the time they want it yesterday.

MR. FITZGERALD:  Most of the time they want it yesterday is right, or else, Mr. Chairman, somebody is going to have to pay a price for it.  I fear who will be paying the price should they renege on this particular piece of legislation.

Then we come on down to Item 4, S.C.B. Fisheries Limited, a $2.6 million loan guarantee, with no expiry date, no commitment at any time to pay back that money.

Mr. Chairman, we come on down to the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited, which is one, I suppose, I could almost condone because of where this particular business is carried on, and where there is not a lot of competition, and where we have made great efforts in order to establish processing.  If there is an argument to be made it would be made for the Labrador Coast.  When we look down at the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited we see an expiry date of May 31, 1998.

We go on to another loan guarantee for Smith Seafoods Limited.  A second extension has been provided to this company, another fish company, a company that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture continues to say is not financed any more, is not propped up any more, by government assistance; another loan guarantee with no expiry date.

We go on, Mr. Chairman, to the top of page 4.  Section (b) under Explanatory Notes talks about a $600,00 loan guarantee to Earle Brothers Fisheries Limited, another fish processor in this Province.  Certainly you can't put forward the argument that it's located on an island, you can't put forward an argument that if something should happen the community would die; it is located in Carbonear.  With no expiry fate, another $600,000 loan guarantee.

Then, Mr. Chairman, on page 6 going onto page 7, section 3, the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited, a loan guarantee being extended from $1 million to $2 million with no expiry date.  What is going to happen tomorrow when we see a company from Gaultois coming and visiting the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board?  What is going to happen tomorrow morning when we see the fish processor down in Ramea going to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, when we see the fish plant owner and the processor from Burgeo?  Three prime examples of three communities that exist only on fish processing facilities in their own communities.  If there is any such meaning of the word isolated, then it certainly would refer to those people here.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Labour if he has talked this piece of legislation over with the people who own the fish plant down in Gaultois, or if he has consulted Fishery Products International, which is the biggest employer in his district.  Has he talked to them, who operate the fish plant down in Harbour Breton, if they agree with this piece of legislation?

I ask the Government House Leader if he has talked to the manager of Beothuck Fish Processors to see if they agree with this piece of legislation.  I ask him if he has, and I ask him if they agree with it.

MR. TULK:  Under the circumstances, yes, they do.

MR. FITZGERALD:  Mr. Chairman, I have talked to some of those people as well.  I won't say who I talked with, but I will tell you one thing, they don't appreciate what is happening here, especially when you see the same company going out last year and paying $0.10 a pound more.

AN HON. MEMBER:  They are not doing it this year.

MR. FITZGERALD:  Not doing it this year!  They tell you they are not doing it.  What are you going to do if they do?  There is no expiry date on this piece of legislation.  What are you going to do if they go out and pay the extra $0.10 or $0.20 a pound being financed by the taxpayers of this Province?  They aren't going to do it because they told you they aren't going to do it?  You are not that simple-minded, I say to the minister opposite.  You know full well that what you are talking about is incorrect, is silliness.

I ask the Member for Burin-Placentia West if she talked to the fish plant owners down in Burin, Fortune, and Marystown, to see if they agreed with this particular piece of legislation.  The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile:  Has he talked to the people in Burgeo to see if they agree with this.  The people in Ramea, the people in Gaultois:  I can assure you that they will not be putting forward this piece of legislation as a good piece of legislation unless you treat everybody alike.

If we are going to get out of the fishing industry, if we are going to get out of the pockets and off the backs of fishermen and fish processors, then let's do it.  Let's not be going out and saying that we are not financing this industry any more, and then very quietly sneaking in the back door to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, saying:  We want a government guaranteed loan.  If you give somebody a government guaranteed loan you are giving them a blank cheque, you are giving them money, and you aren't out of the processing industry.

I have a real problem with this piece of legislation.  It is not a piece of legislation the people on this side of the House will be supporting, Mr. Chairman.  We have seen fish plants springing up all over this Island in the past.  We have seen them propped up by government, we have seen taxpayers' dollars spent.  Then we have come forward with a policy, after being in a moratorium for six years now, and we say we are going to change all that.  The fishing industry in this Province is going to change, we are not going to be putting taxpayers' dollars into this industry any more.  We will let the marketplace and the business sense of those businessmen - because that is what they are - dictate whether that plant will survive or whether it will go on.  We have overcapacity in the fishing industry and we have to reduce it.

Those are the words being echoed by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture wherever he goes, and they are words that are true.  Mr. Chairman, what we see happening here is not the message that the minister is carrying across this Province, when we see government owned fish plants put back into operation, when we see government owned fish plants that have been closed since 1990 brought back into the fish processing industry again; one in Lawn the other day, St. Lawrence last year, and the list goes on.  And the minister talks about giving the others back.  The people from Lawn deserve to have a job as well as everybody else.  The people down in St. Lawrence deserve to have a job.  It is nice to get their fish plant open.  I commend the people who went forward and tried to allow it to happen, and I know they were happy when they received the decision.  But let's not say one thing, Mr. Chairman, and do something completely the opposite.

You would think if we are going to take processing capacity out of the industry today that we would start with the government owned plants, plants that have been closed, Mr. Chairman,, plants that maybe should never have been built in the first place.  Mr. Chairman, that is where we should start, that is where we should set the example and make the example.

Mr. Chairman, I am certainly against this bill and I would suggest that the Minister of Finance - and I have a funny feeling that this was a decision in Cabinet that was split.  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there was a little bit of a kerfuffle to get this through Cabinet.  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that everybody in Cabinet - maybe the minister, maybe the Premier had to step in on this particular one.  I can assure you that this piece of Legislation did not go through Cabinet with unanimous approval from the very beginning.  It did not go through Cabinet with unanimous approval right from the very beginning, Mr. Chairman.  It was a situation where people had to be convinced.  People had to be convinced in order to allow this to happen.  You talk about Cabinet solidarity!  That all happened at the end, I am sure of that.  In the beginning, all the way through, it was a difficult situation to get this piece of legislation through; and rightly so, I say to the minister, because you cannot have it both ways, minister.

I give you warning, if I am ever in your presence again and you stand and talk about government getting out of fish plants and getting out of the fish business, I am going to remind you about Bill 11, where there are millions and millions of dollars put into this industry, Mr. Chairman, with no expiry date, no commitment to pay at any particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD:  It is wrong!  It is not a great speech, it is wrong!  Mr. Chairman, anybody who knows anything about the industry and anybody who knows what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has been saying about what the fishery of the future is going to look like, and the problems that we have in the processing industry would say that this is a double take.

AN HON. MEMBER:  Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD:  What the minister is saying and what is happening here is completely the opposite of the message that he is taking around this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD:  I would tell them that.  Absolutely!  I am not saying - I said before you came that I commend the member.  The member stood here the other day and spoke in favour of it and I commend him for that.  I would do the same thing.  I would probably be the first one knocking on the Minister of Finance's door to try to get help for a fish plant in my district, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that if he is going to take a message carry the right message, tell the people what is happening.  Don't say one thing and come back here into this House, under the guise of darkness and behind closed doors, to do something different.

That is what is happening here, Mr. Chairman.  We have picked out four or five fish plants, we have picked out another couple of industries there, and we have propped them up with government guaranteed loans.  Millions of dollars!  Did away with the expiry date, doubled the amount that they will owe the taxpayers of this Province, and we say we are out of the business.  That is not the way it is.

Mr. Chairman, I do not support this piece of legislation, Bill 11, and I can assure you that it will not receive unanimous approval.  It will get passed.  Government members have the right to pass it.  They introduced the legislation and they have the numbers to put it through.  We are starting a very dangerous precedent.  We are starting to get right back to where we were before, propping up industries in this Province that then go out and compete unfairly with other processors.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will pass debate to another member.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few further comments on Bill No. 11.  I have said it before at length, I said to the ministers:  I do not agree with a bill that is in contravention to government policy.

Now, it is this government's policy - and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has said it before - not to prop up and subsidize fishing industries when there is an overcapacity in the industry.  In Bill No. 11, the very government that has said its policy is not to subsidize, turned around and gave a company that was paid more money last year than anyone else, had $1 million guarantee and now they want $2 million this year, a reward for doing that.  So what we are going to be doing - and it is not just this company and it is not the location.  That has nothing to do with it.  It is a basic, underlying policy, and the government is going against its own policy.

Today out there, there is overcapacity.  Industries have to be able to survive on their own.  Then we have ten of millions of dollars, I believe, of government money now gone in to SCB Fisheries Limited; another example.  It must be ten years since that started.  If you look at that, I bet it equals what went into Sprung Greenhouse, if you go back and calculate it.  SCB Fisheries Limited has received,  I would say, as much money as Sprung Greenhouse when you look back.

AN HON. MEMBER:  That was Peckford's proposal.

MR. SULLIVAN:  I do not care who proposed it.  I am just making a statement and I am saying to the Minister of Mines and Energy, I cannot see how the Minister of Mines and Energy or anybody sitting in Cabinet now would support a bill that is contravening government policy.  It contravenes your policy.  I do not know why the Premier would support a bill that is against his own government's policy.  I mean, it does not make sense.

If that is the case, you go out - and the minister said:  There are no government guarantees, they are going to stand on their own.  The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture said it before on many occasions.  I mean, to cut it off all of a sudden, I can have some sympathy.  A gradual phasing out and say to them:  It must be phased out.

MR. EFFORD:  It is.

MR. SULLIVAN:  One million last year and $2 million this year is phasing it out?  I say to the minister:  Minister, you better go back to school and do your math over again.  Going from $1 million to $2 million is increasing it, increasing a further dependency.  If there was $1 million last year - I mean, you do not want to push a company out of business right away if they have a guarantee.  You say to them:  Look, you have to get it down to 750 or 500 and we will phase it out in three years.  I mean that is giving them a little crutch to stand on until they are self-sufficient.  You cannot have propping up industries.  We have spent in the tens of millions of dollars in this Province on guarantees and companies then went under and we had to pick up the bill.  We have seen it.  I have seen it in my district, I have seen it all over the Province, and it happened with government guaranteed loans.

If you have an industry that is getting off the ground and getting people going but they do not have that capital there, they do not have the shareholder equity in their companies, at times you have to realize that we are moving in the wrong direction.  We only move in the direction in which it is politically wise to move - a contravention of our own policy.  The minister stood up and articulated the policy time and time again over the last number of years, back from the previous Premier right to this Premier and the government, and now they do something that breaks their own policy.  I mean, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong.  It should have been addressed last year.  They should have sat down and dealt with them, to assist them to be weaned off that support.

If I am out in business today and I go out and spend way more than anybody else - I saw it in the community in which I live, in Fermeuse, in a plant that is closed.  They have not had an operator in there to operate it, and $23 million or so in guarantees.  The people are paying a big price for that today for the simple reason - and I say to the Premier - your government policy is, you have indicated, the previous Premier and the minister have said it time and time again, that there is overcapacity, we are not going to be supporting industry.  And a company went out last year, Premier, and paid more than anybody else for crab, and this year they are back looking for a $2 million guarantee instead of $1 million because they found out they could not make money, they had problems and they need more money this year.  That is contrary to the policy of this government.

It is contrary to what the minister stated and what the government stated and I, fundamentally, do not agree with it.  With a company that was there and had a guarantee in place, I do not agree with cutting the legs out from under them right away.  You have to say:  Here is a period in which you can stand on your own two feet.  Let's gradually take away that crutch until you can operate.  If you can't do business and survive today in this Province without government support there is something wrong.  It is not a public utility that needs to be regulated and protected.  It is not a public utility, it is a competitive marketplace out there today.  I have heard the arguments that people use to support it and they are wrong.  There are people over there who agree with me.  There are many over there who agree with me; many, many people agree and that is basically a concern.

Now I have put my points on record, and I agree with it, I fundamentally agree with it.  I don't care who it happens to be,  I don't care if it is my father, my mother, my grandfather or someone's worst enemy.  I don't care who it is, principles are principles and policies are policies.  They should have a purpose and we should not be able to deviate from that.  So it is important, I might add, that we follow our policy, that we do what is right.  There comes a time when we have to get our nose out of business today.  We are interfering in the operation of business in the Province and it will be the decimation, I can tell you - mark it down, this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture will be responsible for setting back this industry in the long-term in this Province.  He will eventually, if he is there too long more, I say to the Premier, destroy the fishing industry in this Province.

CHAIR:  Order, please! 

                                     Resolution 

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a  bill consequent thereto, carried.

Motion, clauses 1 through 6 inclusive, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend the Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."  (Bill No. 11)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is agreement among all parties that we do an amendment to Bill No. 19, the Elections Act, and I believe the Premier is going to propose that amendment.

CHAIR:  The Chair will revert to Order No. 11, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," Bill No. 19.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, just to speak very briefly on Bill 19, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991," and that is to reference the fact that there has been, off and on over the last year, consultation amongst all parties on cleaning up, in essence, the Elections Act,  that that effort to consult amongst parties and the need to amend the act has really been very much accelerated by communication from the Chief Electoral Officer to me, and through me to members of the House, on the need to ensure that the act is presented in such a way as to be beyond question in terms of legal challenge, etcetera. Mr. Chairman, we put a proposal before the House, Bill 19, after consultation with all parties.

There has been further consultation directly amongst the party leaders, between myself, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.  After further consultation with respect to the question of fund-raising, as covered by the Elections Act, there has now been agreement that we in this Province, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with all party consent, should replicate, in essence, the federal election act, and that is to put in place similar measures for fund-raising and similar reporting mechanism and to depend upon fundamentally the notion of transparency of reporting amongst all parties to have an adequate system in place.

So after consultation with all parties in the House, I move that clause 6 of the bill is amended by deleting the proposed section in it, Section 294.1.  Mr. Chairman, I move that such an amendment be accepted as an all party consensus of the House.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I second the motion and the amendment put forward by the Premier here.  He is right, there has been much discussion.  My background with the Elections Act began in 1991, when I was not a member of the House but on the provincial executive of the party and was part of the group behind the scenes that worked with the Chief Electoral Officer at the time.

What eventually became the Elections Act that was passed in this House left much to be desired in the opinion of this member.  I think that the act that we have before us today clears any confusion or any unnecessary bureaucracy that was associated with the other act and sets forth, in a very forthright manner, the terms and conditions and the ways and means in which political parties and candidates must operate.

There are three fundamental principles that are in this act and the reason why I stand to support it: One, it is transparent; two, there is accountability; and three, it demands, unequivocally, full disclosure of activities by political parties, candidates and other entities.

For those reasons I support the amendment put forward, in terms of those three fundamental principles.  And I think, from the Chief Electoral Officer's point of view, that once this act is passed,  proclaimed and made law the governance of an election, and then the activities that each and every one of us have to go through thereafter, will become a little more streamlined, again less bureaucratic, but most importantly, always transparent, always accountable and full disclosure.

With that I will take my seat.

Thank you.

CHAIR:  The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did make some comments last night about the proposed section that we are now agreeing to delete.  I do not take them back.  The comments made last night had to do with the limits as they were proposed, and I felt that they were not designed to make our system more democratic but, in fact, were designed to favour those who might be persuaded to meet those contribution limits for particular parties, perhaps the governing party or incumbents, but not for others.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment which reflects and mirrors the federal act under which the New Democratic Party lives and agrees to, and in some places thrives, and in other places hopes to thrive in the not too distant future - we have accepted the way that the system works on the contribution limits.  The issue really is one of whether or not a political party or political candidate is seen to be dominated by one particular group of people or individuals or corporations based on open and objective reporting.

With the system as it existed - and I make the comment generally about the whole of the election act - there was quite a mishmash.  In order to find out what was going on in the last election you had to have three separate documents and figure out which sections were in force and which sections were not, particularly with respect to financial contributions and other operations of the act.  It was a real dog's breakfast, and I welcome the cleaning up of these provisions.

With respect to the financial contributions section, I will limit myself to that right now, and say that I am pleased we have been able to have further consultation so that we do not have a piece of legislation that seems to be directed at a particular group of people who can meet those contribution limits, but in fact is basically an act that leaves the matter, the same as the federal act does, to the electorate in determining what the appropriate level of contribution ought to be, in terms of support for a particular party.

I endorse the amendment introduced by the Premier with the consent of all party leaders.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I close my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

A bill,  "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991."  (Bill No. 19)

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 6 as amended, carried.

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

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):  Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY:  Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill Nos. 20, 21, 22, 33, 30, 25, 31 and 24 passed without amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. PENNEY:  Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill Nos. 28 and 19 passed with amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendments to Bill Nos. 28 and 19 read a first and second time, bills ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. PENNEY:  Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution, and recommend that a bill, Bill No. 11, be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.  

                                     Resolution 

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations."

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I call first reading of Bill 11.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, Order No. 23, "An Act to Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority." (Bill No. 32)

I would ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce it.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority".  (Bill No. 32)

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

MS KELLY:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I am very pleased, actually, to speak to Bill No. 32, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority". 

This a fine example of a private/public partnership.  This industry, the cruise ship industry in our Province, has been moving ahead in the last couple of years by leaps and bounds.  This is a new innovative way to have an authority put in place in which all of Newfoundland and Labrador will be involved.  Of course we must commend the association as it stands right now for the work they have done, in particular the City of St. John's and the port of St. John's.  Also included are Botwood, I understand, St. Anthony, Corner Brook, and other communities.

Of course now this year we have very exciting things happening.  For instance, the Bonavista Matthew will be launched on June 24.  At that very same time we will have a cruise ship in the port of Bonavista for four to five days.  That will greatly enhance their economy this summer.  This is a new innovative plan.  This industry has great potential in our Province, but in particular we want to add value to this industry.

We do not just want cruise ships arriving and their passengers coming in for a few hours.  While it is great for the retailers and the craft industry, we want to enhance that.  We want to have cruise ships home port in here, using the hotels.  We want the cruise ships to be taking on more fuel, to be doing catering.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MS KELLY:  No, we will not be blasting away the narrows, I do not think, but we have many, many ports very close to St. John's, for instance in the CBS area, where they can be accommodated.  All of our Province - the Labrador portion, around the coastline, and even inland communities - benefit from this.  For instance, in Terra Nova last year when a huge German cruise ship was off the shore in Terra Nova, they came into the park, but they came inland.  They had helicopter tours into the wilderness.  They came to Gander to see the Aviation Museum, and on and on.  This is of benefit to all of this Province.

MR. TULK:  It is a great bill.

MS KELLY:  It is a great bill. 

I would like to close by saying this is an incredible example of one of the best private/public volunteer partnerships that has ever been put together in this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH:   Just one very quick comment, Mr. Speaker.  I certainly  agree with setting this up.  I say to the minister, never mind blowing up the narrows in St. John's.  Any cruise ships you have, Minister, send them up to Conception Bay South and we will look after them for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN:  The cruise ships can come up to my district any time.  They will be well entertained, I tell the minister.  If they want to go further north, they can see the land of whales and icebergs and igloos and everything else, I say to the minister.  It can be a fantastic one.

MR. J. BYRNE:  Further south.

MR. SULLIVAN:  You do not get them south, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Igloos?

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Tourism has tremendous advantages, great potential here in the Province, and an authority set up to be able to run independently, like the Grand Concourse Authority we approved here in the House before...  I walked almost every part of that here in the city, from all over.  I walked around the Signal Hill Trail.  I walked right through Pippy Park until I came into a bog and had to turn around and come back.  They should be linked up eventually, I guess, when you go behind the Health Sciences area.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  What is the cartoon today?

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh.  I do not get to read the paper until about midnight, when I finish doing other work.  I cannot use the productive time of the day, wasting time, reading the paper.  I usually do that at midnight.

It is pretty unfortunate, you know, when you cannot get your picture in for any good news.  They say you have come of being when you get in cartoons.  That is what they say.  The only time we see the minister get in the paper is in the cartoons.

Oh, there is another picture here, look.  You have to get in this section, I say to the minister, not the cartoons.  You have to get in there.  Anybody can get in the cartoons.

AN HON. MEMBER:  You missed the point.

MR. SULLIVAN:  It is hard to miss that point, I would say.

Overall, the concept of this is basically to set up...  We need to do a promotion.  The minister was saying, in my district there is the East Coast Trail.  In fact for anybody who does not know, at the end of the next year, I guess, you will be able to go from Shoal Bay Road in the Goulds right along the sea coast right to Aquaforte on a completely finished and marked trail, except for one section, I think; next year they are looking at a suspension bridge - about $136,000 project - over the La Manche area.  I spoke with people recently who came back and did sections of the tour, even now when it is not even near the finished stage, and they said it is remarkable.

If you go down to Calvert North and walk the trail, you can go with a pair of sneaker boots along the cape there, one of the highest points off Cape Broyle, walk out and look out over the magnificent scenery.  So this year if anybody happens to get up in the area, there is a tourist chalet up in Witless Bay.  The tourist chalet was built through federal funding basically, but the East Coast Trail is under the SRDA, I think about $600,000.  The Minister of Development and Rural Renewal across the way was a very cooperative and important part of that, I must admit.  We give credit where credit is due.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation saw the benefit of that, too.  I am talking about the East Coast Trail now.  What they are going to do from Witless Bay, from the chalet end, there is approved - under a project - three students are going to take people out on a tour, like Witless Bay, and you can do the loop around into Mobile.

AN HON. MEMBER:  Who was the heavyweight champion?

MR. SULLIVAN:  John L. Sullivan was the heavyweight champion, a distant relative.  Actually, a relative of mine was a former champion, a distant relative, Shallow.

MR. J. BYRNE:  Was he shallow?

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, he was not shallow.  His opposition was; he was not. 

Overall, there are tremendous opportunities there.  With cruise ships it would be fantastic.  A colleague said:  Are they going to blast the narrows so they can come into St. John's?  Is Andy leading that  attack -

MR. J. BYRNE:  Oh, Andy is leading the attack.

MR. SULLIVAN:  - to get a cruise ship?

It would be a really positive thing to get people - I think the minister alluded, when I was speaking with her earlier, about the changing, that they could start here - the crew changeover and so on done through here - to bring people here to hotels for a few days would be tremendous.  It is a very passing business now if they come in.  They do spend a few dollars here, and it is significant, but many of the businesses do not get an opportunity to benefit by it because it is so short, and the real impetus to increase their business is not very pronounced at all.  We would certainly like to see something more sustaining, something on a longer basis.  If this will help it, certainly they have done a tremendous job on the Grand Concourse.  I have walked just about almost every part of this city, almost every walk along there.  You do not realize until you get out in the city, the trees, the rivers, the overall beauty.  You do not realize, there is a lot more than houses.  There is tremendous natural beauty and scenery in the city, too.

We can certainly support this bill in second reading.  That is one of the reasons, I guess, of the bill being available, to give leave to be able to deal with all readings here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Member for Signal Hill -Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak for a few minutes on this bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority".

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that in addition to establishing the authority here, which would involve a board of directors involving the municipalities in the area, in particular St. John's and perhaps Corner Brook, that we will hopefully attract some cruise ship liner to operate cruises along the Coast of Newfoundland out of these cities.  If that can be developed it will be a very positive thing.

I recall more than twenty years ago now going on board the Bonavista up the Coast of Labrador, and thinking what a wonderful cruise that would be for a tourism industry.  To go past the icebergs, to spend some several hundred miles going on that northern journey and being able to appreciate the beauty of the coastline, to be able to learn about the culture and the history and the archaeology of the whole area, meet the people, experience cultural events, as a tourist attraction, would be a tremendous thing.

On the West Coast of Canada we have the Inside Passage as a magnificent cruise tour up the Inside Passage of British Columbia inside Vancouver Island and up towards Alaska, a very big business for people wanting to experience that particular journey and go to Alaska on the cruise ships that go through there.

If that kind of business can be attracted to this Province I think it would be very positive.  I think it is perhaps a more positive thing than even having a cruise ship visit our ports.  I think that is sort of a one-day wonder here and there, and the impact of these visits is questionable from time to time.  I know we do talk about how much money might or might not be spent on a particular occasion, but actually having cruises operating out of this Province, which are actually touring this Province, not sort of a stop along the way of some cruise that is really going somewhere else and stopping into port for an afternoon or a day, but actually a cruise around the Province.

Out in Corner Brook you could have a Captain Cook tour of Newfoundland based on all kinds of themes related to our history and our geography and geology and our coastline, our fisheries, and in particular our Newfoundland culture.  On the East Coast certainly there are lots of places to go and see, and this kind of business would be most desirable.

There have been a lot of individual efforts by the City of Corner Brook and the City of St. John's which have proven somewhat successful in attracting some business, but it has been sporadic, it has been on a hit-and-miss basis, and it has not had the kind of consistency that we would hope to have to develop the business.

Where there is a significant interest being expressed by the private sector in the form of the Johnson Family Foundation, which i don't think is a secret, with government involvement, with the involvement of the communities that could benefit and be affected by this, I think it is a tremendous opportunity and I, for one, support this effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I move second reading on behalf of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave.  (Bill No. 32)

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

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

                      Committee of the Whole  

CHAIR (Penney):  Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I call Order No. 23.

A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority".  (Bill No. 32).

On motion, clauses 1 through 16 inclusive, carried.

Motion, that the Committee having passed the bill without amendment, carried,

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report all the progress in the world.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):  Order, please! 

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill No. 32 passed without amendment.

On motion, report received and adopted.  Bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I call third reading on Order 2, 3 and 4.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law", (Bill No. 28).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act". (Bill No. 20).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act". (Bill No. 21).

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

MR. TULK:  Loyola, which one do you wish to make comment on?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Oh, it does not matter (inaudible).  I can do it under (inaudible).

MR. TULK:  Could I move third reading on Orders 5 through 11 and you make whatever comment you need to make and then we will pass third reading on all of them?

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, that is fine with me.

MR. TULK:  Jack, do you have any problem with that?

MR. HARRIS:  (Inaudible).

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I call third reading on Orders 5 through 11, Bill Nos. 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, and 19.

Motion, third reading of Bill Nos. 22, 24, 25, 30, 31, 33, and 19.

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few comments.  I will ask the questions and maybe the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture might respond.  I will probably say it again when he comes in.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes.  I will have another comment on something just slightly different before he gets in.  Is he going to drop in?

I will talk about health care just for a minute.  I see the minister is out with a news conference this morning.  Rural Newfoundland - I guess the former minister contributed, and other people, to help decimate rural Newfoundland.

In fact one of the effects - it is kind of ironic and I will put it in perspective.  The 50 per cent cap that was brought in, I will just use that on fee-for-service, and what it has done.  In May of 1994 in this House, I said to the minister at the time, Dr. Hubert Kitchen:  Bringing in this cap is going to achieve an opposite effect to what you hope it is going to accomplish.  That effect was that hopefully with the 50 per cent cap in St. John's, doctors would go out to rural Newfoundland.  I said:  They will go, but not to rural Newfoundland.  They will go to Nova Scotia and all over the country, and outside the country.

What do we have?  Today, we have, depending -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, depending on what numbers you count.  Some positions are so long unfilled in rural Newfoundland they are not counting them as unfilled any more.  If you counted them all, there are up to eighty unfilled positions in rural Newfoundland because of the cap.  We said it would catch up in St. John's, and what is happening now in St. John's?

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:   Fine, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER:  I will take the questions and answer (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, as soon as I finish this topic, in a minute. I will just ask that on the record, and hopefully I will get a response somewhere along the way.

What has happened now, not only has it prevented doctors from getting into rural Newfoundland but it has taken its toll in St. John's; because as people die, retire and move out of the profession, others cannot come in.  So the doctors there now are starting to take on new patients from these other doctors, and they are getting so many patients and working hours now, the twenty doctors who were providing service to the nursing homes in St. John's were on call from Friday to Monday, sometimes every second weekend free, and not one cent.  They were going in and sitting down for hours on drug reviews.  There was consultation and multidisciplinary meetings.  All of this was done without one penny.  Even what they did get paid for was only about 80 per cent of the fee-for-service, when they did see a patient, what they could get in their own office.  What has happened now in the process?  It is starting to take its toll on St. John's and we are going to have a problem.

The minister today - I don't know what she said.  I did not get a copy yet.  I hope to read it when I get out of here, but I hear we are calling in the army now.  Bring on the army!  We are in the army now!  When I read it, it might be good.  I might support that when I read it, I don't know.  I have not seen any of the particulars yet.  I hope to get a little information package.  I am sure she will make sure I have a copy before the summer is over.  I am sure of that.  I am sure we will get a copy before the summer is over so I can at least comment on it by September.  We are going to bring in the army for rural Newfoundland now.

I wonder, is the army coming in now to keep down the frustrations of rural Newfoundlanders without the service, or to give medical service to rural Newfoundlanders?  That remains to be seen.  Anyway was it (inaudible) who said, `I'm in the army now.'?

I do have a question.  This is stupid now.  Just visualize what is happening.  The fishing industry, I was told by somebody yesterday - now we all know how the minister is so up on inspections and that is positive, but when you get duplication of things it is tedious and it is costly.  Here is an example:  Scallops that are brought in from the offshore fetch a fair price.  The buyers in the US will to take these, because there is no processing done; they are gone in their fresh state.  So what the provincial inspection is doing now, they have to take the bags, take them all out, pick out little pieces, put them back, and it is costing $1 a pound.  So fishermen are going to start getting $1 a pound less now because the provincial regulation is making them take them all out of the bags, put everything back in again, and fishermen are earning $1 less.  It is extra work on the people who are handling them.  It is utterly ridiculous.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, I should.  It is a point I had intended to make but I forgot about it when I was up before.  I told him I was going to make a point there but I did not realize he was going; he did not say.  But that is a point:  Why put an extra $1 a pound?  They are going to buy them in that form.  When you are handling fresh scallops, little pieces break off.  You could check them two hours later and little pieces are broken off again; but most of the products are willing to be brought, are willing to be paid for, and we are driving an extra cost in there.  It seems idiotic.  Can you imagine, it is costing an extra $1 a pound?  There is less for fishermen - the dollar.  The companies doing it have to pass it on to the fishermen in the process.  Some regulations are so stupid and idiotic.  I hope the minister comes up with a satisfactory explanation along the way because - to take them out, put them back in and send them on again.  There is no other process, no other handling.  You don't put them in different -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, I know what he will probably tell me:  Oh, we look at the grading, the size, and all of that.

If the market is going to buy them in that form, you can go to the market.  If you are going to say none of them are shipped out - they are still going out in the fresh state, because that is what the market dictates.

Anyway, I wanted to get that point on record.  I might follow up and talk to the fisheries critic, and a colleague of mine - I think he has gone to a news conference; no he is gone somewhere at the moment - and chat with him on it.  I think it is something that needs to be addressed.

That is my basic comment on that, because everything government does is not sensible.  Do not let anybody think that everything government does is sensible.  Sometimes bureaucracy and bureaucratic things, extra regulation, extra pain -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN:  Look, everybody here in this House of Assembly should be put out.  They should have to go and spend at least five years and work in business before they can come here, and get an understanding of how society operates.

AN HON. MEMBER:  Or a union.

MR. SULLIVAN:   Or a union, wherever.  Work for a business, work in a business, whatever it is.  Understand -

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN:   That is right.  Understand the aspects of it, at  least a certain amount.  That is why it is important there be balance in government, balance in Cabinet, people to represent, yes, the public, the union sector, people to represent the business industry sector.  We need a variety of inputs to be able to facilitate and get good legislation here, and not have things that are stumbling blocks for the people.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my comments on the third reading of these bills.

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

MR. J. BYRNE:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I want to say a few words on third reading of Bill No. 24, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act".

While I can support the changes to the Public Tender Act with respect to the registry of local manufacturing, where this all started from, and I think it is a good and positive thing - opportunity, accessibility and what have you - for local manufacturers, I want to be on record again in third reading and let the people know that I cannot support the changes with respect to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology having the latitude with respect to not requiring a public tender where, in the opinion of the minister, the work or acquisition is for an economic development purpose.  I cannot support that.  Another thing, there is no definition anywhere in the proposed changes for economic development.  I cannot support that.

I have problems also with these changes which will mean the government will not have to invite public tenders where, in the opinion of the head of the government funded body, inviting a tender would not achieve the best value.  Mr. Speaker, that is too much latitude again for an individual, and if it is that person's opinion, what is the opinion of the minister? 

People can be used here to put forward government's objectives and not necessarily what is the best objective of the people of the Province.  Also, with respect to the changes for extensions to award of contracts, again there is too much latitude, too much chance, Mr. Speaker, for government to bow to political pressures from people who may or may not have made contributions to any given government.  Basically, the proper wording on it is that it is an invitation for corruption.  That is what is going on.  Again, I will say the Public Tender Act was brought in, in the early 1970s by a Tory Administration.

MR. TULK:  (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE:  I will guarantee you.  But the problem is, if you are corrupt or the government becomes corrupt, any government, it is too late, it is after the fact.  There is money gone, people's money is spent.

Just like Trans City which is going to cost the people of the Province upwards of $40 million; that is where we are going.  It is basically going to legalize that type of thing where people cannot take the government to task, other than in an election.  It is too late then for the taxpayer.  That is the problem I have.

MR. SULLIVAN:  Are you going to use your half hour on all those bills?

MR. J. BYRNE:  Yes.  How many bills are there?

The other problem is that it will destroy fairness and accountability in public procurement.  I just want to be on the record, Mr. Speaker, once again, with respect to that Public Tender Act.  The minister cannot justify it in my mind.  He can rationalize it, but he cannot justify it.  I will be voting against the Public Tender Act amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to address the amendments to the Public Tender Act as well.

Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of having a Public Tender Act is pretty well known.  We had, in this Province, from the time of Confederation in 1949, a government that operated without a Public Tender Act and the provision of services to government, the roads, liquor licences, contracts of one kind or another - there were people who were known as government contractors.  So and so was a government contractor.  Government contractors got work on the roads and they got whatever work was to be done, whether it be buildings, roads, water and sewer projects or whatever.  They were given to government contractors.

Government contractors were those contractors who supported the party in power, made political contributions to that party in power, and in return received their rewards in the form of contracts.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Tender Act was brought in, I believe, in 1972.  One of the first changes that the new administration brought in after the end of the Smallwood era or regime was to put in place a Public Tender Act which was designed to impose fairness on the contracting system and to prevent corruption, to prevent favouritism of one contractor over another, to prevent the favouritism amongst contractors, and to achieve the best possible price for government; the people's money ought not to be spent unnecessarily, and that members of the public who were in the contracting business or wished to undertake work ought to have a fair shot at doing the people's work, paid for by the people, without having to kowtow to the political party which happened to be in government.  This is fairly basic stuff, Mr. Speaker.

When we see this government and its predecessor getting in trouble with the Public Tender Act as it exists and all kinds of convoluted rationales and reasons why, which they gave in this House for a year or more in answer to questions from the Opposition -  eventually it went to the Supreme Court and they were told they had violated the Public Tender Act and they had cost the people of this Province incredible sums of additional money that ought not to have been spent.  It was pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that the beneficiaries of the abandonment of the Public Tender Act in that particular case were people who are political supporters of the Liberal Party.  They were the beneficiaries.

The law was broken, and the people who had to pay the cost, not only of the original contract and the overruns that were associated with it, would have to go out and pay millions of dollars to the people who didn't get the contract.  It all came out of the public purse because the government had chosen to violate the existing Public Tender Act.

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS:  That is one contract.  On the contract that was granted that shouldn't have been granted, the overall cost to the people of this Province over time will be $30 million more than it would otherwise have been; $30 million dollars of public money because the government violated the Public Tender Act.  Not only did it cost the government more, the person who lost the contract who should have got the contract, according to the Public Tender Act, had to be paid several million dollars.  I think in the order of $3 million had to be paid to the party who lost the contract, because that was the profit that would have been made.

That also came out of the public purse, Mr. Speaker.  So $33 million at a minimum.  I think there was somebody else, another contractor, who was waiting in the wings to seek to collect as well, and I'm not certain what happened to that, whether that was settled out of court and how much money changed hands.  That was never made public.  So, Mr. Speaker, $33 million of public funds were wasted by the Liberal government because they violated the Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, if that $33 million was used to properly fund the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission we wouldn't have injured workers protesting outside the House today because they would be properly compensated.  If we had $33 million we could solve the child hunger problem in this Province.  If we had the $33 million that has been wasted by government under violations of the Public Tender we would be able to solve an enormous number of problems in this Province that are crying out for a solution.

We wouldn't have to bring in the army to solve the rural doctor problem.  I understand that is what is happening.  We would be able to find new ways of supporting public education in this Province.  We would solve the problem of forcing people into expensive private education.  We could fund Memorial University and provide free tuition for first-year students.  There are all kinds of uses for money.  Wasting it because government chooses to violate the Public Tender Act is not one that ought to be allowed to take place.

So what do we have now?  They weren't satisfied to violate the Public Tender Act.  Now they are prepared to change it so the same kinds of things can happen without it being a violation of the act; very simple.  When you are the government and you break the law and you get called to account for it, you come into the House of Assembly and you change the law so you can get away with it in the future.  That is what this government is doing, Mr. Speaker.  That is what this government is doing.  That is exactly what this government is doing.  They got caught breaking the law, so:  We will change the law so we can do exactly what we did before without it being a violation of the law.  Why?  Because we changed the law.  We made legal the kinds of violations that have cost this government and the people of this Province not only embarrassment but $33 million-plus.  That is what is happening here.

We are now being asked to make legal the very thing this government did and got caught out on doing, got taken to court for.  Convicted is not the word; got found out.  They got found liable for violations of the Public Tender Act.  Not only were they embarrassed by what they had to tell in court, they got discovered as having done it.

The same thing with the Murray Premises.  Another example of government violating the Public Tender Act, violating its contractual relationship with people they don't like by virtue of their political stripe, and got caught out for that.

That is what we have happening here, the provisions that allow the minister to use her discretion to declare something as an economic development project.  My God, Mr. Speaker, what could be excluded from that?  Whenever the government announces these projects, whether it is the building of hospitals or the increasing of public infrastructure, they are all development projects of one kind or another.  Would the building of the Trans-Labrador Highway be an economic development project?  What else is it?  It is designed to bring about economic development for the people of Labrador and for the people of this Province.  It is designed as part of the economic development of Labrador.

Is any housing development an economic development as it is increasing the economic well being of the people who are going to live in the houses and it is done for economic development purposes?  Public works projects, highways projects, building programs of government, all economic development activities, Mr. Speaker.  We can go further than that.  We can go to government purchasing.

MR. J. BYRNE:  (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS:  Well, let's use an example.  If the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation decided they were going to buy plastic bottles made in Newfoundland instead of plastic bottles made somewhere else, is that economic development?  I think it is.  It is economic development for the Province to have jobs here in Newfoundland - and they should buy them in Newfoundland, by the way.  They should buy them in Newfoundland but it should go to public tender.

MR. J. BYRNE:  No more level playing fields.

MR. HARRIS:  It should go to public tender.  So now the government has created not only loopholes, Mr. Speaker, these are provisions that you can drive a truck through.  You can drive a truck through these provisions, Mr. Speaker.  In fact, that is the aim of government here.  That is the design of government here.  They want to be able to play fast and loose with the public purse to favour those contractors and providers of services that they wish.  That is their intention, Mr. Speaker, and they have been caught out politically this time, on the record of this House, as to what they are doing.

It is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, what the intention of government is here, putting it on the table now, identifying exactly what government is up to.  Well obviously there is a connection between the Public Tender Act and electioneering.  There is an obvious connection with fund-raising and public tendering.  The old system, the Joey system - and I suppose not only the Joey system, he is not the only person to -

MR. J. BYRNE:  All governments are subject to (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS:  Well, John Crosbie talked about rewarding your friends and punishing your enemies as one of the things that governments do as part of the patriot system.  Reward your friends, punish your enemies, that is what the system is all about.  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of laws is to restrain that natural tendency.  The purpose of the Public Tender Act is to prohibit that kind of activity with the public purse, to prevent the public purse from being used to reward your contractor friends or your contributors by giving them fat contracts from government, whether it be procurement or contracts.

I am shocked that members opposite are prepared to support such legislation if they believe in an open democracy where fairness prevails, not just before the law, Mr. Speaker, equality of treatment before the law, but there must be equality of opportunity for people engaged in the business community.  I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the business community is not speaking out against this kind of loophole that the government is building into the system.  To what extent have they been cooperative on this project, Mr. Speaker?  To what extent have they been asked to go along with this because other things are being done by this government for the business community?  It is not a fair system, Mr. Speaker, when government can avoid its obligation on the Public Tender Act so easily with the flick of a pen, with the signature of a minister saying that, we think, in our opinion, we can get a better price without going through the Public Tender Act, or in our opinion this is an economic development activity.

There are very few things, Mr. Speaker, which could not pass mustard as being the opinion of the minister as to what is an economic development activity or not.  I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this provision is going to come back to haunt this government if they ever choose to use it.  It should not be there in the first place, Mr. Speaker, and I am opposed to it and I intend to vote against it.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act".  (Bill No. 22)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act".  (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial Preference Act".  (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act".  (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The Province".  (Bill No. 31)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act".  (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991." (Bill No. 19)

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 32, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority."  I understand we have leave to do third reading on that Bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:  Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Administrator has arrived.

MR. SPEAKER:  Admit His Honour, the Administrator.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS:  It is the wish of His Honour, the Administrator, that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER:  "It is my agreeable duty on behalf of Her Majesty's Dutiful and Loyal Subjects, Her Faithful Commons in Newfoundland and Labrador, to present to Your Honour a bill for the appropriation of Supply granted in the present session."

CLERK:  A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1999 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service.  (Bill No. 26)

ADMINISTRATOR (J. Gushue):  "In Her Majesty's Name, I thank Her Loyal Subjects, I accept their benevolence, and I assent to this Bill."

MR. SPEAKER:  May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK:  A bill, "An Act To Authorise The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province."  (Bill No. 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957."  (Bill No. 11)

A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law."  (Bill No. 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act."  (Bill No. 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act."  (Bill No. 21)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act."  (Bill No. 22)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act."  (Bill No. 24)

A bill, "An Act To Provide For Participation By The Province In An Intergovernmental Joint Purchasing Agreement And To Repeal The Provincial Preference Act."  (Bill No. 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."  (Bill No. 30)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Child Care Services In The Province."  (Bill No. 31)

A bill, " An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Pensions Act."  (Bill No. 33)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Elections Act, 1991."  (Bill No. 19)

A bill, "An Act To Incorporate The Cruiseship Authority."  (Bill No. 32)

ADMINISTRATOR:  In Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

His Honour, the Administrator, leaves the Chamber.

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

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House I would like, first of all, if I could, to thank the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader, for the way in which both of us have been able to work out the smooth running of this Legislature throughout this sitting.  I would hope that over summer we can get together, and maybe put together some changes in our Standing Orders that might indeed see the running of this House in a manner that would benefit the people of this Province, and indeed help members perform their duties in a better fashion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

MR. TULK:  I look forward to working with him on that over the summer and into the early fall.

I want to wish the Leader of the NDP, the Independent Member and all members of the House, on behalf of Government - I want to thank the staff of the Legislature and the staff of His Honour's Office, and, of course, His Honour for the way that he has helped us conduct this House this year, and to wish everybody a safe and a happy summer.   I suspect, before I move to adjourn there will be (inaudible) -

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

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too wish everybody a very enjoyable summer.  Make sure you take some time to go up and see the caribou herd on the Southern Avalon, boar tours, the East Coast trail, the Colony of Avalon, and many sights in my district.  I hope you get up and enjoy it.  The Southern Shore Folk Festival is in July.  You will be guaranteed to have entertainment.  Whatever type you want you will find it.

As the Government House Leader mentioned too, I have been an advocate, I have been on record in a news release before on the House, the structure and so on, and things that will facilitate dealing with business here in the House in as professional a manner as you can expect from politicians.  I will certainly be available to participate, Government House Leader, in anything that would help expedite business, a sound structure for business here in the House.

With that, I wish you all an enjoyable holiday.  Make sure that you do not call me in the first half of July anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER:  Don't call me, I'll call you.

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  No leave.

MR. HARRIS:  I say to hon. members, that is one of the changes that needs to be made to the rules of the House, to have a more civilized and less precarious kind of position.

We do, always, Mr. Speaker, need to thank the Officers of the House, the Table Officers, the Clerk, the Clerk of Committees, the Pages, our Commissionaires and our Sergeant-At-Arms for the work that they do in helping the place to operate as orderly as it does.  It does not always operate in a totally orderly fashion.  Democracy is supposed to be a bit of an unruly beast and that is manifested from time to time even in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.  Obviously we do have rules.  We are people of rules and not of brute force, and the rules of the House are there to be followed and to guide our business and in the end all members co-operate in achieving the democratic result that the people of this Province want.

I want to thank all of the Officers of the House, the officials of Hansard who record our words and all those who make our work easier.  I would like to join in wishing all hon. members a productive, useful and happy summer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:  The Chair would also like to add his comments here, to say that I wish all of the members of the House, the people in the Clerk's Office, the Hansard Division, the Library, our Pages, as well as our Sergeant-At-Arms and our Commissionaires who have worked diligently over the last few months, a very pleasant and enjoyable summer.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward the following adjournment motion because, depending on what happens in the Province, it might very well be necessary - and I think the Opposition House Leader has already been apprised of this by the Premier - that it might be necessary to call this House back sooner, rather than later, for certain things that are ongoing in the Province.  I think there was a discussion yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I put the following motion:  That when this House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.  The Speaker or, in his absence from the Province, the Deputy Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and dates stated by the notice of the proposed sitting, and I also move that this House now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.