June 2, 1998                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIII  No. 37


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to take a few moments to remind hon. members that this is National Transportation Week across Canada. The theme for Transportation Week 1998, `Transportation - Canada's Natural Resource', reflects the importance of transportation infrastructure to our nation's economy and economic growth and development.

Just prior to the start of Transportation Week, I had the opportunity to meet with my federal and provincial counterparts to discuss various items of concern. One of the key agenda items was the establishment of a national highway policy. The proposed national highway policy identifies the need for federal/provincial partnerships to work towards developing a transportation infrastructure which supports commerce and trade activity throughout Canada.

I am pleased to report that discussions on the establishment of a national highway policy were very productive. All ministers endorsed, in principle, the establishment of a broad investment strategy for our highways. Mr. Speaker, all ministers agreed to meet later this year to further pursue this initiative, following a final report on the state, condition and investment needs of the national highway system.

The ministers also discussed safety standards, the need to harmonize regulations governing various aspects of the trucking industry, and the development of a transportation component of a national climate change strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation network of highways in Newfoundland and Labrador is an essential part of this Province's past, present and future economic growth and development. This year we are seeing just how important this transportation infrastructure is to the Province. In this fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, more than $108 million in road construction projects will be tendered, the largest ever road construction program in the history of the Province. As of today, Mr. Speaker, we have awarded contracts for thirty-eight projects with a dollar value of more than $66 million. This translates into about 660 direct jobs and 462 indirect jobs. Investment in roads also results in decreased travel times and lower maintenance costs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat.

I want to read two sentences, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to report that discussions on the establishment of a national highway policy were very productive. All ministers endorsed, in principle, the establishment of a broad investment strategy for our highways. Mr. Speaker, all ministers agreed to meet later this year to further pursue this initiative...

A statement for the sake of a statement; the minister is desperate for media attention. Maybe he should trade places with Jim Furlong and start (inaudible) `a little good news'.

The minister talks about 660 jobs, seasonal jobs. I say to the minister: Where are the permanent jobs that this Province needs to stop the out-migration? Let us do something about the permanent jobs, I say, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I want to update Members of the House of Assembly on the activities of one of the strategic initiatives undertaken by the Department of Development and Rural Renewal. The Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation was incorporated in January, 1997, to spearhead development of the local film and video industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) good news.

MR. TULK: I must say that the Minister of Mines and Energy at that time, I believe, was the minister of that department. I like to give credit where credit is due.

The intent is to diversify the economic base of the Province and generate long-term employment benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speak, the film and video industry clearly offers significant economic and employment possibilities for the people of this Province. Film and television productions are labour intensive, with approximately 60 per cent of a project's budget being spent in salaries and fees for workers.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation is: to support, assist and develop the growth of the private sector film and video industry using sound business principles in the areas of funding, marketing, promotion and infrastructure development; and, secondly, to promote the Province within the worldwide film and video industry as a location for film, video, television and commercial productions.

Mr. Speaker, one of the ways the provincial government is supporting the activities of the Newfoundland and Labrador Film Development Corporation is by introducing a telefilm tax credit. The tax credit will be an important tool in attracting investment to this sector, targeted by the government as an economic and employment growth opportunity. In Nova Scotia a similar program helped increase the size of the industry in that province from $15 million to $50 million in just two years. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has tabled enabling legislation on this tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, the Corporation has been active in promoting the Province in the telefilm industry. The Corporation has coordinated scouting visits by senior officials of various companies in the industry. The Corporation participated in Location '97 and Location '98 in Los Angeles as well as several other industry gatherings and trade shows.

Mr. Speaker, a good example of the kind of productions being attracted to this province is a joint Canada-Norway movie project tentatively entitled "Misery Harbour". The story is based on the novels of Danish/Norwegian writer Axel Sandemose, and portrays the adventures of a teenage boy in the early 1900s who boards a schooner in Oslo, and sets sail for Newfoundland where he jumps ship. This is a bedtime story for you. Shooting for the production will take place in Scandinavia -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - Tilting on Fogo Island, Gander, and St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, there are other examples I could elaborate on such as The Devine Ryans, Dooley Gardens, or Extraordinary visitor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Excellent.

MR. TULK: When are you going make a statement yourself.

Mr. Speaker, in fiscal 1995/96 and 1996/97, five productions occurred in the province which resulted in total project expenditures of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - of $3.3 million in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fiscal 1997/98, the first year of the Corporation's mandate, there were 22 projects completely or partially produced in Newfoundland and Labrador with total production expenditures of $9.7 million in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, early indications are encouraging for this coming year as well. In the first two months of fiscal 1998/99, four productions have been confirmed with total project revenues of almost $7 million. Eight additional projects are also under development, which if pursued, could bring total production costs up to $16 million for this year. And we are just three months into this fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, at this rate, total industry investment associated with Newfoundland and Labrador for fiscal 1998/99 will far exceed previous years. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are on the right track in growing this relatively new industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all going to be in Misery Harbour, boy.

MR. TULK: We will all be in Misery Harbour, yes.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement today.

As I read through it and listen to the minister speak about it, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the film industry and what it can produce in this part of the world, especially with the unique settings we have around this Province. We have seen some things in the past, Mr. Speaker, The Rowdy Man, A Whale for the killing and so on. We can name some more in Petty Harbour and those areas of the Province. There is no doubt that there is potential for growth. Misery Harbour, the newest film about to come to the Province, has potential also.

The tax credit that he talks about, we assume that will be a step in the right direction. I want to see more specifics on that, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to the film industry, there will be no shortage of actors in this Province to partake in the film industry. I am sure as they go around this beautiful Province of ours they will find good settings, and I am sure if we get one in it will be a catalyst for other films that may come to the Province, Mr. Speaker. So we look forward to seeing more films develop in this Province over the summer months and into the next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. The hon. member does not have leave.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. On July 17, 1993, your department imposed a 50 per cent cap on doctors' fees in the St. John's area and over the next ten months it was extended to other centres here in the Province, by May 16, 1994. In fact, in December, 1994 your department received the final report and the long term committee recommendations by PRAG, that's the Physicians Resource Advisory Group.

I ask the minister: Why, after five years, have you done nothing to address this policy?

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

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

Since I have been minister, just a little over a year, the member opposite would know that I have gone public and said that I do believe in the lifting of the 50 per cent rule, not only for St. John's, but in fact that it not be applied to the other parts of the Province where in fact it can be applied in some regions. However, I have also said and I have been consistent about this, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that needs to be resolved at the bargaining table, and it is currently at the bargaining table. If the member has done the research he will know that the physicians are still at the bargaining table and they are meeting again, if I understand correctly, this week.

So that issue is resolved because it involves not only the lifting of the rule, but as I have said many times publicly, it also involves other services around that issue. For example, the provision of services to long term care facilities and keeping our emergency room staff, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have done my research. I think the minister should do hers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Back on November 15, 1994 the Chair of that committee wrote the deputy minister of the department, the co-Chair of the Joint Management Committee; and the recommendations are in that report, Minister. I would ask you to go back and read them. It is backdated November 25, 1994.

Now your department hoped that limiting doctors in urban areas of this Province would address the rural shortage of doctors, so we will have more doctors to fill those positions out in rural areas of the Province.

On May 19, 1994 I raised that fear, that this disincentive you are putting on - and it's in Hansard, May 19, 1994, if you want to refer to it, and the minister's response - will have the opposite affect to which it is intended. I might say to the minister, the results since that speak for themselves.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that there are now more unfilled positions in rural Newfoundland today than there were then, I ask the minister: Will you now finally do the correct thing, will you lift that cap, and will you stop driving young, new, highly trained Newfoundland doctors out of this Province?

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

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

The issue of physician resource management is an issue of concern for physicians right across this Province, and governments and boards right across this country. Mr. Speaker, we are working with the physicians to try to find a solution to this. As I have said previously, it is an issue that is being discussed at the bargaining table as we speak. We have asked that that try to be resolved in that forum.

Mr. Speaker, if the member did his research, he would also know that at the time government did put forward the 50 per cent rule it was in response to a request from the Medical Association, which at the time believed there would be serious out-migration from Ontario to Newfoundland, and many feared for their positions. The situation has certainly changed since then, and that is why we are working with the physicians, not through the media, not through the grandstanding, but through the proper forum to try to address those issues.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister what she is saying now. Are you saying that the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association doesn't support these recommendations that were laid out there and that they don't want the cap lifted? Could the minister clarify that for me?

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

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

Had the member been listening when I answered his question he would have heard "at the time," at that particular time. I also went on to say the situation has since changed and we are all very much aware of it. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the issue was around at that particular time, dealing with the situation in the St. John's and St. John's surrounding areas. That was one of the main reasons why, in fact, that rule was put in place, although it does apply to the whole Province if, in fact, the oversupply issue is raised.

That was the point I made, that at the time it was done at the request of the NLMA. Since then, and I state it again for the third time, the situation has changed. We are very much aware of it. The NLMA are aware of it and they have asked us to address it, and we are doing that under the auspices of collective bargaining through negotiations as we speak, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have to put this in perspective. On July 17 of 1993 the physicians, the Medical Association, agreed because they were told it would be for a six-month period until a long-term solution could be worked out, Minister. That was five years ago. In the report that followed, within a year of that specific cap, it laid out exactly where they stand on this issue, and that went to your department, by physicians, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now will you now clarify for me when you were notified, when your department was notified, that the Medical Association no longer supports a cap?

It is my understanding, Minister, it was only the six-month period from July of 1993 until the final report came down. If it is any different, I would like the minister to tell us here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am giving no other impression but the truth and that might be difficult for some to accept. That is the impression I give because those are the facts from which I am speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I have said on the last two occasions on which I have stood to answer the same question that we are aware of the problem, the physicians are aware of the problem, the boards are aware of the problem; but, Mr. Speaker, unlike some people, we try to use the proper forum and within the proper realm of context, which in this case is collective bargaining through negotiations.

Now I know the member opposite would like to grandstand and go through the media, or do whatever he can to get his picture in the paper. Mr. Speaker, this is too important. It is not about just lifting the rule, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I cannot make those decisions off the cuff. I will say that I will work with the physicians and the boards because we are looking at providing a full range of services.

On one hand, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite wants to have everything out in rural Newfoundland that we possibly can, and I totally agree with that, but we need to be responsible. We cannot agree with everything we hear until we look at the information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this rule applies to all areas of the Province although it is currently imposed only in the St. John's area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have to act responsibly. We have to get all of the information and we have to use the proper forum; and that forum, for the fifth time, Mr. Speaker, is collective bargaining at the negotiating table.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister has missed the boat. I am talking about the cap in St. John's. My questions are not on that. The 50 per cent cap, Minister, has created a whole new set of problems here in St. John's. Today, due to practising doctors in St. John's retiring -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister: Minister, in light of the fact that this cap has created problems in St. John's, and in your own district, on July 24, a practice with five doctors will be closing, others have closed, and people cannot have access to the care they need right here in the City of St. John's because of your policy, I ask the minister: What are you going to do to ensure that sick people here in this city can have normal, appropriate access to medical services that they are being denied now because of closing practices, and doctors retiring and leaving the Province, because of this cap that has brought on this whole new set of problems?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-i-o-n-s, negotiations. That is where it is being addressed, that is where it is being discussed, and that is how it will be handled, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just recently a doctor passed away, leaving many of his patients looking for a family doctor. Five doctors are now going to be vacating Ropewalk Lane in the St. John's Centre district, and I am receiving numerous complaints from elderly people who cannot have adequate access to a family doctor.

Minister, I am simply asking you: What are you going to do to address this problem that you created on July 17, 1993 by this government?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to state that when this physician passed away - and I acknowledge the type of work that this physician has done - he had a very large, elderly practice. He was a physician, Mr. Speaker, who provided house calls and that is something that is very difficult to replicate today because many physicians do not provide that service. Those patients have been calling my office and we have been giving them names of physicians who are still accepting clients and patients onto their roster, Mr. Speaker. That list has been put in place and updated. We are answering the calls as they come in, Mr. Speaker.

I will say it again: This issue is being dealt with through the negotiation process. We are as anxious as everybody else to try to do it. Mr. Speaker, this round of negotiations -

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't believe that for a moment.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, the Health critic, may not believe it but truth is an interesting component of a question. The reality is, and the truth is, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: However, the truth is, that is an issue that is on the bargaining table. Maybe he would like to ask the people at the table what they are discussing if it is not an issue; because I will tell him, for what it is worth in his books, it is a topic at the negotiations of the physicians that are currently under way. That is the forum in which they discuss that issue along with salary, along with coverage, along with clustering models - a whole different array of issues - and that is where it is being dealt with.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the Minister of Health and Community Services and they are in my capacity as Status of Women critic.

One of the most common and debilitating diseases among women in this Province is arthritis. It causes great pain and great disability, but fortunately the diseases are now treatable and its progression can be halted or prevented through new clinically proven medications.

A physician treating arthritis called an Open Line program this morning to express her outrage that this drug, like the drugs for multiple sclerosis, is not covered by the Province despite its proven role in preventative medicine and pain control.

Will the minister explain why she has chosen to deny many of this Province's women a drug that has been proven to ease their suffering and halt the progression of this debilitating and costly disease?

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

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

I did not have an opportunity to hear Open Line today to hear the components around the question but what I will say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I had other things.

What I will say is that, as I answered yesterday, when the federal government approve drugs, they approve drugs on the basis that any drug is better than a placebo. They do not compare drugs and do comparative analysis based on other similar types of drugs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this only adds credibility to the whole component of what was raised yesterday. The Member for St. John's West raised an issue about arthritis; the Member for Ferryland raised an issue about a drug for multiple sclerosis; and perhaps other people should stand and raise questions about new drugs for schizothymia, new drugs for diabetes, new drugs for cancer, Mr. Speaker.

It is about choice, and it is easy to be in the Opposition and say, pay for it all. You know, Mr. Speaker, if we had the money we would love to pay for all of it and more besides. But we have to factor in the information we have, make the choices that we have to make based on the financial needs and all the other clinical symptomatology, and that is how we are making our decisions on that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I say to the minister, we will never get a cure if we take that attitude.

Now yesterday in this House you said: We rely on the experts for our information and stand by the recommendations that they will make to us.

Now this doctor who was on this morning is an expert in her field. She is outraged. What prompted her call to the Open Line program was the response on multiple sclerosis. She was drawing a parallel to the drug for osteoarthritis. She said that she had tried to get an interview with the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: When will the minister start getting with the times and admit that there is a two-tiered health system: one for the people with private medical insurance and one for those who do not have, which includes a large number of our senior women?

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

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

I do not profess to be an expert on arthritis but I do know that the drugs are not a cure - and I think the member needs to be aware, it is not a cure - it is a treatment. There are hundreds of treatments, and perhaps the best treatment is prevention. I know that is only a part of the issue, but I will say that again we have $50 million that we provide in our drug program. If you are considering a two-tiered system there is an option of providing no drugs, I guess, or eliminating a whole lot of other programs to do nothing but provide drugs.

The list goes on. We are supposed to do extensive expansion of all the types of services in the Province, we are supposed to enhance all the professionals, we are supposed to increase the numbers of all professionals, we are supposed to add all the new drugs. At some point someone has to be a bit responsible and look at all of the issues that are out there and make the choices. The choices are not easy. It is easy if you are on the other side because you can say: Do everything. However, we have to live within a budget, and a $50 million budget, I will add.

We do provide a lot of drug coverage to the people of this Province; but as the member said, yesterday it was Betaseron, today it is the drugs for arthritis. What about the drugs that we are also looking at for diabetes? What about those? Is there anyone there who would support those drugs? What about the drugs for cancer? What about the schizophrenia drugs that are just new on the market?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I ask the question. It is about choices, and it is about decisions, and it is about the financial -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the minister to finish her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - ability that we have to pay, Mr. Speaker, for those services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: We are talking here about a group of people who are not politically powerful and largely marginalized.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: Open line is not the clinic. Open line is because she could not get an interview with the minister or deputy minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: I ask the minister: Does she remember speaking at a forum on women's health, which I attended last year, and preaching about government's new emphasis on preventative medicine? Why is it, when she gets an opportunity to put her money where her mouth is and help prevent costly, debilitating diseases on our most vulnerable women, the minister, on whose shoulders these decisions rest, chooses instead to close the door in their face?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: One question is: Does the minister remember speaking at a women's health forum last year preaching about preventative medicine? That is a question, does she remember? The second question is: Why is it that when she gets an opportunity to put her money where her mouth is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: - and it is on her shoulders that these decisions rest, that she chooses to close the door in these people's faces?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it barely demands a response because I believe it is, again, another form of grandstanding. I really do believe.

I was at that meeting, and I take prevention very seriously. As a matter of fact, that is why this government this year has put $12 million of new money into programs for prevention and early intervention. Arthritis does not apply to people in low-income families or the poor. Unfortunately, arthritis and osteoporosis can be seen in all aspects of our society. I suspect many people in this room today are suffering from many of those symptoms and have the same sorts of problems.

What I will say is that yes, we are committed to prevention. I think the point needs to be drawn very clearly. Yesterday they wanted the money for multiple sclerosis for new drugs. Today they are asking for arthritis. Tomorrow it will probably be diabetes or schizophrenia. It is easy to stand there and ask for all of it; however, we have to go on the best information we have, and we have to function from within our budget. We will continue to make responsible positions and statements, and we will continue to support the concept of prevention. I believe we have done that, not only through our Budget but through the new program areas and through an added commitment to our community health boards -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - of an extra $2 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions relate to the issue of teacher pensions, and are directed to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

For some time now government has been discussing with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association the issue of funding of the teachers' pension plan. I ask the minister: Could he please give this House and the public at large an update on the status of these discussions and negotiations?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This has a rather sad history. When I became Minister of Finance in 1995, I negotiated for about a year and a half, until the spring of 1997, when we finalized an agreement, a Memorandum of Understanding with NLTA. They had it approved by their District Presidents' Association and it never went to a vote. Afterwards, last fall, they went back with a much less - let me put it this way, a much more modest proposal to their members, who instructed them by a vote of approximately 60 per cent not to negotiate with government.

Since that time we have been at the bargaining table and we have raised the issue again. We have had several meetings over the most recent period of time, in the last week or two, and we are attempting to move it towards resolution. As of yet we do not have an agreement on what, if any changes, might be enacted to preserve the integrity of that pension plan.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government's obligation to the plan and to other plans creates a significant liability on the future revenues of this Province. Recently I raised the issue in relation to HST and Term 29 revenue reductions.

I would ask the minister: Would he please indicate what he anticipates the annual contribution to plans will be in the next fiscal year as it relates to prior financial obligations?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is a matter of discretion for government to determine at this stage. Government has a portion of the liability under both the PSPP and the Teachers' Pension Plan. The more critical issue is, what if anything, at this point, the teachers, in particular, are prepared to do to alleviate the liability.

The pension plan runs out of money in the year 2003 and subsequent to that, in the following year, we will probably have to find about $120 million or so to pay the pensions due in that year and increasing thereafter. It is a problem that we cannot let go on forever. We will put money into all our pension plans over the next several years, but, at this point, I am not prepared to say what that amount will be.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The concluding of the Teachers' Collective Agreement appears to be delayed due to the inability of the government to conclude a satisfactory arrangement on the financing of the pensions issue. Teachers will now see another school year conclude without a collective agreement, when most other public servants have settled these issues.

Is the minister concerned, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this will have a detrimental impact on the quality of the educational experience since it must decrease teacher morale?

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

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that concern. The whole issue surrounding pensions has a long history of us trying to negotiate with the NLTA, a fair sharing of the burden for both parties failing to contribute properly to a pension fund where the amount invested over the years did not take into account the benefits to be paid. It is certainly not the government's fault. We have actively pursued it, and to be frank, the executive as well has often times - not always - been cooperative in trying to move it to conclusion. Unfortunately they have not been able to enlist all their members in a solution, and to date have not been able to enlist the majority of the members.

I agree with the member. I think that a solution should be found in the near future. That is one of the reasons we are working to see if we can negotiate it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour concerning the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission.

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 the government responded quickly to what was a majority report recommending a decrease in benefits. Now, we have a unanimous report of the committee which recognizes that injured employees were no more responsible for causing the unfunded liability than employers, and notes the out-pouring of human misery that the board heard as being the best indication available of a compensation system unbalance, and contributed to the increased personal financial ruin -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when the committee unanimously recognized the long-term injured workers -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when the committee recognized the human harm and misery caused by this system, why didn't the minister accept the recommendations of this committee to refocus and rebuild that system and repair the damage being caused to injured workers by increasing the benefit levels? Why didn't he do that?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is exactly what we have done. We looked at the committee, and as the financial situation improves in the commission itself, we will pass on these benefits to the injured workers. That is exactly what we have done in this particular report, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Why, Mr. Speaker, when the committee unanimously, including the employer representative and the independent representative, recognized it was unjust and unreasonable to take back the CPP, claw it back from the workers, Mr. Speaker, did the minister refuse to recognize the unanimous recommendations of his committee, and why did he go to someone else looking for advice, instead of the committee that the government itself appointed to deal with this problem?

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

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have done with the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission Statutory Report, is maintained the financial prudence of the commission and dealt with the workers' benefits with what the commission could afford at this particular time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why did the minister and his government refuse to legislate a duty to accommodate injured workers, when the report of the Statutory Review Commission acknowledged and said that, in 89 per cent of the cases where there was an ease back to work program, there was a success rate in getting people off the program? Why wouldn't the minister accept that recommendation, and instead accepted the minority report of the employer representative, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will enhance the duty to accommodate, and at that particular time, working with the employers and employees groups, will ensure that at the end of the day we will benefit the injured workers and the employers as well.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

A couple of days ago I asked the minister some questions regarding the recent decision by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reduce the cod total allowable catch to 3000 metric tonnes in area 4Rs,3Pn and to allow Quebec a greater share of turbot allocation in 4R,4S,4T; the Gulf Area; a greater share than fishermen from both Provinces, Quebec and Newfoundland, had agreed to.

As the minister is well aware, those fishermen are now occupying government offices on the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula, to bring attention to their frustrations in dealing with this particular issue.

I ask the minister: As the provincial representative of this industry, if he has met with those fishermen or if he has met with the federal minister responsible for this industry in Newfoundland?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions last week, Thursday and Friday, and on Monday, which was yesterday, I had conversations with people on the West Coast, in particular the representatives of the union out there, on this issue.

As late as yesterday afternoon, at 1:30, I had discussions with different individuals involved in the demonstration. I have had discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and we are on record as writing the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and stating the Province's position very, very clearly. There will be a meeting tomorrow afternoon in Ottawa between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and representatives from the fisheries groups out there who are concerned about both issues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, you are correct. It is my understanding that representatives of those fishermen will be travelling to Ottawa tomorrow, Wednesday, in order to meet the federal minister.

Will you, Minister, be going to lend your support to those groups of fishermen in putting your case forward and our case forward, so that we might see this change brought about positively?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not be travelling to Ottawa with that group of people because they prefer - and they have said this quite clearly in discussions that we have had with them - that they go to Ottawa and sit down with the minister. We have made the Province's position very, very, very clear to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in writing and by telephone, and at the same time we have requested a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on those issues and other issues.

So, DFO and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada know very well the Province's position and so does the group affected by the decisions on the West, Southwest and North Coast of the Province. Everybody is in full agreement on the proper procedures to take place.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

 

Petitions

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise today to present a petition to the House of Assembly regarding cuts to the number of teaching units in St. Anthony Elementary School for the 1998-1999 school year.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

We, the parents of St. Anthony Elementary School children, draw your attention to the following;

The proposed reduction of 2.64 teaching units in the 1998-1999 school year at St. Anthony Elementary is unacceptable. The teacher - student ratio is such that young children in primary grades, during one of the most influential periods of a child's development, are unable to receive the attention they require and deserve. We are particularly concerned about both Kindergarten and Grade I class size. We recommend staffing so that Kindergarten would have a maximum of fifteen children in a class, and Grades I, II and III have a maximum of twenty children in a class.

The reductions also have a negative impact on our French, Physical Education, Music and Learning Resources Programs. Smaller schools in this area have been closed because of the recent restructuring and these children have been sent to St. Anthony Elementary with the promise of better programs. These very programs, that were used to get children here, and so allowing smaller schools to be closed, will be severely affected in quality by the proposed cuts. Coupled with the busing and larger class sizes, the quality of education for these children will be worse instead of better.

It is the right of every child to receive an education that is competitive, challenging and rewarding. This will not occur if these cuts are implemented.

We, the parents of St. Anthony Elementary School children, ask for your support, to alleviate the devastating affects these cuts have on our school.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by a large number of parents who attended a meeting I was present at in St. Anthony on May 20. Since then the petition has been circulated in the community and it is arriving in various components. Today we will present the first of a number of petitions.

Mr. Speaker, when I was in St. Anthony a week or so ago I attended a public meeting called by the parents. They are very concerned about the reform process and what it has meant to the children of that particular community. As members will know, school District #2 closed eight schools last year. They are proposing to close another three this year. Parents in the St. Anthony area and surrounding communities have agreed to bus their children longer distances, they have agreed to give up some of their community schools. However, they did that on the premise that there would be better programming for their children. However, what they have found out is that the promised improvements in programming have not occurred. In fact, in the next school year their programming will be compromised beyond what it is in this school year.

Mr. Speaker, the parents of St. Anthony are pleading with the government to come up with a sensible formula for teacher allocation that ensures that their children will receive equal opportunity and equal access to educational programs and educational facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the House that when the parents spoke at the meeting - and they came to the microphone in great numbers. I remember the comments of a medical doctor who said at that meeting, if his children had to have a lesser quality of education then he would have to re-examine whether or not he was prepared to continue to practice in that northern community. Mr. Speaker, when we have that kind of an impact on families, we know where that doctor is coming from. There were several doctors who spoke, and they said the concerns they had concern their children and the programming to be offered in the school system.

Mr. Speaker, there are cutbacks in music, art and physical education. Parents were saying that, no, they don't want to have those compromises made if it means their children are not going to have the same kind of access that other children in this Province would have.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. House that we have had some discussion between the school district and the minister relative to coming up with a new formula for the district called District #2, Northern Peninsula/Labrador South. We know that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

We will have another opportunity on another day.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise and support the petition presented by the Member for Waterford Valley on behalf of the people at St. Anthony and the people in the district school area.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago the people in the St. Anthony region underwent significant change in education reform. They saw schools within their region close, they saw children being bused from their community to a larger school within the region, and they let that happen all on the premise that their children were going to a school that would be able to provide them with a better education, a more efficient curriculum, and be able to provide them for what comes after elementary and primary.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen. District 2 fulfilled its mandate to education reform. They moved children, they closed schools, they tightened the education gap in order to be able to provide these children with a better education. What is happening is that one year later this school is having to endure cuts in teacher allocations that are affecting the quality of education and the curriculum options that it is able to provide.

Now, Mr. Speaker, obviously this is not just and it is not right. The parents there committed to a process and now that process is being pulled out from under them. District 2 has been hardest hit by this reform within the Province to date. Mr. Speaker, they have pioneered the process. They have made the appropriate changes. They have closed a number of schools. They have bused children from one end of the school district to the other. They have, wherever possible, tightened their belts on education.

I think this is certainly not the end of this issue. Today we hear from the people of St. Anthony. Last week we heard from the people of Red Bay, of Williams Harbour. There have been protests all throughout this district right from Hawkes Bay, Plum Point, over in Conche, and all the areas that are affected, and the parent committees in that area have been very active. They realize that they have tolerated and did their part under education reform, and now it is time for the Department of Education to do their part, Mr. Speaker.

These allocations to small schools, while they are working in some cases, are not working in all. I think we have to assess each case individually. I think we should commend District 2 for the tremendous job those people have done in tightening the education system and trying to make it more effective in that area. At the same time we have to provide them with the tools to be able to carry through the process, and the tools here, Mr. Speaker, are the teachers in the classroom. There is no way you can continue to operate a school of any scale when you continue to downsize curriculum, double up classes, triple classes, cut programs in physical education and music and so on.

It might be interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in District 2, out of all the schools that are there, there is only one music program that is presently going to be offered in September, and that is probably the only district in the Province with something like thirty schools that would have that particular cut in their curriculum. Obviously, the parent committees themselves have organized themselves around this issue. They have discussed it jointly from one community to the other.

On Saturday they will hold another meeting in Flowers Cove where they will bring in all the parent committees from Labrador, from the Northern Peninsula and the St. Anthony area, because they know as parents what this means to their children. They know it is affecting the quality of education they are receiving. We are not talking about a phenomenal change here. We are just taking about little changes that could be made. A teacher put in here or there to be able to fill those extra programs and to provide that kind of service to the school and to the children could be done very easily.

I do not think it is right to continue to go back to the board and ask them to make adjustments, to make cuts, and to continue to look where they can find these teachers and put them in these other positions because it cannot be done. Like any situation, Mr. Speaker, there is only so much you can do. This board has done everything it can within its means. The parents know that, the students know that, and they know that if they do not make these changes now, these changes are not going to happen.

We are getting near the end of the school year. We have to see some changes for District 2 before the children finish up for this year. There is too much uncertainty for them to carry over the summer. Parents do not know what the system is going to entail for their children come September.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, I was -

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed that we revert to petitions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, by all means.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, the subject of which is the grazing of domesticated animals on the Gooseberry Islands with the subsequent damage, desecration and indignities to graves and grave sites on these islands.

Hon. members will know that the Gooseberry Islands are two islands directly north of the Eastport Peninsula, well up into Bonavista Bay, very close to St. Brendan's. These two islands together are known as the Northern Gooseberry Island and the Southern Gooseberry Island, the residents of which have made a great contribution to the development of this Province, particularly to its early development.

These two islands were settled in the late 1700s and the early 1800s. These people, like so many of our ancestors, worked so hard and so diligently to eke out a living from the land and the sea. It was not a very hospitable land or any hospitable circumstances under which these people toiled to make a living but they did, Mr. Speaker. One of the great difficulties on these islands was finding a proper place to bury their loved ones, a proper place to bury their dead, as there was not a lot of space or a lot of soil. Indeed, in many cases they had to bring in soil from adjacent islands to bury the dead. Hence they were buried in very shallow graves, so it did not take much to excavate the bones and skeletons of the dead.

The people of Gooseberry Islands resettled themselves. They were not under a resettlement program. Actually, by the time of the resettlement program all of the people of Gooseberry Islands had resettled, on a voluntary basis, to many communities on the Eastport Peninsula. A lot of them in particular went to Glovertown. Hence the majority of people on this petition, 2,000 of them - 2,000 names attached to this petition - the majority of them coming from Glovertown but scattered throughout communities in the Bonavista Bay area and in other parts of Canada, as far away as Fort McMurray.

Out of these 2,000 people, many of them would have been born on the Gooseberry Islands; most of which, though, would have ancestral connections. The remainder would have sympathy for the cause articulated in this petition, which is the prevention of further desecration and indignities to the loved ones of these people buried on these islands. The situation was such that there was not designated one cemetery or one grave site, if you will. Because of the limited space, the grave sites were sort of distributed right throughout the island.

Since the people have left the island, some people have over the years taken animals to the island to graze, with the result that the ancestors, the people who lived on these islands, are very upset. Throughout the years they had various understandings with the government that they would enact a law to prevent domesticated animals from grazing on these islands, and throughout the years they did get cooperation. However, in 1996, when this government carried out a regulatory reform, trying to fine-tune all of the laws and regulations by which we are governed, these laws got wiped out, rescinded. Now we find that animals are finding their way back on these islands, with which the people are dissatisfied. They want these laws brought back to ensure there are no indignities committed to their deceased loved ones on the island.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the petition. It is not in the format that we normally receive petitions in that it does not have a prayer, but I have consulted with the Officers of the Table and they think it does meet most of the requirements of a petition. Since they have come from so many communities, I did not want to send them back to the people again.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 2,000 residents of the Glovertown -Eastport Peninsula area, I would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I will simply read the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. LUSH: Thank you very much.

It says: Re livestock grazing on the Gooseberry Islands in Bonavista Bay:

We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned and much distressed regarding the roaming of domesticated animals on the Gooseberry Islands. These animals are damaging headstones, destroying the landscaping and other beauty creating activities of those who regularly maintain the grave sites of their loved ones, and making walkways unfit to walk on.

In a number of documented cases, these roaming animals have dug up soil and exposed human bones. When we look upon the burial sites of loved ones and see desecration, we are immensely saddened and chagrined. We believe their remains deserve to be left in peace, and undisturbed on the little islands they loved so much.

On 16 May 1979, the hon. Joseph Goudie, by the virtue of the powers conferred upon him by the Livestock Regulations, 1954, designated Gooseberry Island as a restricted grazing area for livestock and ordered that all livestock be moved therefrom.

In 1996, as a result of government's regulatory reform process, this 1979 Gooseberry Island Grazing Order lapsed and no longer has any force or effect.

We request, therefore, that you undertake the appropriate action to make each of Northern Gooseberry Island and Southern Gooseberry Island a restricted grazing area once again.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of these 2,000 people, I submit their petition and wholeheartedly endorse the request.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words in support of the petition put forward by the Member for Terra Nova. I say to the Member for Terra Nova, although I have never been on the Gooseberry Islands, that is where my great-grandmother came from - moved into Musgravetown. You are so right; most of those people settled on the north side of Bonavista Bay, if you would, but there were a few families who moved to Musgravetown, my home town. I heard the name mentioned many times.

I remember being out to Flat Island, when they had the Flat Island reunion a few years ago, and I was sadden to see what was happening there to the local cemetery. We went by there in boat and a lot of the graves - I did not know what was after happening there; I guess it is the erosion of the soil or whatever - a lot of the headstones were out ten and fifteen feet into the salt water. It is sad. We, as Christian people, really reserve a warm spot in our hearts for where our loved ones are buried. It is not something that we want to see happening, Mr. Speaker.

Only a couple of months ago, probably a year ago, I saw a television program. I think it was down on the Burin Peninsula -

AN HON. MEMBER: Great Burin.

MR. FITZGERALD: - Great Burin Island, where a similar thing was happening, I say to the Member for Terra Nova. The television cameras went in and did this television documentary on it, and the people there were expressing the same concern.

Mr. Speaker, I support the member's petition. I think we should move forward and do whatever we can in order to reserve and protect those burial sites because it is very important to us, as Christian people, to allow the dead to rest, I suppose, is a simple way of putting it, and respect cemeteries no matter where they might be found.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Terra Nova for bringing forward the petition. He has raised this concern for the past number of weeks, and we have evaluated the concern that he has brought forward. We are taking seriously the concerns that the people in that part of the district have put forward. They have sincerely requested that some sort of action be taken to deal with the problem they are presently experiencing. Given the sensitivity of the question we are looking at the options. We will have a decision made within the next day or so as to the option that is most acceptable.

We are looking at a couple of them. One of them was potentially fencing the area and having that protected. Given the fact that the geography of the islands have these cemeteries all over in different locations, we are looking at the possibility of re-instituting the no roaming order in the geographic areas of the islands. We will have a decision in the next day or so, basically.

I want to thank the member for bringing it forward. The hon. member representing that area has represented that area for a number of years, and the concerns that he brings forward are brought forward in a fashion of sensitivity and well-organized thought. I appreciate the fact also that the Opposition is supporting any possible action that can be taken on the matter.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition today:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS many public service pensioners who spent a lifetime contributing to their society are now slipping deeper and deeper into poverty;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador first, to ensure public service pensioners receive a raise in their pensions whenever public servants receive a raise in pay; and second, to reverse the policy of clawing back Canada Pension Plan benefits from public service pensioners;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

The people who have signed this petition come from a variety of places, from Gander, Wexford Street, Cumberland Crescent, Torbay Road, Golf Avenue, and various places throughout the City of St. John's. Basically what these people are asking is not a lot. It is asking that when public servants receive a raise in pay that they should receive a raise in pay as well. As we know, public servants have not received a raise in pay until recently. They went eight years without a raise in pay.

Many of the pensioners are out there living on pensions of well below $10,000 a year, which puts them virtually below the poverty line. We can get into semantics as to whether they paid into this kind of a pension. Certainly they paid into their Canada Pension. Their Canada Pension is clawed back dollar for dollar, as I understand, from their public service pension. So we have a group of people who have made a major contribution to society, they worked all their lives. Some of them, however, were prematurely put out of the workplace when there was a downsizing in the provincial government.

What we have is some people out there, aged fifty-five years, on a public service pension. They didn't mean to be not employed at this particular point in their lives, but by virtue of the fact that this government downsized, now they find themselves without a job, depending just on their pension and on their Canada Pension. As I said, they paid into their Canada Pension all their working lives, and now that is being clawed back dollar for dollar from their public service pension. What the point of paying into the Canada Pension was I do not know, when it is going to be clawed back from them.

However, we have a lot of people out there. They are employable, I suppose, in that they can go to work, but they are not finding it easy to get employment because they are fifty-five years of age and they have been laid off. They virtually have gone from full-time full employment into living below the poverty line, because their pension does not give them enough on which to live comfortably, or even adequately. They do not receive a raise in pension as they would have received a raise in pay had they stayed on as public servants.

So the prayer of their petition is to ask to receive a raise in their pension whenever public servants receive a raise in pay, and not to have their Canada Pension Plan benefits clawed back from their public service pension.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words as it relates to the petition as presented by my colleague, the Member for St. John's West.

We have presented numerous petitions and there have been questions asked in this House, in fact even a private member's resolution on the topic of public service pensions. Very often public service pensioners in our Province have spoken loudly in terms of their perceived need of why it is incumbent on this government to certainly give serious consideration to the fact that an increase in public service pensions is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the statistics. We know there are thousands of Newfoundlanders who have devoted their working lives to governments of every political stripe. In addition to that, we also have seen the statistics that show that the average pension income for these public service pensioners hovers around $10,000, well below an amount which is considered, by any standard, to be acceptable this day and age.

Mr. Speaker, this is again an important issue. It is a petition which is signed, I understand, by residents throughout this region of the Province. We have public service pensioners who live throughout every region of our Province, and they have come together as an organization in a concerted effort to really try to impress this government and to show this government that this is an area of real concern. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance and his colleagues have not seen fit to address seriously the concerns of these pensioners. The issue which is being raised in defence - which I believe is an indefensible position - but the issue being raised in defence and in response to the request of these pensioners is the fact that this is what public service pensioners have contributed; therefore this is what they are entitled to.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that attention and consideration ought to be given to people who have given significantly to governments of this Province over the years. When we look at the cost of living today, and we look at the real need which is being demonstrated by these people today, certainly a government of compassion and a government with a heart would look very seriously at reviewing this whole issue and at least giving consideration to increasing their pension benefits equal to the amount which is being given to the public service generally today.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue. It affects thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Once again, a request is being made in good faith on their behalf.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have a petition here today, another petition from people on Sunday shopping.

We, the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, being retail workers, families of retail workers, and citizens, do hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to rescind the amendment to the Shops' Closing Act that permits stores to remain open for business on Sunday. This amendment will cause extreme difficulty for the retail workers and their families. We see no benefit that will come from Sunday shopping.

Now it is on behalf of the retail workers and their families that I am presenting this petition. This petition is signed from people in Manuels, Long Pond, and here in St. John's.

As I have said many times before in this House of Assembly, Sunday shopping is going to and has presented hardship on the families of retail workers. I continue to get telephone calls, and as recently as last week I got a letter from a young woman who works in the hospital system and her husband is a meat cutter at Dominion. Dominion stores are not just open now from 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m. Since the Shops' Closing Act was passed, Dominion Stores have opened twenty-four hours a day. This young lady and her husband, who are the parents of a couple of children, their family life has been eroded because he is working almost every Sunday; some shift or other. There was a time, she said, she worked one Sunday a month or probably two Sundays a month and the other Sundays they had to spend their time together.

MR. EFFORD: You are not at Sunday shopping again!

MS S. OSBORNE: No, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I am not at Sunday shopping again. The people of this Province are at Sunday shopping again.

This petition came in to me from residents of Manuels, Long Pond, Foxtrap and St. John's, and it is on their behalf. Because they are not standing here in the House of Assembly, they are unable to, they have asked me to present this petition on their behalf. Actually, it is my pleasure to do so.

This is a very cruel act, it has eroded people's lives. There are some people out there who say the stores are busy on Sundays, and well they might be, but they are not doing any extra business, I can assure you. If you speak to most store owners they will tell you that the business that they are doing on Sunday is lost on Saturday or Monday. So at the end of the week there are no greater dollars into their stores and there are no greater dollars into the tax revenues of this Province.

So who this legislation was brought in on behalf of, I am not sure, but certainly there are many families out there with summer coming up now and their entire family life is being eroded because of the passing of this act which really benefits nobody and causes hardship to these people.

Thank you.

 

Orders of the Day

 

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

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

I Move That The House Resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider Certain Resolutions Relating to the Raising of Loans by the Province. (Bill No. 15)

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Oldford): Bill No. 15.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was speaking yesterday on Bill 15 and I had some questions for the Finance Minister that he responded to. We are only talking about a couple of hundred million dollars - that's all! - to go out in the markets, if necessary, for the government to go out and be able to borrow. I guess it is a good time to have those bonds coming due out on the market, particularly when we are at a low rate of inflation, a low interest rate now. It always helps our cause. Anytime you are borrowing and interest rates are down, it tends to be positive, and hopefully that situation exists when we have to put them back on the market.

The ones that are coming due now, I think, there is about 9 1/8 per cent and 8 3/4 per cent. So we are going to be saving ourselves, I think the minister said yesterday, 6.17 per cent, I think, with 4/10 of 1 per cent fee; 6.1 per cent which is about 3 per cent less on the series EC51s that are coming due. I think the other one was at a floating rate.

So, overall on $150 million worth, we are saving ourselves a few per cent there to put back again into the market-place. It is a good opportunity. Unfortunately, there are not more coming due, I say.

The minister assured us that with all this good news we are experiencing, the better tomorrow, things will get better and we will have a better credit rating, because we have dropped. Since 1989 our credit rating has dropped. We have had deficits; a budget over, I believe, $240 million one year, back in 1989. We have seen an increase since 1989. Now our debt has increased by over 40 per cent. It might even be higher. The right figure I know I have in my notes somewhere.

MR. H. HODDER: Forty-two point six per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague for Waterford Valley says 42.6 per cent. I'm not sure whether that's -

MR. H. HODDER: Actually, you said it was 42.611 per cent.

MR. SULLIVAN: If I said it was 42.611 per cent, it is 42.611 per cent; an increase in our debt because we are continually going into debt.

I might add, the previous administration, of which he was also a member, had $250,000 one year alone. We ran up hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars since 1989 in debt, I might add, and we are still running up debts.

MR. BARRETT: You are up every day telling us to spend more money.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Member for Bellevue, he has his hand in the pot of money too, I can tell you. He has his hand in the cookie jar.

The minister announced in her budget, a new $2.8 million for drugs. I ask her: Why doesn't she -

MR. BARRETT: Be careful what you say now. (Inaudible) my hand in the cookie jar.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why, don't you like cookies? The Cookie Monster likes cookies, doesn't he? If the Cookie Monster doesn't like cookies -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) to me.

MR. SULLIVAN: No. Cookie jar? It could mean a lot of things, I say to the member. Whichever one he feels most appropriately fits, whatever cap, I will ask him to wear it. I am sure my colleague for Waterford Valley knows all about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, all about the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Loyola, look, you are too nice a person (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You said that about the Member for Waterford Valley last year and now you are saying it about me.

MR. BARRETT: You are too nice.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not at all.

He is trying to stand up for democracy in our Province, I might say to the member.

Now they want a bill for $200 million now to run out to the market and borrow. By the way, it's a standard bill, it's nothing out of the ordinary, basically. We all know that when we go to the market and they come due and payable that we have to pay up and go out and get new money. I am delighted we are saving 3 per cent on $150 million this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you ever have a loan guarantee from government?

MR. SULLIVAN: The answer is no, I would say to him. I wouldn't want one. I would starve first, I say. He is just trying to provoke me to speak for an hour on the next bill that is coming up. Maybe I just might, on the next bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? It would take this government to understand the needs of people out there and show some compassion and do what is right, instead of costing us more money in the long term, I say. I will give him some examples.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well, $1 million wouldn't hurt. Don't worry, we have seen the brown bags on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I would. So he admits I am causing great grief to him over there.

I had the Member for St. John's Centre, actually the health minister over there now too - I had an opportunity to go back to the House and ask a question I asked him when he was health minister back in 1994.

I asked the member, that is Dr. Kitchen: Is the policy working? That is the 50 cent cap. Will the minister table whatever evidence he has to show me that more doctors are practising in rural areas as a result of this policy? He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have extended a 50 per cent rule to other areas. He said: Since it has only barely been extended - it is almost a year - it's not significant to judge. He took a swipe at me, I might add. I am trying to find that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. SULLIVAN: Dr. Kitchen, the former health minister, just before he got vacated from the post by the former premier. He took a little swipe at me, and it didn't do very good. I am trying to find that quote now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he hit you?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he didn't, he wasn't moving fast enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: He would never do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought he just said yes and no or no and yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Anyway, whatever it is. He said: We will probably need an extra doctor, I say to the Minister of Justice, when I asked him a question. Isn't this problem with doctors, the cap, isn't it going to do the very opposite, a disincentive to what you are trying to accomplish? This was back in 1994, you know, and so true, May 19. I said: By putting a cap in St. John's, you are not going to force doctors into rural Newfoundland. What you are going to do is you are going to force them right straight out of the Province and into other areas. Today there are more unfilled positions in rural Newfoundland than there were when I asked that question: Is he going to do it?

He said: We will probably need an extra doctor here in the House of Assembly to look after the hon. member. He seems to have something wrong with his throat. It seems to be open all the time. Everybody knows Dr. Kitchen; he had his little bit of humour and he was kind of feisty at times. He said: Apart from that little specific, that special need for that particular member, Mr. Speaker, we have sufficient doctors in some parts of this Province and there is no point in hiring other doctors where they are sufficient and in excess.

Well right now we have created the same problem. I said in my questions today: Now not only have we driven doctors out of the Province and have a bigger problem in rural Newfoundland, we have caused a problem in urban Newfoundland today. In the City of St. John's, one doctor passed away recently, another doctor is leaving the Province, another one changed careers, a few retired here recently, and people cannot get access to services that they need because of this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And I compliment the minister on a full complement. In fact, I am very familiar with where the unfilled positions in the Province are. I actually visited every single part of the Province just a few years ago. I was in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, I went to Lab West with a committee on health, I went to the Northern Peninsula, the West Coast, the South Coast, Central Newfoundland, Clarenville, the Harbour Grace - Carbonear area and St. John's. I went to about ten different places as health critic listening to what people were telling me from various regions.

An unusual part of that: After I got back home, I had many more calls from people who were afraid to come out to the meetings to tell me what is really going on. That is where I found out most of the things, not on public record, but from the telephone calls; because they fear for their positions within the hospital settings here in the Province, within the health system. There are many people out there today -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It happens in some instances. People fear for their jobs, people have been fired for speaking out, gotten kicked out. The minister there, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the former Works, Services and Transportation, fired a guy over in Stephenville for speaking out. I mean, it has happened with this government, it has happened.

I went to another meeting, one of those that had over 200 people, and they stood up and spoke. They did not care. Some people spoke but some people are concerned, they have a mortgage to pay, they have children to feed and they cannot take a chance on being blacklisted and losing a job; and that happens. That has happened. That is shameful but it has happened here in the Province, and it should not be.

So what have we done now? People out there today will tell you - there is hardly a person in this House who does not know something or have somebody related in some way who works in our health care system -

AN HON. MEMBER: The polls are up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Are there lights on them?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, were are they up? On the side of the street?

AN HON. MEMBER: Up 7 per cent in the Premier's popularity. Up 5 per cent in the (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, yes. Well, all I can say to the Premier is, if he wants his popularity to go up he has to keep staying away from here, I suppose. He has been out of here, and if he ever comes back -

MR. TULK: Regardless of what he is doing, Loyola, it must be working.

MR. SULLIVAN: Do we have a copy there? Representing the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Loyola, it is not working for Ed though.

MR. SULLIVAN: Boy, you will have to talk to -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not working for Ed; down in (inaudible) polls. Where is the leader tonight?

MR. SULLIVAN: When people are not here, lots of people have legitimate reasons. I do not care to discuss their reasons here in a public debate in the House. It is legitimate; I do not question that. I have not said he is not on legitimate - in fact, I even said, the Minister of Health and Community Services last week, when I asked a question and the Premier rose on a resolution on MS, was out representing us in the rest of the Province. That has to be done; I have never complained about that.

I complain about the Premier when he tries to keep his profile up at national level, running around to chase the Upper Churchill contract when he knows he is only trying to keep his profile up across the country; those type of things. I said: Stop wasting time Premier. Get down and negotiate an agreement. Which they did. They have a rough grounds or basis now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you support (inaudible) for the leadership of the Tory Party?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not involved. The first convention I ever attended in the Tory Party was in 1992 when I was elected as a member, I can tell you. I was never to a convention, never supported anybody. In the 1989 leadership, I was never there. I was never involved until 1992, when I ran as a member. I worked two elections back in the 1970s.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I did not. I was not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you have liked to have seen a Newfoundlander be Prime Minister of this country?

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure I would. Sure, why not? Unless it was completely off the wall, somebody who would not make a good representative.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he going to run for, Premier of Newfoundland or Prime Minister of Canada?

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he going to run for, Premier of Newfoundland or Prime Minister of Canada?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the Premier of Atlantica. This Atlantic Union he has been pushing, Atlantica. If you can't have the big pie, at least get a medium-sized pie.

He is quoted and I have the quote. I have a quote from a national newspaper, when he talked about Atlantica, and I will show it to the member. He has put that forth but it brought up resistance, I can tell you. He floated out there, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are getting on with.

MR. SULLIVAN: Look, it floated out. I know it is genuine. I would not get up and say something that I did not believe. I would not say something that I did not believe to be true. The member now out there in - is it Fogo & Twillingate or Twillingate & Fogo?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twillingate.

MR. SULLIVAN: And Fogo, I think, is in the name.

MR. G. REID: Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Twillingate & Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same name they had in 1832.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is it? The only district, by the way, that has never changed. It was always the name -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, there is only one since the 1800s that has always had the same name and nothing else added, nothing taken away, the same exact name, and that was Ferryland District. Not another in the Province. Look at every single year, every single one. Some have changed and have come back to the original.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will guarantee you, whoever gerrymandered up those districts need their head examined.

MR. SULLIVAN: This last time? The guy who gerrymandered that is sitting in the seat that the Government House Leader is sitting in right now. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo said whoever gerrymandered up that last electoral map, basically, should have his head -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eddymandered.

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you say his head cut off? It was Eddymandered. That is what it was, Eddymandered.

MR. TULK: Do you know why he did it?

MR. SULLIVAN: He wanted to get a few more Liberals elected. That is what he wanted to do. He wanted to get a few more Liberals elected. Why do you think he did it?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is trying to get you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) part of Fogo and Twillingate (inaudible) part of Bonavista North.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he was not supporting Walter Carter was he? He was not supporting Walter Carter? Oh, I know, trying to get rid of you. I know what you are saying. Yes, I know what you are saying.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Bonavista North.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I caught on to that before. I was just trying to avoid it. I wanted the member to say it himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: He tried to get rid of me too.

MR. SULLIVAN: He tried to get rid of all of us.

MR. TULK: I will tell you something, he did me a great favour that's for sure. As a matter of fact (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Are you supporting him for that Senate seat?

MR. TULK: Who, Ed?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I guess. If you needed a lawyer would you go to him?

MR. TULK: As a lawyer? (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Would you? No, he is in the court now. He is going to be down -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What? Speak up, we can't get a record of it. We can't get a record for Hansard. Will you speak up, I say to the member?

MR. TULK: I told you (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What is this, June 2? Was it a year ago today that we had the federal election? Was that June 2 that we had a federal election last year? The member over across the House told me back in April, way back before an election was ever called. I said: Bill Matthews is going to win the District of Burin - St. George. And he lost the battle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Charlie Power said he was going to give up his pension.

MR. SULLIVAN: That wasn't then was it? That wasn't on June 2, no. That wasn't on June 2, not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I cannot see doing that, but I can tell you it took a long while to collect from the Member for Windsor - Springdale. It took a long while to collect.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you will not be out knocking on doors with Charlie the next time like you were (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not out knocking on doors this time. I was up in my district this time. I did some campaigning this time, sure. I went out to the gathering.

AN HON. MEMBER: You told me the other day you never.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I thought you meant when he was in here, back in the Province. No, I went out the last time. I did some work in my district and he won my district by 2,200 votes. His majority was a little over three. Twenty-two hundred of that majority was in Ferryland District, I might add.

I did an interview up at the site, at a function there. CBC and numerous others asked me, and I made a statement. I will hold myself accountable for what I say. I do not hold myself accountable for what anybody else says; I cannot control it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Seriously. I know what I would do in a situation but I cannot speak for what someone else would do, the same as anybody there. You can beat it around all you wish.

I campaigned for him as an Independent back in 1974, and in one of his first campaigns as a PC back in the 1970s. I was not involved in the 1980 campaigns. The next campaign I was involved in was in 1992 when I ran as a member. That is it. I will be involved in the next campaign if you decide to call it the fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were up in Renews campaigning (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That was the first time, was it, in the by-election?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I know. They were up in Renews campaigning, and do you know what? I wish they had to be in the other communities. I won Renews two to one the first time, even though it was a close election. It was a close election and I won it by a score of two to one. I can even give him the vote in the community. I wish he had to go to some other communities that I did not do as well in, I might add. He must have been up in Renews the last two times, too. He was probably all over the place the last time. Actually it was a very close one I might add.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. SULLIVAN: In 1992, 125 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. SULLIVAN: The first time I ran, 125 votes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is Member for St. John's South, 108 votes, I believe. Wait for the next time. St. John's West, what was it, 109 votes or something? Beat him by one. Look out the next time, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Who didn't?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) didn't go over too well (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Boy, he goes over well wherever he goes. Ask his constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was down in his district on Sunday trying to campaign for him.

MR. SULLIVAN: Were you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What did he tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he is getting me wound up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He is hard to ignore. He is interfering in everything out there. He is hard to ignore. If he did his job and did his role and did not interfere with the arm's length processes that are put in place by the Legislature of this Province, we would not have to worry about him. But we cannot have legislation put in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In what, the election?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, and you assured the election of the Member for Waterford Valley on the Southlands issue. Yes, I would say that assured his re-election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Who knows? It might not be so sure for the Member for Mount Pearl the next time around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I do not know, I am not close to him.

CHAIR: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Two safe seats where?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, where is that? What about the Member for Bonavista South? What about the Member for Waterford Valley? What about all of these colleagues behind me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Gives us a copy.

Listen, there are sensible people up in Ferryland District.

MR. J. BYRNE: And Cape St. Francis.

MR. SULLIVAN: Actually, there are only two districts in this Province that have never changed stripes since 1949 - only two.

The Straits has always been Liberal, and Cape St. Francis, which used to be East Extern, has always been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the last time you had your chance. You will never get a second chance to do what you did not do the last time. I stated that in federal ridings, and I say it in this House, too. I told people across the way while federal riding were going to fall this time. On the first anniversary of the federal election last year, I predicted what riding were going to fall here and I told the members. Some even went out on a limb and bet on the elections, who was going to win, and they ended up losing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Many are called but few are chosen, Ed Roberts would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Roberts would also say, (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can say it. The Member for Bonavista North stood and awaited his time and now his time has arrived.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What did you say the former House Leader said?

AN HON. MEMBER: He also serves who only stands and waits.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is a lot of merit to that. The member there stood and waited, and he served by standing and waiting, and now he is having an opportunity to serve in a greater capacity.

MR. FITZGERALD: The former Member for Eagle River said that many are called but few are chosen.

MR. SULLIVAN: He said many are called but few are frozen. That is what he said. He got frozen out the last time, that is what happened to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: When was that? Oh right, yes. You were in the gallery from 1989 to 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh yes, 1989 to 1993. Since 1992, for the first two or three years I was in here there was only one person in his House who never changed his seat. He was still in the same seat - went through the general election of 1993 - and that was the former Member for Eagle River, or what is now the District of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair. He was still in the same spot back there. When he moved from that spot up there occupied by... I think the second one there, where the Minister of Government Services and Lands is now, I think that is the seat he was in. When he moved out of that seat -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What did I tell you?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, but I just got carried away. The Member for Bellevue got me irritated there and I had to set the record straight on a few issues. When the former Member for Eagle River moved out of that seat up there, occupied now by the Minister of Government Services and Lands, and went down to one occupied by the new parliamentary assistant there, when he went into that seat it was all downhill. That is where it started. We warned him. He would not believe it, he couldn't even see it coming, but it happened. Now he will never get a second chance to get back in that riding again. He is shut out the door. In spite of the efforts of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it is not going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I don't, I know. Besides, I would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have to?

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, well, I am glad I am reminded. Because certainly when I get on to some other bills I will not need to be reminded, I say to the minister. This bill, I have the answers to a few questions I wanted there from the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will. In fact, I have members here chomping at the bit to get up again and have their say. We have a list here, look. We are going to have to limit debate on this bill because I have seven people who want to speak on this. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can show you the list. Look, seven people want to speak on this bill that I have right down here now, and that is just in the Official Opposition. So I am going to sit down and give some of these other people a chance. In fact, I think the next person who wants to speak on it is the Member for Cape St. Francis. He is ready to speak and go on this. I am sure he might want to enlighten you for the next half hour.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on Bill 15, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province". Basically the government, through this act, wants to borrow upwards of $200 million to be applied from April 1, 1998, to the management and the securities of the sinking fund. The monies raised under this act is in addition to the monies raised under the other acts.

We have a Budget here that has been spoken of in the past by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier, and it talks about a balanced budget all the time. Here we are, right off the mark, looking to borrow $200 million. I was noticing in the Budget Highlights, and I think I have referred to it in the past, the Summary Of Gross Capital Account Expenditures. I was making comparisons from last year to this year. There are some curious numbers here.

Resource Development went from $23,258,000 down to $16,207,000 million. That is a cut of some $7 million. The Municipal Infrastructure has been cut by another $5 million this year. No wonder they are talking about a balanced budget. The Educational Facilities - now here is an interesting one - cut from $41 million, rounding it off, down to $23,749,000. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a cut of, as I said, around $17 million or $18 million for education this year.

From my memory, when we had the Education Referendum, Mr. Chairman, the government talked about putting money back into education. All their savings that they would have by closing down the schools and laying off teachers and consolidating services, Mr. Chairman, would go back into the classroom. We do not see any indication of it here, I say to the Member for Bellevue, any indication of the money going back into the classroom, when they are cutting the education budget by something like $17 million.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, $17 million. That is what it is, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

Another one here, Mr. Chairman, is Equipment Acquisition, et cetera; whatever et cetera means, Mr. Chairman. It is cut from $13 million down to $8 million.

Public Buildings: Now here is a interesting one. Here is a very interesting one. Public Buildings going from $4,691,000 up to $6 million. If the Minister of Finance were here or whoever is answering questions, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, I am curious on that one there; if they could give some explanation as to what is going on there, why they are spending an extra $1.4 million on Public Buildings?

Now, as far as I understood, Elizabeth Towers has become privatized, they have sold off a bunch of apartments over in Churchill Square and what have you, Mr. Chairman, and they are looking at spending another $1.5 million. I am just curious on that.

Also, under the summary of Budgetary Financing Sources, Mr. Chairman, it says - oh, here is an interesting one; the Contingency Revenue of $30 million. Now $30 million, again -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I am worth it, I am sure, I say to the Member for Bellevue. He says that $30 million is there to pay me. I am sure I am worth it, I have no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman.

What is that going to be used for, I ask the Minister of Finance? Could he explain what he used it for last year, when it was there last year, Mr. Chairman?

In actual fact they were looking at a $10 million deficit. I said it before in the House of Assembly, that in actual fact there is a $20 million surplus here; a $20 million surplus.

Also, under Revenue Sources, Mr. Chairman: They have the federal government in 1997/98 give us $1,584,899,000. This year it is $1,476,000,000, a decrease, Mr. Chairman - it cannot be $100 million, surely God. Anyway, significant, significant, significant cuts from the federal government, Mr. Chairman. And why?

Of course, I am wondering why this government does not question the federal government on this, why they are not up in arms in trying to get something more for the Province, Mr. Chairman, especially, in light of the fact that the transfer payments are being cut; and that is what we are talking about of course. The transfer payments are being cut because of out-migration in this Province.

I referred that today, in Question Period, to the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation, when I asked him the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of questions to be answered with respect to this Budget. We have been on this Budget for some time now. We are trying to approve a bill here, Mr. Chairman, An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province Of $200 Million. Of course, it is all interconnected, one with the other, and it is something that we have to address in due course.

Now, this is where the money goes. That is an interesting one, Mr. Chairman. I have a pie chart here, and I am sure if the Minister of Mines and Energy were here, Mr. Chairman, he would - speak of the devil - he would understand about pie charts. He likes pictures, I understand, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, the Department of Health spends 25.7 per cent of the Budget. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the Opposition House Leader here asking questions of the Minister of Health daily, when the House of Assembly opens, and he has a hard time getting answers. Often times he gets an answer and it is a repetitive answer with respect to the health care in this Province.

The previous minister used to talk about health care improving, whenever he was asked a question, and the present minister makes an attempt to answer. She makes an attempt to answer the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of time here. We are here, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, until maybe -

AN HON. MEMBER: July.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would think. I mean, with the number of bills that are there, Mr. Chairman, and the discussion and the review that needs to be done and the questions that we have, we are looking at, I would say, maybe July; unless the government decides to pull back some of their bills. If we go with what is being proposed here, when the House opened up, we are going to have a lot of discussion in this House of Assembly.

As I was mentioning, the Department of Health and Community Services has 25.7 per cent of the Budget. Health care in this Province, I don't know, I can't see it as improving, for sure, from personal experience in the health care system. I have to say the nurses and the doctors and what have you in the various hospitals are overworked and understaffed; there is no doubt about that. What we need to do is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I couldn't tell you, I don't know. He doesn't report to me all the time.

Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the House they are making some motions and what have you. I don't understand what they are getting on with. The Leader of the Opposition I would say is very busy making contact with constituents across this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, they are making more contact with constituents in this Province than that crowd over there! They don't make any contact. They are running away, hiding all the time. People try to get hold of ministers and they are afraid to answer the phone calls of the people in this Province, the people that they are elected to represent. Our Leader, with every call comes in, just like every member on this side of the House, responds right away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely! I would say. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, back to my concerns with health; the Leader of the Opposition, his concerns, Mr. Chairman.

Again, the staff in the hospitals are overworked, understaffed, as I said before many, many times. As a matter of fact, I will talk about the morale. I remember bringing up in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, the first year I came in here, 1993, about the morale in the civil service. It has been decimated ever since. The Premier and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board getting up and saying there are no more lay-offs, but let's look at what is happening to Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. I would say to the Government House Leader, phone over and find out if anybody has any notices of their lay-offs lately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know about that crowd over there. They seem to be pretty insensitive, I can tell you that. We have people in the hospitals going in for certain procedures and these people have no sensitivity whatsoever. That is why the health care in this Province is in such a mess; no sensitivity, no more human factor, all gone out the window, gone with this Administration.

Mr. Chairman, we will just move off health for a few minutes so that they can get their composure back, and we will talk about education. What a Minister of Education! I don't think the Premier could have picked a better man to put in that place for him. If I was on that side of the House and was premier I wouldn't have that Minister of Education, I can guarantee you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would you have?

MR. J. BYRNE: There wouldn't be anyone on that side of the House I could pick, I can tell you, because there is no heart, none.

MR. SHELLEY: Take them from outside.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, guaranteed!

MR. SHELLEY: Like they did in the federal government, went outside.

MR. J. BYRNE: Went outside and brought him in.

MR. SMITH: Brought in Pettigrew.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is right, brought in people from outside, Mr. Chairman, the federal government did.

If they wanted someone who could go through the education system in this Province and do what had to be done, there is no doubt they picked the right man. The Premier owes the Minister of Education big time and I am waiting to see when he is going to be rewarded, and what he is going to be rewarded with. I am not sure, but there will be another ministerial position in the near future, I would say, one that won't be so demanding and the minister won't have to take such a hard knock from the media. He deserves it too, for what has been going on in this Province and the mess that the education system is in in this Province today; parents out on strikes, blocking schools and closing schools all over the Province. It is going to get worse. I really don't know who he is going to put in to replace the Minister of Education, but I would say one of the -

MR. SHELLEY: The tin man, got no heart.

MR. J. BYRNE: The tin man? I referred to that before, that this Administration is like the tin man in The Wizard of Oz. The problem here is they don't even know they don't have a heart. I expect the Member for Humber East might go in as the Minister of Education or they may put the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture there. I am not sure, but one of them anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am just saying that the Minister of Education, when the Premier decides to replace him and is looking for somebody to put back in there, someone without a heart or someone who is going to do the job, he would probably look to you. That is who he is going to look for, a member with no heart. That is what he will be after, Mr. Chairman. Or he may look to the man next to you, of course. It is going to be pay back time for him soon, I suppose, I say to the Member for Humber East.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am going to sit down now and let one of the members on this side of the House get up and say a few words. Maybe I will get up again in due course, depending on how things are going.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR (Penney): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill 15 now before the House. Mr. Chairman, it is a piece of legislation that has to do with the public finance and the public debt of the Province. As was indicated at the time of Budget, we have done something rather remarkable in this Province to the public debt in the three years from 1995 to 1998. We have reduced the direct public debt by $900 million, in the three years prior to this Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will talk about harm in a minute.

In three years, Mr. Chairman, $900 million has been removed from the public debt by this government, and I want to speak about that in the context of the statements made by the Minister of Finance during the Budget.

We have two Pauls, Mr. Chairman, one in Ottawa - I am not allowed to mention the one here except as the Minister of Finance, but they seem to speak from the same hymn book when they say to the rousing chorus from the backbenchers: There is just no more money. And the crowd from the back benches pound their desks. There is just no more money, they say, Mr. Chairman. Yet, they would get a standing ovation at the Reform Party of Canada National Convention for not only having eliminated the deficit but, in fact, reducing the public debt by some 15 per cent.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how do they do that? How do they, on the one hand, say there is just no more money for people on social assistance. They have to have these cold-hearted and cruel policies dictated by Paul Martin in Ottawa, that they are going to give with one hand from Ottawa and take away from the people on social assistance. Why? Because there is just no more money. That is the mantra. That is the mantra of the Reform Party, it is the mantra of Paul Martin, and it is the mantra of our Paul, Mr. Chairman; their Paul, the Paul on the other side, the Minister of Finance. There is just no more money.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, what do we have? We had the Premier here last fall fulminating like the predecessor Premier, fulminating about the size of the national debt and the provincial debt, talking about what a burden it is on the people of the Province. Mr. Chairman, what do they do? They beat that drum until the cows come home, and for what purpose? To be able to get away with policies that are hurting the people of this Province, hurting the little people of this Province, Mr. Chairman, hurting the people who do not have the wherewithal, the flexibility, the resources, the opportunity, the jobs, to be able to allow them to share in the benefits of our society.

They use it to justify the claw-back on social assistance recipients. They finally had to give way, but I don't give them any credit for that. They finally had to give way a week or so ago, Mr. Chairman. They use it to justify the failure to deal with the problems of the public service pensioners who have a less than $10,000 average income, not enough to live on. They use it to justify their own failure to deal with the whole issue of child hunger in this Province and the failure to make more than a token effort to solve that problem. They use it, Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Environment and Labour said today, to justify the failure to recognize that -

MR. SHELLEY: The Minister of Fisheries is a token effort.

MR. HARRIS: They use it, Mr. Chairman, to justify the failure of government to respond to the unanimous call from the Workers' Compensation Statutory Review Tribunal, including the employer representative, including the independent representative; the unanimous call to restore balance to the system and to put back some of the benefits that the workers are entitled to, Mr. Chairman.

Why are they entitled to it, Mr. Chairman? Because, as the Statutory Review Tribunal said in its report, the workers are not the cause. The injured employees were no more responsible for causing the unfunded liability than were the employers, and that in fact the average assessments for employers have not in fact decreased. What the committee said, Mr. Chairman, is that the average employer assessments have effectively remained the same since 1992, and indeed a large proportion of employer assessments have actually decreased in recent years.

So, who are the voices that the government is listening to, Mr. Chairman? Are they listening to the ordinary people who are being hurt by government programs or the lack of government programs where they are needed, or are they listening to the louder voices, the louder voices who have access to the ministers, access to the government; the decision makers, Mr. Chairman, not the people.

The unanimous recommendation of this committee, who had listened to all the people, listened to the stakeholders, so-called, Mr. Chairman, listened to the employers, listened to their complaints -what did they find, Mr. Chairman? That the complaints from employers about how the assessments were hurting business were not substantiated. Mr. Chairman, what they did find was that reduced income levels to injured workers hindered the healing process and contributed to family disruption.

It talked about the system being unbalanced, that it had contributed to increased personal financial ruin and family breakdown, people losing their homes, Mr. Chairman, people having their marriages break up. It was a plea that the committee took seriously when they made the unanimous recommendation that there be a re-balancing. When they looked at the CPP offset, they talked about the injustice and the unreasonableness to hold that the contributions the workers made to CPP should go to the benefit of the Workers' Compensation Commission and ultimately to the employer.

What it said, Mr. Chairman, was that to entitle the Workers' Compensation Commission to set off what the worker was entitled to recoup under the Canada Pension Plan would, in effect, be depriving the worker of all the benefit from the premium paid by him or her, and appropriating that to the Workers' Compensation Commission.

Mr. Chairman, those are not the words of somebody going to the Statutory Review Committee and pleading on behalf of the workers. That is the unanimous report of the committee: the nominee of the employers, the representative of employers, the representative of employees, the independent representative, and the chair. All of these people heard the representations that were made, the arguments about the assessments being hard on business, et cetera, none of which were justified by any evidence, Mr. Chairman. That is what the board found, that is what the review committee found; none of it was justified.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I will see you over at CBC in half an hour if you are willing to go, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. You do not mind sitting here and denying somebody leave but you will not go out in the public forum and talk about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, we have a review -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister knows what I am talking about. He is the one who turned down the interview.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: He is the one who turned down the interview. Just ask him. You ask him.

Mr. Chairman, the financial situation of the Province is used as an excuse to prevent the re-balancing of the Workers' Compensation system, repairing the damage caused since 1992. That is what happened, repairing the damage that was caused since 1992 when there was a majority report with a very big dissent, a very strong dissent, by the workers' representative.

MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, last week in this hon. House of Assembly we had a number of discussions or debates - not discussions but debates - on the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, the viability of rural Newfoundland and Labrador as it applies to the seal industry, and how it was impacting on the return of the commercial fish stocks, and how the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador depended on some immediate action and the controversy being taken away by the IFAW and our friend opposite who is supporting the IFAW.

He just challenged me, just made a comment across the House, that I would not appear before CBC television today for a three- or four-minute interview, which I refused to do. But I challenge the hon. member to an hour's debate anywhere in this Province that he wishes to have a debate on the future of the Newfoundland and Labrador sealing industry.

CHAIR: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: When the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture becomes leader of his party, which I understand he wishes to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - I will debate him anywhere in this Province, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, just to answer: Mr. Efford, the interview is rescheduled for 4:00 p.m. tomorrow.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understood the minister to put on the record the fact that he refused to do an interview at CBC. I am sure that is what Hansard will record, but that is something for people who believe in facts to check.

What I was talking about before I was rudely interrupted was the issue of this government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was that a television interview?

MR. HARRIS: He told them he wasn't available today, right. Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: Will that be prime time?

MR. HARRIS: Oh, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, what we have is a government which is hiding behind the mantra of there is just no more money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He doesn't care where it is as long as he can bring the crowd, right? Mr. Chairman, this is a government who on the one hand talks about how there is just no more money for the people who need money, and on the other hand find money for every project they want to find.

We have before us a bill to allow government to raise $200 million, plus the rejigging of additional monies to redeem outstanding securities. We don't really know how much it is. I suppose at some point, I mean, in order to justify the passage of the bill, the minister is going to tell us a little bit more about it. I gather he didn't tell us much about the bill when he introduced it, but perhaps he can explain to us how the government reduced the provincial debt by $900 million in the last several years without getting the Reform Party award for fiscal prudence. Because if that had taken place in any other province of Canada the Reform Party would be saying yahoo!, bravo! They would be supporting this government like no other across the country.

What is happening, the point of my remarks, is that there is flexibility in social policy, there is flexibility in government programs, there is flexibility in government's ability to respond to the needs of the people. They showed that last week when they reversed the claw-back on social assistance recipients as a result of the request of the public of Newfoundland, the ordinary people, who have been petitioning this House. The Catholic Women's League of Topsail, for example, petitioning this House, demanding that government respond to the plight of people on social assistance; other people too, including this hon. member, who identified this as an outrage on the day the Budget was brought down; an outrage to take back the money that was going to improve the lot of children on social assistance and use that money for others.

The ability of the government to change that policy is evidence that the government's fiscal capacity is far more flexible than they let on on Budget Day, and that they let on every time they want to say no. Every time they want to say no they simply say the money is not there. That is the mantra, the common excuse, the one that they seem to be able to get away with because the people have been propagandized not only by this government but by Paul Martin in Ottawa, by the business council on national issues, by the Tory Party before them, by the Reform Party, by the bankers, by the industrialists, by all -

AN HON. MEMBER: By the lawyers.

MR. HARRIS: What lawyers? I don't think the lawyers had anything to say about it.

MR. CANNING: What did Bob Rae do in Ontario?

MR. HARRIS: A very sensible government, I say to the Member for Labrador West. A very sensible government was conducted by the NDP in office throughout this country, and they respond to the needs of the people, Mr. Chairman. They respond to the needs that the people have and the people expect a response from government, Mr. Chairman. What is government for? I say to the Member for Labrador West, what is government for? To respond to the needs of the bankers or to respond to the needs of the people? The stockbrokers or the people?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, the member says the people and I think he is right. Those are the people that the New Democratic Party responds to, Mr. Chairman. Those are the kinds of people that our party responds to, the people, and they are one.

With respect to the bankers, let me just talk about the bankers for a moment. Where does the hon. member stand with respect to the bank mergers? Is he with the people or is he with the bankers on that one?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people.

MR. HARRIS: He is with the people. Is he with the small business organizations who, together with the New Democratic Party, oppose the merger of the banks? Together with the New Democratic Party and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, together oppose mergers of the banks? Not only that, Mr. Chairman, have proposed a reasonable alternative: allow these large banks to form some international capital corporation to compete in the international market, but leave domestic banking alone. Allow them to form some super - supra-national cooperative amongst the banks to get involved in international competition and international financing. Require them, Mr. Chairman, to reinvest some of their profits, some of their money in communities, Mr. Chairman, a community reinvestment fund. Let's see the banks do that, Mr. Chairman. It is not a terribly radical idea. It is not even terribly socialistic. It is recognized, Mr. Chairman, that institutions such as banks have a responsibility to the communities where they operate and where they make their money.

In a number of areas of the United States, a number of states have required banks, as a condition of operating, to reinvest money into economic development activities in their communities. That is lacking in this country, Mr. Chairman, because it is left to the banks to make their own decisions about where to invest, how much to invest, and what to put back into the economy.

We saw an example, Mr. Chairman, one of the banks that want to merge, the Bank of Montreal. When the Bank of Montreal decided - not that they were not making any money but they were not making enough money in the Strait of Belle Isle, they were not making enough money -

MR. J. BYRNE: So what did they do?

MR. HARRIS: They pulled out, Mr. Chairman. They left the Labrador Straits. They left the Labrador Coast and moved out, leaving no banking services whatsoever; but, Mr. Chairman, the people responded. The people's organizations responded, the Fishermen's Union responded, the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company responded, and the people established the Eagle River Credit Union which has been a very, very successful community-controlled organization providing credit and banking services, deposit and loan services, chequing services, and other services traditionally offered by a bank, through a people-owned and people-controlled credit union.

That was the people's response, Mr. Chairman, to the bank's greed. The bank was not making enough money, the Bank of Montreal, so it pulled out and the Eagle River Credit Union replaced it. The people's organization -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) credit union?

MR. HARRIS: My involvement with a credit union, I say to the Member for Labrador West, goes back a long way. The Member for Grand Falls - Buchans knows about - she has been involved in the credit union movement for many years.

MS THISTLE: Remember what they did in Buchans with the Bank of Montreal, and look what they are doing in Port aux Basques (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, the Bank of Montreal has a long history with the Province of Newfoundland, going back to 1895 after the bank crash. In recent years they have been pulling out their branches in places where they are not making enough money.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are trying to that history (inaudible)? Did you say they had a long history?

MR. HARRIS: They have a long history. They go back to 1895. They were doing the Province's banking or the country's banking in those days, and they will probably be around for a long time to come, but they will pick and choose where they want to be because they are not responding directly to the needs of the people. They are responding to the needs of their shareholders, to the needs of what drives them, which is not service of their members - which is the credit union credo - but in fact providing services for profit for the benefit of their shareholders. They are two totally different types of organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I know a number of members of this House have been member of the credit union. The Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union is one that I have been a member of, going back a dozen or two dozen years, going back to the mid-1970s. I was a member of a credit union in Alberta. I was on the Board of Directors of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, of which the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans managed the Grand Falls branch for a number of years. I do not know how many, but many years I say.

MS THISTLE: Nineteen.

MR. HARRIS: Nineteen, very many years, a lot of years.

MS THISTLE: I took it from zero to twenty-five million.

MR. J. BYRNE: Years?

MR. HARRIS: Not twenty-five million years, no.

Mr. Chairman, that organization, the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, has assets now, I think, in excess of $150 million; one of the largest locally - probably the only democratically controlled pool of capital in this Province, locally controlled. The Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union has assets of $150 million. I was proud to serve as a member on the Board of Directors for seven or eight years and was vice-president for several years, an organization which had its aims, the aims of assisting its members and developing a growth pattern that could be sustained and provide services to its members, mortgage services, checking services, loan services, lately in mutual funds through the ethical mutual funds, all of that being done by a democratically controlled organization that is designed to give one member one vote, regardless of the amount of money that the person has invested or loaned to or loaned from the organization. Regardless of how many shares you have, you only get one vote, and that is the difference between a credit union and a bank.

In a bank you get a vote for each share that you hold, so in order to have any influence on the bank you have to have millions of shares or be some pension fund or other organization that can have any influence on bank policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) said about the bankers.

MR. HARRIS: What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I say to the hon. member, that was not in praise of bankers, that was not a statement in praise of bankers.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that is what I am saying.

MR. HARRIS: It was not a statement in praise of bankers, I say to the Member for Labrador West, and I do not intend to praise bankers here today. I do not intend to praise bankers here today, Mr. Chairman.

My point, and I know if the member had been listening carefully, is that this government has a lot more flexibility than it has been letting on with respect to the public finance, and does not have to be as mean to the needs of ordinary people as it has been.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Chairman, I know that my hon. colleague across the way there, the Member for Cape St. Francis, is tired and so I am going to help him out a bit now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I could not resist, when I heard my colleague across the way, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, speak about credit unions in this Province. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that my entire working career almost has been in the banking industry, with the majority of it spent with the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union.

MR. J. BYRNE: Did you make more money there than you do here?

MS THISTLE: Yes. I have questioned myself many times since I have sat here in this seat. Gee, I was the town counsellor with the Town of Grand Falls and I a manager with the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union. However, I see my role as being able to help more people from this seat and that is the reason why I am in it. It has nothing to do with finances, because if it did I would have stayed where I was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: That is right and you can bank on that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can take that to the bank.

MS THISTLE: However, I would like to speak today in support of credit unions throughout this Province. The Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union started in 1957. It was started by a teacher and her name was Margaret Doyle. She is still living. Does anybody know Margaret Doyle; the teachers in this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack knows her.

MS THISTLE: Jack knows her. Her first deposit was five dollars. This is a history lesson for all you people today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us all about it.

MS THISTLE: Her first deposit was five dollars. Then it was called the Newfoundland Teachers' Co-operative Credit Society. In order to get a loan - Mr. Percy Barrett, my colleague there from Bellevue, would know all about it - in order to get a loan then, you had to pass a board of examiners' close scrutiny. It was very difficult to get a loan in those days. Loans were only passed out as the funds were on hand, and it was very primitive when you look back over it.

In fact, when I started with the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union in 1977, in order to get a balance of someone's account - just imagine how technology has evolved - you would call St. John's and then they would go into what they called a broad band system - nobody knows what a broad band system is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is a band and it is broad.

MS THISTLE: No, they do not. They do not know what a broad band system is. It was a telephone system -

AN HON. MEMBER: Anna, did you happen to see (inaudible)?

MS THISTLE: No. It was a telephone system whereby there was direct line to the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, and only they could use it. Someone would scurry into a vault somewhere and pull out Joe Blow's account card, and then someone else would say: His teacher's payroll was last payday, whatever, the fifteenth, and then they would add on the payroll. Then someone would see if any cheques had come off his account since then. About ten minutes later they would come back and say: The balance of Mr. So and So's account is such-and-such.

Now we are On-line, E-mail, Internet, you name it. That is where credit unions have evolved in this Province. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union is a trend-setter. It is one of the most advanced credit unions in the whole of Atlantic Canada. It is the largest credit union in Atlantic Canada. In fact, the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, my former boss, Ray Hopkins, would be delighted to hear me today raving about the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: In fact, he would be wondering if I would come back and work for him tomorrow morning. Just recently I met him at the airport, last Friday, and he told me: Anna, guess what? We are taking over Bay St. George Credit Union. My colleague from Port au Port, Gerald Smith, will be glad to hear that.

So, that is where the credit union has come throughout the years. They have made great strides. It was only a few month ago that I had an enormous - it was more than a racket, it was an issue, it was trouble, with the Bank of Montreal that wanted to pull out of Buchans. They gave us all kinds of reasons as to how they were going to provide the best service in the world by operating out of a supermarket. And I said then, I said on Open Line and I said in the public: This is only the beginning of what the Bank of Montreal are going to do in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Was I right or was I wrong?

AN HON. MEMBER: You were right on.

MS THISTLE: I was right, wasn't I.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were right.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I was. Only last week we heard how the Bank of Montreal is going to do the same thing in Port aux Basques. Where is the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is gone back to start the credit union (inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I would say he is over there now organizing and trying to squash what the Bank of Montreal is trying to do in Port aux Basques.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Because that is just a beginning. What you are going to find now, wherever there is a Bank of Montreal in a community they are going to be in some supermarket, and more than likely it is going to be a - no, I will not say it, I cannot do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) spoil it.

MS THISTLE: I will not spoil it. It is going to be in a supermarket similar to a chain like we see in Buchans, probably. However, if more people in this Province were to go out and support Credit Unions, we would have a much better banking system in this Province.

Do you know that the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union was the first credit union to bring in a drive-up banking machine and a drive-up window where you can sit in your car on a rainy day, or if you have your rollers in, or if you have your -

AN HON. MEMBER: I know all about having my rollers.

MS THISTLE: If you have your rollers in or you do not want to actually speak to the teller, you can drive up to a wicket at the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union and get your money and do whatever you want. Not only is that convenient, but it is convenient to disabled people. The Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union was the first to provide access to disabled persons, who can actually drive up to the teller window and get served just as if they were inside in a branch.

The problem with the credit unions in this Province is that we do not have enough people here. I would like to know - hands up who supports credit unions in this Province. I would like to know who deals with credit unions. Is it the majority? Okay. From looking around I can see that one third of this House supports and deals with credit unions in this Province.

 

You know something, if we had more people like us dealing with credit unions in this Province, we would have a better competition in pricing, for service charge and everything else.

What is happening in this Province is people are taking the freebies from credit unions and putting the bulk of their money into the banks. And you know what, the banks are not doing anything for our Province. In fact, most of the time they are not even putting in bricks and mortar. They are leasing, they are renting out of some building somewhere that they do not have any control in the community. They do not care.

Banks are sending their money to third world countries while credit unions are putting down bricks and mortar in this Province and they are paying taxes, they are providing jobs. So we need more people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Banks are cutting back jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: And full time jobs too.

MS THISTLE: And full time jobs. When you call up now to a bank, 1-800: Hello! You can hardly even recognize who you are talking to because it might be somebody in Montreal, it could be someone in Vancouver or down in Philadelphia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Port de Grave even.

MS THISTLE: They do not know where Fogo is, do they Gerry?

MR. G. REID: Not a chance!

MS THISTLE: No. Do they know where Cartwright is?

MR. G. REID: They do not know where Newfoundland is, most of them.

MS THISTLE: Do they know where - where are you from? Bateau?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bateau!

MS THISTLE: L'Anse au Clair. That is our member across the way.

So, one thing about credit unions, they know every nook and cranny in this Province. They know people and they operate on the premise that people are the most important aspect of their business.

When I walked into the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union they said: Good morning, Anna. Glad to hear that your son is back. Was your daughter in for the weekend? I can walk into a bank, sure they do not know who I am until I give them my account number.

AN HON. MEMBER: They know you by your account number.

MS THISTLE: They know you by your account number. That is the only way banks know you.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I would say it is more like the overdraft.

However, at a credit union you are a person. You mean something at a credit union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: And you only have to look around in the community. Try and get a donation from a bank in your community for something that is going on. Forget it! Go to a credit union, they will support every event in the community.

MR. TULK: Don't forget the motion.

MS THISTLE: What was the motion?

MR. TULK: Oh, oh!

MS THISTLE: Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Profits. Absolutely! Banks operate on profit. What they are doing is investing in third world countries. They take the hit in the third world countries and they are putting it out on the backs of you and I and trying to collect back. That is exactly what is happening.

With credit unions, everybody is treated the same. Credit unions don't care who you are. Every member has the same response, the same respect at a credit union. You have a chance, when they come to an annual meeting, to voice your concerns. Every member has a vote.

Now, if I don't like something that is being done at the Bank of Montreal, do you think that is going to make a difference when I talk to the vice-president? Not a chance. If I don't like something at the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, if I talk to Ray Hopkins, do you think that is going to make a difference?

AN HON. MEMBER: I know it is going to make a difference.

MS THISTLE: Do you think it is going to make a difference? What do think will happen?

AN HON. MEMBER: He will change it.

MS THISTLE: That's right. He will be on that phone: Bank manager, credit union manager in Grand Falls - Windsor, I have a complaint from the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Listen, you had better treat that member with rubber gloves, kid gloves and white gloves when he comes in the next time or your job is on the line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the next time.

MS THISTLE: Is that right?

Anyway, in closing I would like to say, let's take a look at credit unions throughout this Province and when we are choosing a banking system, give them a chance.

I would like to move the motion that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The motion is that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am glad to stand today to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman. Just this weekend past I attended a short conference at the college in Baie Verte, the Community College of the North Atlantic.

MR. J. BYRNE: What does that have to do with that bill?

MR. SHELLEY: It has a lot to do with it because we are going to talk about education.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. SHELLEY: And the conference was about IT, Mr. Chairman. It was all about Information Technology and the new world that awaits all of us. There were some very interesting presentations at that conference. A lot of young people were attending. Also, Mr. Chairman, what was interesting was there were a lot of young business people who were attending.

Some of the presentations made, they were all interesting but one in particular, Mr. Chairman - I will not use the name of the company or the person who made the presentation, but it really started to open your eyes to what is happening in Information Technology. How many people, no matter what part of the world you are living in - as a matter of fact, this particular individual just came back from South Africa. He went through all parts of South Africa talking about the experience with Information Technology and the incredible things that it can do in this day and age. He had a small box system that he could go anywhere in the world and use faxes or phones, no matter where. Even in parts of Africa where he was, there were no phone systems, wires for a phone system, but he could use that little box system that had a satellite dish. He could use a phone or fax from anywhere in the world.

This same person related it to Newfoundland and Labrador, with our problems over the years, of course, before this technology came about. Our geography of Newfoundland has been a major problem for young people who have ideas and so on, who could not expand their business. But now, Mr. Chairman, with the use of computers, satellites and imaging and all these things, anybody, anywhere with a good concept for business can actually do business in their own home without using buildings and so on. They can sit down in their own bedroom, some young people, and using the Information Technology system, a fantastic system -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: He is.

A fantastic system, Mr. Chairman, where a young person, eighteen or nineteen-years-old - and he gave some examples of them there - who could actually sit in their bedrooms with a computer and start up a business. They are actually sitting there now. There are people in their homes in Newfoundland and Labrador today, who are actually sitting in their bedrooms, study or in the basement with a computer who are in a business, just using that technology to form their own concepts and their own ideas.

What the message was from these presentations on IT, Mr. Chairman, is that with the situation we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador in even recent years of people who would have to travel to St. John's, or would have to travel to Corner Brook or to some of the larger centres in the Province just to get their ideas across and do some marketing, but now he is starting to do an example at the conference of a whole marketing scheme that could be done in any part of the world on any product just sitting there at the computer.

I know a lot of members here in the House use it. I am a self-learner. I would like to have some more time to learn more about computers because every day it is changing. As a matter of fact, I am sure at this same conference next year there will be things that will have to be learned again, additions to what we already have now. The point is, with this technology, with the way it is developing, Newfoundland's disadvantages from a few years ago are not the same any more. The disadvantages now have been taken away due to technology and what we can use in that.

As a matter of fact, I am studying quite a bit now on the Internet, using Information Technology to learn about magnesium. I have even just punched in on my computer at home and found out that there is an international magnesium home page. You can learn about all the markets, you can learn everything there is to know about it. Through Information Technology you can find out where it is being sold, at what prices, and what it is used for.

I was interested in that for a particular reason because hopefully in the near future there will be some developments in the Baie Verte area with magnesium at the old Baie Verte mine site. Up to this point in time, to be quite honest with you, I knew very little about magnesium. Of course, with this possibility on the horizon, I decided to try to study it myself.

The point is, you can pick up your computer, with Sympatico now in the Province, and so on - very fast, very good speed - and you can find information on any subject. Now we have the advantage.

Another point he made at the presentation was that although all the courses you do with computers, and if you did a computer course at MUN five years ago, that is wonderful and it would probably lay the foundation for a lot of it, but the truth is that you would have to do another update, a two- or three-month course next week, if you want to catch up with the imagining and the things that are used now with computer technology.

Mr. Chairman, I will clue up on this particular bill now and we will move on to another debate.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the Province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund."

On motion, resolution carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5 inclusive carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a resolution and a bill consequent thereto, without amendment, carried. (Bill No. 15)

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Motion No. 3, Bill No. 11.

CHAIR: Motion No. 3. Bill No. 11.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board 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)

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This legislation is pretty pro forma. What it does each year is, it sets forth the guarantees made by the Government of Newfoundland, mostly for various enterprises. Sometimes they involve Crown corporations. In this case the corporations are listed here: Integrated Poultry Limited; Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation; S.C.B. Fisheries Limited; Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society Limited.

If the members have any questions respecting either the substance of the bill or the particular guarantees and the rationale therefore, I would be happy to explain it.

Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the number of that bill?

MR. DICKS: Bill No. 11.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman. I rise to say a few words on Bill 11, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957". The concerns I have with this particular piece of legislation - we see the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stand in this House and continue to talk about allowing the fishing industry to survive on its own, and how government grants and government guaranteed loans should not be part of this particular industry any more. I fully concur.

I think if we are going to have a fishery of the future, and if we are going to allow the marketplace and business sense of business people in this industry to survive, then we have to get out of the business. Government has to get out of fishermen's and fish processors' pockets and get off their backs. That is not what is happening here.

We see the Fogo Island Co-op, and there is nobody any happier than me to see rural Newfoundland towns being given a lease on life, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: But I have a real problem when I see industries being propped up by this government by guaranteed loans, and going out into the marketplace and competing with the competition and paying them a higher price for product they are purchasing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, it is correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it is not.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it is correct. I can prove to the minister that this is what is happening, Mr. Chairman. I know the minister will say: What are we going to do? The people on Fogo Island live on an island. If that fish plant is allowed to close or not allowed to operate it will be the death of the town, it will be the exodus of hundreds of people.

Mr. Speaker, maybe when the minister stands and says those things, he is right. What the minister is saying, and what the minister will say, can be repeated for every town and every community, Mr. Speaker, that has a fish plant on this Island.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that we are in Committee. It is Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, what the member will say will be a repeat of what can happen anywhere in this Province. If you look at Gaultois, for instance, on an island, an isolated community, the only way to get to and from Gaultois is by boat, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the people in Gaultois today have a real problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I hope he does, and that is what I want answered. I am only expressing my concerns with the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You very seldom ask me a question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Very seldom do you ask me a question.

MR. FITZGERALD: I very seldom ask you a question. Mr. Speaker -

CHAIR: Mr. Chairman!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, those are some of the concerns I have. Conpak Seafoods now, I think, is in Gaultois. They are into a big set-to with Daley Brothers. The people out in Gaultois are unhappy with what is happening with their fish plant there. Mr. Speaker, the plant is not working -

CHAIR: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: The plant is not working, and in all likelihood you may see the people from Gaultois knocking on the door of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, asking if he would provide them with a guaranteed loan in order for their fish plant to survive.

I guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, this would be one community that, if you didn't put money into that particular facility, they will have to struggle in order to survive.

We see Ramea. I suppose if there was ever (inaudible) for a government guaranteed loan, it would have been Ramea, an isolated community nestled among the hills in the rocks of the South West Coast. We see a businessman, in fact a small businessman, who started off with his own fishing boat and it now going in and taking the chance of creating a new business in Ramea.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who do you think got him down there?

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not know who got him there, but whoever it was, a blessing to him and I hope he survives. I know the man; I have talked to him. In fact he has taken me on, on a couple of issues that I have raised when I talked about processing at sea because he did not believe in it. I talk to him not on a regular basis but I have talked to him a few times. I know he has other business ideas that I believe can help other communities. But, Mr. Chairman, here we have a minister standing in his place and saying that we are getting out of financing this particular industry.

S.C.B. Fisheries is mentioned there. I would like to ask the minister, when he stands to speak, maybe he can enlighten us as to what is happening with S.C.B. Fisheries. It is my understanding, and he can correct me if I am wrong, that the minister has his deputy minister, or assistant deputy minister, down in Bay d'Espoir now looking after that particular operation. I do not know if it is true or not, but that is my understanding.

Obviously the minister has some concern about what is happening there, about the finances of that particular operation, or he would not be taking his assistant deputy minister and sending him down to St. Alban's and saying: Look after this particular operation for us.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is going on down there?

MR. FITZGERALD: There are problems down there, I say to the Opposition House Leader. There are problems with S.C.B. Fisheries. I suppose if there is an argument to be made for this piece of legislation, it can probably be made on the Labrador Coast.

When I see the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operative Society, $1,500,000 loan-guarantee, and when I see the Torngat Fish Producers Co-operatives Society Limited for a $600,000 loan-guarantee, it is a situation where those people for the most part are not out competing directly for the bulk of the harvesters around this Province.

When I see Fogo Island Co-op -

MR. G. REID: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. G. REID: I would like to say a couple of words about what the Member for Bonavista South is saying about the Co-op on Fogo Island and the fact that we have a loan guarantee in place there.

In fact, I think if you would check, that loan guarantee went in under the previous administration and this government, along with the one previous to this, I think, have always had a policy with respect to the island towns and the Coast of Labrador, giving them a little bit more special consideration.

What the member has been saying is that the Fogo Island Co-op is out competing with other fish plants in the Province. How is the Fogo Island Co-op supposed to survive if they don't go out and compete with the other fish processors in this Province? Just last week, a processor in this Province enticed one of the full-time crab fisherman from Fogo Island to go to his fish plant.

What I guess you are saying is that we, or the Fogo Island Co-op, shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to do likewise. I don't think that would be quite fair. The -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to clue up his point of order.

MR. G. REID: All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this government looks at the island communities in this Province, and the isolated island communities in this Province, and the Coast of Labrador, and gives them special consideration.

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, to that point of order?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I'm just continuing with debate.

CHAIR: There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo used the opportunity to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

The Chair is ruling.

The hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo took advantage of the opportunity to further elaborate on the topic that was being debated. There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to respond to what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo referred to there, I wasn't referring to somebody competing. I have no problem with somebody competing. The problem I have is when you are seeing a $2 million loan guarantee being put forward by the taxpayers of this Province, and the same company that receives the loan guarantee goes out and competes and pays more for raw product, up to $0.10 more for raw product than the competitors. That is something I have a real problem with.

MR. G. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

Before the hon. member speaks, I would ask that the microphone be turned on.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a point of order.

MR. G. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that if the Member for Bonavista North were to check -

CHAIR: Bonavista South.

MR. G. REID: Bonavista South. I am sorry! If he were to check it out he might find that some of the people who are competing in the industry today were recipients of government guarantees under the previous administration.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The member wants to debate this, and I certainly intend to debate it too when it comes to my turn. He is debating an issue there that has no relevance whatsoever. It is a government policy now not to prop up industry, and they are propping it up contrary to their policy, and he is trying to use debate to get the point. He has an opportunity in debate to be able to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Both hon. members took advantage of the opportunity to just further engage in debate. The opportunity is there for all hon. member to engage in debate if they so wish. There is no point or order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is time that the government and the taxpayers of this Province got away from subsidizing those types of businesses, got away from putting forward loan guarantees. It is time that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stayed in his office instead of taking people by the hand and leading them to the bank to negotiate loans for them. It is time, Mr. Chairman, that those plants were allowed to exist on their own and survive on their own. If they want to go out and pay more for the price of a product that they are purchasing then sobeit.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I say to the Member for Humber East, Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what could happen here because the minister in his wisdom - and I am telling you that the minister, our sitting minister now, has done more to hurt the crab industry in this Province than any other minister before him. You go out and talk to the processors today, you go out and talk to the crab plant workers - and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs nods his head in agreement.

MR. EFFORD: Not so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: You go out and talk to the people down in Trouty, in the Member for Trinity North's district. You go down and talk to the people who work in the Bonavista crab plant and you go out and talk to those people who normally, this time of the year, would be working two shifts, six or seven days a week, Mr. Chairman, and you will find that a lot of them do not even have enough work to receive a full week's pay, with the crab industry opened for well over a month now.

All the minister has done is transfer jobs from one area to another. All he has done is hand out crab licenses, Mr. Chairman, with no perception of what he was doing to that particular industry. Crab plants, fish plants that were closed, government owned fish plants that were closed since 1991 or 1992 and all of a sudden the minister comes forward and props them up with guaranteed loans and gives them crab licenses, Mr. Chairman. What we have done now is have other fish plants, other crab plants, other processors struggling to survive.

I venture to say, in the two plants that I know something about, the one in Trouty and the one in Bonavista, Mr. Chairman, that you will not have half the people there who will qualify for even the minimum EI benefits this year.

It was only the other day that I got a phone call from a lady who worked over in Trouty, over in the Member for Trinity North's district, wondering what was going to happen, if there was going to be a make-work project on the go. I said: What did you do last year? She said: I worked in the crab plant. How long did you get? I qualified for EI. I got in excess of 600 hours over there. I said: How long have you been working so far this year? I got two shifts.

Down in Bonavista, I am hearing the same stories, Mr. Chairman, about people who would normally be getting close to their number of hours, and instead they have not received a full week's pay since they started work six weeks ago in this particular industry.

It is all because the minister spread it out, and all he has done - Mr. Woodman, out in Trinity Bay, confirmed exactly what I was saying, that the minister in his wisdom and in his efforts to put forward those crab licences has not created one new job. All he has done is spread the work around.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Fred Woodman actually say that?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, he did so.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? (Inaudible) crab licence.

MR. FITZGERALD: He has no problem with his crab licence. He wanted a crab licence and the minister gave it to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought Fred was smarter than that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fred is telling the truth. The minister has not created one new job.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot have it both ways here. We cannot have the minister go around this Province and stand on his soapbox talking about the fishing industry that is now being allowed to exist on its own. He cannot go out and talk about government not being involved in the fishery anymore. Then, under the guise of the Minister of Finance, slip through a bill that shows three and four fish plants, fish processors in this Province, receiving $150,000, 2,000,000, Mr. Chairman, $600,000 of government guaranteed loans.

You know what government guarantee loans are. You know what happened at the Petty Harbour Co-op. You know what happened to the multi-foods plant down there with the Saltfish Corporation. You know what happened there to government guaranteed loans in those particular situations, where the taxpayers of this Province ended up paying the tab.

Mr. Chairman, we look at Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited. Who is Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: I think that is the Marystown Shipyard.

MR. FITZGERALD: Smith Seafoods Limited, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Group, Earle Brothers Fisheries Limited - that is in the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: P. Janes and Sons. The one that jumps out at us, Mr. Speaker, is S.C.B. Fisheries -

CHAIR: I remind the hon. member for at least the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth time that we are in Committee, and he address his comments to Mr. Chairman.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, the one that jumps out at us is the Fogo Island Co-op. I think we have to get away from this. When the Government House Leader was the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods and we saw just about $18 million of taxpayers' dollars being directed towards the chicken industry, I.P.L, Integrated Poultry Limited, just about $18 million of taxpayers' dollars right here in this legislation - I don't know why we have to go and throw money at those particular industries.

Are we going to get our money back, I say to the Government House Leader? How much of the $18 million are the taxpayers of this Province going to get back? Very little. I would say probably nothing. In fact I saw $10 million there as a grant to Integrated Poultry Limited.

Mr. Chairman, it wasn't enough to turn over the whole industry to I.P.L., give them land so they can go and build their chicken coops, they went out and bought out Masterfeeds, which was a good idea. I suppose it was a wise way to spend money, but I would like to look at those books.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not so sure it has stopped, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not so sure it stopped, because when you see what has happened at Newfoundland Farm Products, the happenings down there, Mr. Government House Leader, when you were the minister -

MR. TULK: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: When you saw the happenings that are being investigated now, some of the concerns that the Auditor General raised, and some concerns that other people have raised and brought forward at Newfoundland Farm Products -

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: I would say if this had happened not only with the other Administration -

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentlemen that the stuff being investigated by the Auditor General did not go on when I was the minister. It went on before I was the minister, and I think it continued for about the first or second month. After that it was stopped.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: It continued for a long time. When you see an equipment supplier -

AN HON. MEMBER: Be careful, now.

MR. FITZGERALD: I do not have to be careful, I say to the member.

When you see a company from Ontario coming down here doing work at Newfoundland Farm Products, repairing equipment -

MR. TULK: When did that happen?

MR. FITZGERALD: - Newfoundland Farm Products, the government buying equipment from them, this same subsidized industry that the taxpayers of this Province were subsidizing to the tune of $8 million to $10 million a year, was taking chicken and carrying it back to Ontario and selling it and making huge profits on the backs of the taxpayers of this Province, that is wrong.

That is all the more reason why we should look at the $18 million that we have thrown at this group of people and make sure that we are out of the business altogether. But up until now we are not out of the business. We are no more out of Newfoundland Farm Products than we are out of the fishing industry.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: And I will correct the minister any time he stands again on his soapbox out in rural areas and talks about the government getting out of the fishing industry, because it is not true.

MR. EFFORD: It is so true!

MR. FITZGERALD: It is not true. That is not the way that you say it minister. You don't say we are getting out. You are saying, we are out. Let the fittest survive. That has been the argument you have used.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to get involved in the fishing industry, and if we are going to continue subsidizing processors, then let's treat everybody alike, I say to the minister. Let's get out of it altogether. Fogo Island Co-op is no more than FPI in Bonavista. It is no more than Atlantic Marine in Trouty, I say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It is a business.

MR. EFFORD: You said that Fogo Island Co-op is no more than FPI.

MR. FITZGERALD: And no more than Atlantic Marine, and no more than Atlantic Crab Products in Trouty, Mr. Chairman. If you are going to go and subsidize an industry, then let's treat everybody alike. Let's treat everybody alike. Let's treat the processors alike, and if they are going to go out and compete then let them compete on a level playing field. Let's not use the taxpayers' dollars of this Province again to allow processors to go out and pay more for a product than their competitors can pay.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Government House Leader, do you feel it is right?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: You feel it is okay to put forward government guaranteed loans and allow the same processor to go out and pay ten cents a pound more -

MR. TULK: No, no.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, that is what is happening.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) last year, and I think the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has made it a condition. You just asked the question and said how (inaudible), that it is not going to happen again.

MR. EFFORD: That is right.

MR. FITZGERALD: It has already happened.

MR. TULK: No, not this year.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: It happened last year when they were (inaudible) extended it to $2 million.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Now they have extended it and rewarded them by extending it to $2 million, Mr. Chairman. So I plead with the Minister of Finance as he leaves the room, and I plead with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because obviously he has taken this to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance does not approve such guaranteed loans unless the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture comes looking. He would not do it! It is at his recommendation. So I can't see how he can go out and talk out of both sides of his mouth.

I say to the minister, let's get out of the business. Let's allow processors to process, harvesters to harvest, and let's do it on a level playing field.

With those remarks I will sit down and allow somebody else to continue if they want.

[Continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard No. 37A]


June 2, 1998              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIII  No. 37A


 

[Continuation of Sitting]

 

CHAIR (Oldford):  The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

 

MR. OTTENHEIMER:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Just a few comments on An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.  It's interesting just to have a look at the list.  I notice that my colleague for Bonavista South referred to some of the incorporated bodies that were subject to The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.  Just out of curiosity I have a question for the minister.  Maybe when he gets up to speak to this particular bill he can refer to it.

 

For example, the Order-in-Council notice is dated 1997, so one can only make the assumption that this particular bill is dealing with the continuation of loan guarantees as opposed to the implementation or the commencement of loan guarantee's.

 

Under Integrated Poultry Limited we see an authorization of a $10 million loan guarantee to support capital funding which enabled Integrated Poultry Limited to take over the operations in Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation.  "The loan has a 5 year term and a 10 year amortization period."  It would be interesting to note what the actual monthly or periodic payments are.  Because obviously an amount of a $10 million loan guarantee with a 5 year term and a 10 year amortization period must by its very nature have very significant periodic payments.

 

It would be interesting to know the details of these loans.  We see a piece of legislation here, Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.  Really, we do not have any details, we do not have any specifics of the loan.  We don't have specifics as to the actual periodic payments, whether payments are accelerated.  We do know the amortization period is over a 10 year period and it is a 5 year term, but the act itself does not give us any detail, it doesn't give us any particulars, as to the exact nature of the loan.

 

Similarly, with Order-in-Council 702-'97, this is an authorization of a $1 million loan guarantee for Integrated Poultry Limited.  The Explanatory Notes say, "This guarantee supports a $6,000,000 operating credit and has no expiry date."  Again, a question that comes to the mind of this member is the purpose of the operating credit.  I mean, again, what is the nature?  I think we could ask this question with respect to every single item, Items 1 through 6: What is the purpose of the loan guarantee?  We are talking millions of dollars of taxpayers' money which are being expended under this particular act.  What is the purpose?

 

It's okay for government and for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to say: We will now introduce Bill 11 and we will amend the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957.  Just look at the amounts.  I remind members, under Integrated Poultry Limited, authorization of a $10 million loan guarantee; Item 2, authorization of a $1 million loan guarantee; Item 3, a $6.5 million loan guarantee for Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation; S.C.B. Fisheries Limited, Item 4, authorization of a $2.6 million loan guarantee; Item 5, Torngat, $1.5 million; and Item 6, Torngat, a $600,000 loan guarantee.

 

These are very significant amounts of public funds.  Again, the question that has not been answered, and certainly the issue has not been addressed at all: What is the purpose?  Why is it necessary that taxpayers' money, to such significant amounts, totalling at least $20 million when added up, be expended at this particular time?  What it is is it's a blank cheque of the taxpayers' money being used.  This legislation just seems to suddenly appear, $20 million of taxpayers' money being used without any explanation whatsoever as to the purpose of the expenditure and why public funds are being requested at this time.

 

We see as well under the Explanatory Notes: "Clause 2 of this Bill would amend the Schedule to the Act, as enacted by chapter 31 of 1987, by approving" - and just notice this - "(a) the increase of a loan guarantee for Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited from $62,400,000 to $67,400,000..."  Again, an increase of $5 million.  The taxpayers of this Province on the hook in this particular instance for an additional $5 million.  Also, "from $67,650,000 to $72,150,000 as authorized by..." a further Order-in-Council.  Again, a further security of $5 million.  We are talking very significant amounts of funds, and again, without rationale as to the reason why.

 

I think what we need in this case is a detailed accounting.  It is not simply good enough, I say to members opposite, just simply to introduce legislation.  This is not a budget.  Even a budget, even a Throne Speech, has rationale.  Even a budget has contained within it details, in the Estimates for example, and we have in the salary details all of the calculated expenses of government and the purpose.  This particular act just in blanket form demonstrates an accountability or lack thereof of some $20 million.  The question again is: What is the purpose of it, and why are we at this time, without adequate explanation, being presented with this particular bill?

 

The minister ought to address in detail, the purpose and the reason behind such expenditures.  I say to the minister, and I call upon the minister, as we continue in debate on this particular issue, to give some detail to all members of this House as to why it is now necessary to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars with respect to the taxpayers' money.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

CHAIR:  The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. EFFORD:  No, I just wanted to answer a few question.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  You are not closing debate.

 

MR. EFFORD:  No, it is not my bill, it is the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board's.

 

My critic from Bonavista South is not in his chair.  He may be behind the Chair.  If he is not I would assume he is in listening distance out in his caucus room.

 

I will make a couple of points on the bill.  The guaranteed loans, as far as they fall under the responsibility of the fishing industry, the hon. member is quite right.  We have, I think it is, four guaranteed loans out now to the fishing industry.  We have made a commitment as a government that we are fully intended to get out of the financing in any form whatsoever to the primary processing and harvesting of the fishing industry.  In other words, there will be no more loans, subsidies, or grants in any manner whatsoever to the primary fishing industry.  What we have on our books now is existing guaranteed loans.  We have a commitment from those companies, and we have set a direction very clear to those companies, that they must phase out those guaranteed loans over a period of time.

 

We have to keep in mind the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador when it pertains to the fishing industry.  Let's take an island, let's take Fogo.  Fogo is the one that I think is the contentious one that there is some discussion around.  Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited had an existing loan guarantee of $2 million.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Owned and operated by the Fogo Island people.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Owned and operated by the people -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  - (inaudible) the ten communities.

 

MR. EFFORD:  - and by the ten communities of Fogo Island.  They got it down to $1 million.  We had hoped and they had hoped that they would further decrease that loan guarantee.  Keep in mind the problems that we have with the fishing industry today, the fact that our groundfish industry is not showing any signs of recovery.  We have a shrimp industry on the go.  In order to get into the shrimp industry, it would cost several million dollars.

 

The Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited is not in the financial position at this point and time to be able to expand their operations to get into the shrimp industry.  Nevertheless, they have to supply employment opportunities to the people on Fogo Island.  It is their operation.

 

In order to keep the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited in operation this year to protect the people on the Island - keep the mind on the island; where else are they going to work? - we had to increase their loan guarantee back to its original amount of $2 million.  What we have said to the Fogo Island Co-op is: We want a complete restructuring of your operations on Fogo Island, and a plan to come forth about where you are going in the future with that - sorry, what is it, four plants or five plants?

AN HON. MEMBER:  Fogo Island?

 

MR. EFFORD:  Fogo.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Five.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Five plants is right.  We have said to them we want to see a business plan of the Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited, and where it is going in the future.  They know, we know, and you know that there isn't enough resource to keep five plants going on Fogo Island.  No more is there enough resource to keep 245 plants going on the Island portion of the Province.  So an overall restructuring of the industry must take place.

 

That is the position we have taken with Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited.  Give us a restructuring plan, let us see where you are going to go in the future, how you are going to maintain employment for the needs of the people in those communities on that island with a less overall operational cost of the business.  Then give us a plan on where you are going to go in year one, year two, with the loan guarantee program.

 

We want to get out of all the loan guarantee programs in the fishing industry.  We have got it down in number.  I don't know if it's four or five loan guarantees.  We have a full intention to do that.  That goes for all the few remaining companies in it.  The Fogo Island Co-operative Society Limited, I want to say to my colleagues opposite, this is a special case with special circumstances because they do not yet have their restructuring plan in place.

 

CHAIR:  The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I certainly have some comments I want to make on Bill 11.  In fact, I don't buy the explanation.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Yes you do, `Loyola.'

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No I don't, Minister.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Yes you do.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture I don't agree with it.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Yes you do.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I don't agree with propping up businesses in this Province that are out competing with businesses -

 

MR. EFFORD:  What would you do with Fogo Island?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Here is what I will do with Fogo Island.  I will tell you what I will do.

 

MR. EFFORD:  Tell me.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I would do what I do with every other business on this Island.  I would say to them: There is surplus capacity in the industry.  If Fogo Island closed there would be someone in there tomorrow operating it.  There would be someone in operating it tomorrow, I tell you.  That is what they will do.  They will be in operating tomorrow.  In my district, I will tell you, in Fermeuse, there were nearly 300 workers, and a company owed $23 million, and now the workers can't even qualify for TAGS because it went bankrupt.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I know what you are saying.  Okay, here is what I'm saying.  Fogo Island Co-op went out last year and offered more money to fishermen to sell to them on crab, $0.10 a pound more, and now they are down on bended knee, want another $1 million of taxpayers' dollars.  It's wrong, it's contrary to government policy, and it shouldn't be.  That minister will destroy the fishing industry in this Province if he continues what he is doing.

 

MR. TULK:  Point of order.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point or order.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, let me just say something to the hon. gentleman.  I have no desire to get into this debate, but here was the process.  It's no longer my district so I'm not speaking for my district.  Let me just say to you that there are portions of this Province that need some special consideration when it comes to employment, and I think a lot of them are the islands in this Province.

 

In the case of Fogo Island Co-op selling stuff for $0.10 a pound, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has told them that that has to stop, that they do not compete off the island or that they do not raise prices.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  The other thing that I want - yes, it has to stop.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  He said it didn't happen.

 

MR. TULK:  Pardon me?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  He said it didn't happen.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

 

MR. TULK:  I'm on a point of order.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  (Inaudible)!

 

MR. TULK:  All right, if you don't want me to stand and say - all right, good enough.  I'm not interested.  It's not my district.  You get up and hammer at it all you like.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

No point of order.

 

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I don't mind members standing and engaging in debate but not when I'm speaking.  In fact, I will sit down and let him speak and get back up again, I don't mind that, but you don't have to get up on a point order to say something.  If the Member for Twillingate & Fogo wants to say something I will sit down and let him say it and I will get back up again, but we don't need points of order to delay debate when they are not points of order.  If he wants to be recognized, I will take my seat for awhile, and then let me have my ten or fifteen minutes, and I will give that member ten or fifteen minutes.  That is all I am asking.

 

MR. G. REID:  (Inaudible).

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo on a point of order.

 

MR. G. REID:  Mr. Chairman, point of order.  I have sat here this afternoon and listened to a couple of members talk about how the Fogo Island Co-op has offered $0.10 more a pound on crab than any other plant in this area.  I would like to see the proof of that.

 

I would also like to ask the hon. members opposite this.  If they are offering $0.10 a pound more, which is a sizeable amount of money, why is it that as late as last week a full-time crab fisherman left the Fogo Island Co-op to go to another fish plant, if he was being offered $0.10 more a pound on Fogo Island than he was anywhere else in the Province?

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!  Order, please!

 

There is no point of order.

 

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I am just speaking in debate and not to the point of order.

 

CHAIR:  No, I have ruled it is not a point of order.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Sure there are lots of things going on.  It is not one of mine, I might say, because I'm not involved in any.  I haven't been involved in any whatsoever since 1993.  In fact, here is the point.  Last year -

 

MR. TULK:  (Inaudible) is false, this is bad, this is no good.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:   I'm not saying this year, I said last year -

 

MR. TULK:  I know what it's about now.  I got it figured out what it's about.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, last year it happened and the Government House Leader made some reference about paying under the table and so on -

 

MR. TULK:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  - and maybe they do, I don't know.  I'm not dealing with it, I'm not involved in the industry.  I know that government policy is not to be propping up businesses where there is overcapacity in this Province.  Last year -

 

MR. SHELLEY:  What is the Government House Leader talking about?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I would like to know what he is talking about, to be honest with you.  I would love to hear, and I will give him time to say it, and I will respond to it too.  Basically I would love to hear it.

 

This government is propping up industries in this Province in a competitive market by doubling the guarantee because they didn't operate as sufficiently or had a money problem last year and they are giving them double the money.  It is wrong.  Anybody who thinks a company can't make it on their own on a $1 million guarantee, it comes back and wants $2 million this year, when there are industries out there - and don't talk about an island.  I say to the minister, what about other companies that are listed here that are not on islands?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I see Torngat as being in a different category because if that shut down somebody would not go into Torngat I would say the next day.  There is a great possibility it wouldn't.  I can tell you that the people on this island -

 

MR. TULK:  Do you know the history of Fogo Island?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  The history?  I know a lot of history.

 

MR. TULK:  Do you know the history of Fogo Island?  Do you know what happened on Fogo Island?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  In terms of loan guarantees?

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I had one in my district actually that had problems, and the bank called in over a $1 million loan there a few years ago.  The provincial government paid the bank over $1 million because they called in the loan.  They called in a loan on one in my district, in the Petty Harbour Co-op.  The loan was called in by the bank of $1.1 million or roughly there and this government had to pay the bank that guarantee, basically.

 

I will say it again, I don't support this government going out and rewarding inefficiencies or losses in their operation to give them higher guarantees.  I don't agree with it.  It is wrong, when you are out in the industry today with more capacity out there then you can survive.  They are trying to reduce capacity.  That Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is opening up, hand over fist, closed government plants that have been going on for years in the industry.  I have no invested interest in the fishery in this Province, not one bit whatsoever.  None.

 

I have one member of my family who is involved in ownership and not one other person is involved in ownership of plants in this Province.  Some are fishermen, some work in plants, and one is involved to some extent within an industry.  In fact, only in a part ownership of a plant that is operating now.  That is basically it.  I have been in the industry for a period of time, I have seen the industry out there.

 

I don't support it.  I don't care what they did in the past, whether it was a PC or Liberal government, I'm personally and philosophically opposed to propping up and supporting one industry against another, period.  The fishing industry, retail industry, any industry out there at all, I don't personally agree with it.  It is wrong, it's not government policy, and the minister has said it continuously out there.  Don't give us an excuse that he told them not to do it any more, don't pay any more.  In reality today, you negotiate a price, and if someone wants to pay higher than that price, lots of times you negotiate a price and people get paid more.  You can't control it.

 

He mentioned lost fishermen to the Fogo Island Co-operative.  There is hardly a fish plant around that didn't lose fishing boats last year; they have new boats from other plants, and they switch.  Many harvesters today are independent, they will go for the better price.  Wouldn't you if you were out in the fishing boat and could get a few cents more a pound?  Sure you would go.

 

Some couldn't get money through loan boards.  They cut out the loan boards in here.  They have to go begging to fishing companies to give them money to be able to finance their fishing schooners.  They get guarantees to sell their fish because we are putting up hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars in companies around this Province that are doing that.  That is happening out there, that is no secret out there.  It is happening.

 

I don't support government shoving its nose in the middle of a competitive industry in this Province.  That is completely wrong.  There are people in this House and over there, many of the people who deep down, if they knew this issue, what was at stake here, wouldn't agree with it either.  It's fundamentally wrong.  Anybody in their right mind is not going to do it.

 

I will use an example.  There were nineteen crab licenses in the Province.  The minister said all core plants are going to get access to all licenses.  Now they are up to thirty-seven.  He happened to give it to his friends who wanted one, and now there are no more.  Not a chance, he said, of a crab in a boiler now of getting another one.  We are going to take them on people.

 

Here is what they did this year.  They forced people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to save that license they were given when it wasn't practical.  There was a company that never even used it.  They have no intention of using the crab license they were given because they got it for political purposes.  In fact, there are companies that got it without asking for it.  That is what happened.

 

It is strictly politicized here.  It should allow the fishing industry to survive.  Because it will always depend on a crutch, I can tell you, in the history of this Province, as long as we are getting the type of interference we are getting by this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture who, I can tell you, will sound the death-knell of the fishing industry if he stays involved.

 

He even went to a bank, he even told me the name of the company.  He went to a bank himself with a fishing company trying to get a loan to operate.  He named the company from his seat when I mentioned it to him today.  I won't name the company here, but the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture went to the bank to negotiate a loan for a fish plant he had an interest in.  I'm not saying an invested interest in it, not invested monetarily, but he had an interest in it.  I'm telling you that is wrong, it's blatant political interference, and I can tell you he is going to destroy the fishing industry in this Province today.  It's wrong, I'm not going to support it.

 

This bill not only touches on Fogo Island Co-op.  I want to see the people on Fogo Island have an opportunity the same as anywhere else.  I will use an example.  The people in the town where I live, in Fermeuse, had a company that operated there.  They made pay cheques of over $1,000-some a week, the biggest pay cheques they ever had.  Things went on for a few years, from 1987 to 1989, big cheques, everybody working, fantastic, often thirty-five and forty offshore boats lined up to unload fish.  They paid more than everybody else.  What happened?  That company went under and took probably the Canadian Saltfish Corporation out of existence with it.  Yes, there was a group (inaudible).

 

The point I'm concentrating on is this.  The people of Fermeuse today, because the plant was out of operation for 1990, people who spent twenty-five years or thirty years working in a fish plant missed 1990 because of a bankruptcy.  They were pushed off the TAGS program last month, the month before, people who knew nothing, who left school, left high school to go to work in the fish plant.  They are fifty now.  After working thirty some-years there they are thrown to the wolves out there now because of basic interventions.

 

When an industry is operating in the Province, it is a growing or a budding industry that needs a prop to stand up.  We have to give it support to get it growing, and when it gets to a stage we have to nurture it there and we have to wean it off a support.  Companies have been operating this Province for many years.  My philosophy on business is if you can't survive in business the competitive market will take care of you, and if it is of value people will operate it.

 

Fishery Products International shut down operations; other people went in and it survived.  I want to see people out in Fogo, the same as anywhere else, have an opportunity, but I don't want to see it done by a method that is controlling and interfering in the competitive marketplace where there is identified significant overcapacity in the industry today.

 

MR. G. REID:  Point of order.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  If the member wants to speak he doesn't have to say a point of order.  I will sit down and let him speak and I will get back up again.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  If he wants to speak, I will sit down and let him speak and I will get back up.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo on a point of order.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  We don't need points of order.  I will sit down whenever you want me to.

 

MR. G. REID:  Mr. Chairman, the hon. member across the floor gives the impression that all these loan guarantees he talks about were guarantees given by this government today.  The plant that he is talking about on the Southern Shore that was $23 million, the loan guarantee to that fish plant was given by the Canadian Saltfish Corporation at the time, when there was a Tory federal minister in Ottawa and a Tory minister in this Province.  In fact, if he wanted to look at his books he would find that the previous Tory administrations gave out far more loan guarantees than this one ever did.  So you are talking about a conversion on the road to Damascus.  What happened to this fellow over here?

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

There is no point of order.

 

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

I left nobody with any such impression, and I will quickly set it straight in case there is any doubt.  I'm aware there was a federal PC government and I didn't agree at the time for anybody using that prop.  I don't agree with it today, and philosophically I don't agree with it at all, with interference in a competitive industry out there today when you have capacity.  Because what do you do?  As Fred Woodman, Junior, said -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Don't quote someone (inaudible) one way one day, and one way the next day.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Mr. Chairman, I will quote who I like and you can quote who you like, and I won't complain who you quote.  He said:  I have not created one job, I took it from somebody else who had it.

 

Seriously, what happens when you have so many licenses and you double them and you have the same quota?  Ask the people in the District of Port de Grave who drive across the Witless Bay line to work in Witless Bay.  Ask them in the minister's district, there are dozens of them.  They are getting twenty-five hours a week.  Ask the people who are now getting twenty and twenty-five hours a week instead of forty hours a week.  It will happen to every industry in this Province what happened to the fish plant industry.

 

I don't care with governments giving out licenses.  I was never actively involved, I can tell you, in the political end, or I do not care to be in that particular aspect.  I am a strictly opposed to it.  The minister has changed his mind on several occasions, he said: Every one of the sixty-five core plants will be multi-species, that is what they are moving towards.  Then he turns around and says: No, I have taken care of my few friends now, it's not going to be.

 

That is what is happening and he knows full well.  He went to the bank to negotiate a loan with a company.  He admitted it, he named the company.  The minister went to a bank with a fish company and tried to arrange a loan last year with that company because he has an interest!

 

MR. TULK:  Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentlemen should not stand and impute motives to somebody in this House unless he is prepared to say what the interest is and what the hon. member gained by going to that bank.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  Good.

 

CHAIR:  There is no point of order.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I said it ten minutes ago, in case the minister didn't listen.  I said I'm not talking about a financial interest.  He has an interest because of individuals - I will even go further now - who happen to work on and be involved in his campaign, I might add, if you want that.  That is what I will say.  The minister -

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Oh, oh!

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!  Order, please!

 

MR. TULK:  (Inaudible) the hon. gentleman now telling us that he never took anybody to do anything that worked on his campaign?  Is that what he is telling us?  If you are, then you had better pull the people out of my office who were in there two weeks ago.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

There is no point of order.

 

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  In fact the minister -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible) you were there with them, and they worked on your campaign.  (Inaudible)!

 

MR. J. BYRNE:  Who has the floor, Mr. Chairman?

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Who is that?  I don't recall.  Sure, I often go in on behalf of constituents.  I'm not complaining.  I'm saying the minister volunteered - I didn't mention, and members here heard -, he even named the company he went to the bank with.  He admitted it.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Why not?

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Is it now government policy that we are going to continue guarantees?  I don't care who gives the guarantees.  Guarantees were out before and they were eliminated.  The minister said: We are going to stop propping up the industry, there are going to be no more guarantees.  That is this government policy.  We are getting out of that business and out of that industry.  That is what they indicated.

 

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, or somebody who can answer on this bill, I asked a question earlier but it wasn't on the record.  There is one company there, I'm just wondering -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible) `Loyola,' Atlantic Gypsum in Corner Brook.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, okay, fine.  Thank you.  Because I think most of these I recognized here.  The reason the minister used was a flawed reason, that Fogo Island Co-operative is on an island.  What reason do you use for Earle Brothers, what reason do you use for P. Janes and Sons?  Are they on islands?  No, not at all.  There is no consistency, it's contrary to government policy, and it's improper to do it.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Pardon?  Was I over?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, in the office, okay.  I was over with the Southern Avalon Development Association.  Wasn't that the one?

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, it was the Southern Avalon Development Association I was over with.  We did a presentation.  The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation was there.  The development association was promoting something in Trepassey area, a devastated area.  I don't recall any individual.  I don't think I ever went anywhere with any individual looking for money.  If it was it was something I supported, and I don't recall it.  I would certainly like my memory refreshed here, I say to the minister.  If I missed it I will certainly acknowledge it.  I don't intend to tell a lie.  I have never told a lie.  I don't think I ever told a lie in my life and I don't intend to.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, and I haven't, and I would like to know what the minister is talking about, to be honest with you.  The minister has piqued my curiosity on something he said.  If I was over lobbying on behalf of a constituent I would like to know it, and I wouldn't mind him slipping over a name and let me know, and I will admit it if I did.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  What?  If a constituent comes to me with a proposal I will tell them whether I think it's a good proposal, I will tell them if I think there are competitors in the area and you are wasting your time.  I have told them that in instances, and if there are other competitive areas.  I have even talked to people as recently -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  That is up to everybody's basic beliefs.  My belief is what they are proposing must have merit, it's not going to be outlandish -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  If I think it's a good proposal, sure.  I don't recall ever being in the minister's office on an individual's behalf.  I don't ever recall that, Minister, and if you -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, but the point you made here was that you said I went to your office lobbying on behalf of a constituent.  I would like to know that and I would like the minister to at least let me know who it is, because I don't recall it.  The only time I went to his office I went with the Southern Avalon Development Association on a caribou -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  It never happened.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Okay, it didn't happen, fine.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, you will.  If it didn't happen, I don't like it said that it happened.  I will add that this was on a caribou interpretation centre in the Southern Avalon in an area that is decimated, that has merit to me.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, it is non-profit, it is a community group.  They  didn't work on my campaign.  Not one of them who was in there that I'm aware of worked on my campaign, I can tell you.  In fact, I don't know their political stripe, to be honest with you, and that is honest.  I don't know their political stripe.  In fact, one thing, Minister.  I have never asked anyone since I got elected here -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Sure, yes.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, I don't care, no, (inaudible).  The point I'm making is that since I got elected - and I didn't get sandbagged, that is one thing - in 1992, and until I'm finished, until I serve my last day, every person who contacted me was never talked about their political stripe.  I followed up whether they campaigned against for or worked for me, and I treated them all the same in the district.  Maybe that is why I got more votes the second time and more the third time, and I hope more the next time.  Because I treated them all alike, and I don't care what their stripe is.  That is why.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No.  (Inaudible) carried away on the bill now.  Yes, the minister, I have some questions.  Integrated Poultry Limited, a $10-million-dollar loan guarantee "to support capital funding which enabled Integrated Poultry Limited to take over the operations of Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation."  It has "a 5 year term and a 10 year amortization period."

 

Maybe the minister might correct me.  I have been told by people who I regard highly and people outside this Province, who have dealt in the international market for poultry, they have indicated that Newfoundland Farm Products has been producing a product that is grown to a size that is one pound less.  They grow their chicken to one pound less in weight than is needed to be a competitive product out there today.  They are growing it in smaller portions so they can feed the food chains, basically, that buy the product here, and you can't get a return to the market.

 

Therefore, are we propping up an industry that cannot be competitive, that is going back to the well, that is going to have problems in the future?  We have to face reality.  We saw Sprung and the effects of Sprung, we have seen others.  I'm not afraid to talk about Sprung or any other enterprise -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible) `Paul.'

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, he might.  Maybe when he gets back at 9:00 p.m. he can answer some of my questions.  Why would you give $20 million to an industry that is producing a product that may not be able to be a viable industry?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  It's not chicken feed, no sir.  If they had more chicken feed they would have a bigger poultry product, but then you would have to put larger portions into your consumer packages, and therefore you would have to up the price and therefore it takes away the value.  It's a game of marketing and that, but should the Newfoundland taxpayers bear the price for inefficiency in an operation?

 

This bill is ensuring that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, people in this House and all working people in this Province, and people who pay taxes, are footing the bill for inefficiency in operation when you give government guarantees to companies that are in the position that they are not operating efficiently.

 

The best way to survive in business is to make it efficient.  You streamline it.  You have to have products - there are companies around this Province in all industries today which are surviving and prospering because they grew with the industry and they know what it needs.  They did not have a crutch to lean on, and now they are putting out a product that matches anybody's in the Province.

 

It is fundamentally wrong.  I cannot see, to be honest with you -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Privatization?  I am a believer in privatization.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I am a believer in privatization.  I am a believer in as little government intervention in business as possible.  In fact, I believe that governments should only be there to monitor, to observe.  They should not be interventionists in the affairs in the Province here.

 

I am really surprised the Minister of Finance would have the gall to come here to the House with Bill No. 11 to give a company double because they did not do a good job and their bottom line is worse than it was last year, that they are going to give them twice as much in guarantees.  I am at a loss as to why they would do that.

 

Won't you say:  You have a million; we cannot cut you off the tap today - 750 tomorrow, 500 - you have to be weaned off it, or maybe cut it completely.  I mean, they are the options, I am saying, but to increase it and drive it up doesn't make sense.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  It used to be at $1 million, I say, and now you want it at $2 million.  That is the question we are debating here today, not what it was ten years ago.  There are companies all over the Province that had loan guarantees.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Where are they now?  We didn't have chicken on Fogo Island, I might tell you.  In fact, it wasn't chicken at all, I can tell you.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Not at all.  Thank God for the chicken, I say to the Member for Humber East.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, it wasn't that, I can tell you that, yes, delighted.  You were delighted too, were you?  You had better enjoy it, I say to the Member for Humber East.  If that story in the paper has any truth to it at all, that Member for Humber East will wear out about five pairs of shoes in the next campaign, I can tell you, if he thinks he is going to be able to hang on to that seat out there.  He has a challenge coming.  I am sure the Premier won't be out campaigning.  To stand up and say the Premier sandbagged you out there; the Premier sandbagged him out there in Humber East.  I mean, any aspirations he had of moving up the political ladder on that side of the House were pretty well nullified with that statement on the Premier.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Did somebody say they wanted me to adjourn debate and go to supper?  It is not time yet, okay.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I have a lot more I want to say on this.  I am not even started, I say to the Government House Leader.  Then Order in Council 702-97 authorized a $1 million loan guarantee for Integrated Poultry.

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

The hon. member's time is up.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Time is up?  Sure this in Committee.  We go back and forth.

 

CHAIR:  Thirty minutes.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  In Committee we go back and forth.

 

CHAIR:  Does the member have leave?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  (Inaudible) the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.  What?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

CHAIR:  The member has leave.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, I will give him a few minutes, sure.

 

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

 

MR. DICKS:  Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised a few questions that maybe I could reply to before we adjourn debate, and so did his predecessor.

 

I agree with him in point of principle, but one has competing principles.  The first is that I don't believe generally in government supported businesses.  I don't think it is healthy for business and I don't think it is healthy for taxpayers.  I would be happy to see us eliminate all guarantees, loans, subsidies, and other supports to business.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. DICKS:  Yes, we have gone a long ways towards it, as the hon. member says.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. DICKS:  Let me come to the point.  Most of what the hon. member sees before him is a matter of history.  When government gives a guarantee it is time limited, for example for a year.  When the guarantee expires the businesses that often have it are not in a position to have paid it off, so they get renewed.  If you don't renew it the bank calls it.  The issue then is, you can call a loan or you can allow the bank to call the loan, not renew the guarantee, and then you pay the money off.

 

In most of these cases government has made a judgement that this support, number one, was justified in the beginning.  I wasn't there for most of these, as the hon. member knows.  Secondly, we are often caught in the position:  Do we renew the guarantee or do we let it go by the wayside?  In most cases the judgement is made: Well, let's continue to support the business at the traditional level.  It is a deliberate policy of our department, number one, not to give new guarantees except in critical circumstances.  So we honour the principle but it sometimes admits some exceptions.  Secondly, we have been trying consciously to reduce these guarantees.

 

I can give you a little history.  I don't have it with me,.  From the early 1980s to about 1992 or 1993 government found that of the eighty-odd guarantees it had given, over fifty defaulted.  I will have the statistics for the hon. member.  Last year, for example, because of our strict policy - and since I have been there I have adhered to it as strictly as I can - we only had to pay out $200,000 on guarantees.  That is one of the smallest sums in the history of the Province.  For that reason I think it is working.

 

However, just let me deal with several of these before I adjourn debate a little later.  The hon. member mentions Fogo first of all.  He raises issues that touch on this about licensing and whether or not there should be any government regulation in the fishery.  I am probably one of those whose view is:  Look, why do we regulate it at all?  Why do we licence fish plants?  Why do we not?  You might say that on the Island that policy might work.  That is provided you are prepared to say:  Let the healthiest survive, let's not worry about quality, and let's let people transport fish caught on end of the Island to be processed at a plant on another end of the Island.  Let's not give a licence to anybody in between because there is existing capacity.

 

What the hon. member says make sense to a point, but the other part of that is that capacity has to exist in an area where the fish is being harvested.  The hon. member knows that.  I am not going to name communities because that is as unfair as naming companies, and I admire the hon. member's restraint in that, but you know the examples I am speaking about.

 

Sometimes the department is trying to rationalize capacity but at the same time it has to recognize that if there is a fishery in one part of the Island you cannot afford, for quality reasons, to truck that across the Island to another place to be processed; and a lot of our judgements reflect that judgement.

 

The second thing he mentioned, SCB Fisheries; yes, there is an ADM of Fisheries down there working actively with that company.  There were some structural things we are concerned about.  The reason the guarantee was increased is that the department is trying to foster the growth of an industry that we do not now have, aquaculture.

 

I saw in today's paper a statement by the minister supporting the mussel industry; a $5 million project and I think a good one.  We have a level of support and, as the hon. member knows, we have dedicated something like $20 million out of the $100 million agreement we had with the feds for that very purpose.  I think the hon. member would agree that to support an aquaculture industry - there is no product for between four and five years.  The banks will not lend money.  I had a meeting with the four major chartered banks - several of my colleagues were here - we asked them and we thought there would be support for it.  So we say to ourselves:  Do we help support this industry or not?

 

I will give him another example.  The Farm Credit Corporation in New Brunswick has loaned about $30 million in the aquaculture industry.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Two hundred loan guarantees they put out.

 

MR. DICKS:  Plus loan guarantees, one of my colleagues tells me.  Does he know what the farm credit has loaned this Province?  Zero.  Does he know what the chartered banks have loaned?  I know of only one bank that is supporting anything in the shellfish industry.

 

So I am saying to the hon. member, it is very easy for us to say it.  I am one of those who, in point of principle, would rather not advance monies to it.  On the other hand we have to be realistic and say that if we are going to help develop an industry, where it consists of helping to buy equipment to help put things in there - when you look at the shellfish industry, which takes four or five years -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible) guaranteed.

 

MR. DICKS:  That is right.

 

In the case of SCB Fisheries, which is here, we have loaned support to them in terms of technical support and skills.  We have also advanced them monies.  There were two reasons for it.  One is, they had a major problem there last year where they lost a crop of fish.  They had to do major capital improvements because we had - it is very substantial without saying an amount, and they needed government support to it.  Why?  Because no lenders will support them.  The reason for that is the aquaculture industry, at this stage, they see as uncertain; that in order to develop a market for it you have to have a critical size.  That company is maturing but it is not quite there yet.  We see that at some point it may be doing about $10 million or more a year but they are growing toward that.  So if you are going to have a market the worse thing you can do is develop a market and not be able to supply the orders that come about.

 

Now I agree with him in point of principle.  I was not happy with this but when I analyzed it I was convinced that this had to be done, that it was necessary, and if we are going to have an aquaculture industry in the Province we should do it.  It employs about 300 people directly in Bay d'Espoir for example.  Would we rather not do it?  Yes, that's the case.

 

Fogo Island Co-op, let me speak about Fogo Island Co-op.  Fogo Island Co-op had a guarantee of $2 million.  Over the last several years, since I have been minister, we have reduced it to $1 million.  They brought it down.  Fogo is different than places on the Island.  If there is surplus capacity on the Island it is not easy to land in Fogo and bring it to the Island.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  The fleet is very mobile.

 

MR. DICKS:  The fleet is mobile but let's be frank.  Fogo Island's population reduced in 1992 from 5,000 people down to about 3,200 in 1996.  Let's be honest; in many parts of rural Newfoundland, if there is no fishery, if there is no plant, there is nothing there to sustain people other than government assistance programs.  This money was well spent.

 

What had happened was the Co-op had advanced monies to individuals to go out and fit up for a shrimp fishery.  They went out and they fitted up for the shrimp fishery.  They supplied the money to the vessels.  We would have been happier had they not done it but when they came in and said:  Look, we have done this.  It is technically not something they should have done in our view but we were prepared to give them the additional monies so that people in Fogo would be able to go to work in the fishery, that the fish could be harvested in that area, and hopefully over the next year or two will start to be processed there.  Now if the hon. member says:  Let's not do that.  Let's not give the opportunity for people in Fogo to work.  Let's let other people come in from other provinces, other parts of the Island, harvest that, bring it back somewhere else to be processed.  I don't know; if that is his view, if that is his judgement, then let the voters judge that.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert on the fishery, Mr. Chairman, but I can tell you that there is a delicate balance.  They are quality issues.  They are issues of where and how people can get fitted out for the industry.  I will tell him frankly that the main reason that we have to provide support in the nature of government guarantees, and this applies to the other one there that was increased from $400,000 to $800,000, is that we don't have the level of support from federal government lending institutions nor from chartered banks to allow enterprises that are reasonable, that are viable to succeed, and without our guarantee the banks will not advance that money.

 

I would say to him as well that in the case of ACOA it is a slightly different judgement.  This money goes to the people in the community in that they are working actively, and by my judgement it is one of the better managed fishery -

 

MR. TULK:  (Inaudible) goes under.  Yes, the fleet is very mobile, okay?  If the Co-op goes under - the fleet is very mobile - do you know who will then get their crab?  There is nobody coming to Fogo Island to process.  They will -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  (Inaudible) and listen for a minute.

 

MR. DICKS:  Wait now.  Mr. Chairman, let me just say this.  I hear the hon. members in this -

 

CHAIR:  Order, please!

 

I have recognized the Minister of Finance.

 

MR. DICKS:  Let me just say this to the hon. member.  The hon. member has said in this House - and his colleagues - and it is a fair comment:  What is government doing in order to stem the outflow of people from rural Newfoundland?  Now what are we going to do?  If the hon. member's proposition is, don't extend support where it is needed, don't offer support where the chartered banks and lending institutions are not prepared to extend it as well, then what is going to sustain Fogo?   Without the direct involvement of the government, without government taking an active hand, making a fair judgment about it, we would have worse problems in rural Newfoundland.

 

I say to the hon. member that this is one of those examples where government has moved in an area that is needed in order to sustain people in a traditional rural lifestyle and in a fishery which is viable.  I say to the hon. member that without the support of government that would not be operating this year.

 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I will adjourn debate for now.

 

CHAIR:  The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Before I do that - I don't know why I am doing this really, I am being so cooperative it is not even funny - I understand that when we come back we are not going into Committee again on the Loan and Guarantee Act.  We will come back and start a debate from the Chair on the Medical Act, second reading of Bill 20.

 

I would 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):  The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

 

MR. OLDFORD:  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 Bill No. 15 be introduced to give effect to same.

 

On motion, report received and adopted.

 

 

Resolution

 

"That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the raising from time to time by way of loan on the credit of the Province the sum of $200,000,000 and the additional sum or sums of money that may be required to retire, repay, renew or refund securities issued under an Act of the Province or that may be paid into the Newfoundland Government Sinking Fund."

 

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

 

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

 

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Authorize The Raising Of Money By Way Of Loan By The Province," read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.  (Bill No. 15)

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I just told the Opposition House Leader that when we came back we would have the Speaker in the Chair and that we would start at Bill No. 20, I think it is.  The Minister of Health and Community Services has an appointment that she needs to keep between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.  We are also supposed to do this evening the Anomalies Act.  Could we do Bill No. 28, then come back to Bill No. 20 and then Bill No. 22?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  Bill No. 28, Bill No. 20 and Bill No. 21.  Okay. 

 

Mr. Speaker, I move that we recess until 7:00 p.m.

 

MR. SPEAKER:  The House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.

 

 

Recess

 

 

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):  Order, please!

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 28, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law".

 

To be frank with you, I cannot find the Order Paper for today.

 

MR. SPEAKER:  Order 19, second reading of a bill entitled "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law".

 

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law".  (Bill No. 28)

 

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

 

MR. DECKER:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

This is a bit of housekeeping.  It is the routine bill which we see from time to time.  I could read all the explanatory notes, but I assume that the members of the House have already read them so I would move second reading.

 

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

 

MR. OTTENHEIMER:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has indicated, this legislation appears pretty well in every session because essentially all it does is correct, as the act indicates, anomalies in the various pieces of legislation.  However, there is one curious section and I will refer it to the minister for his commentary perhaps. 

 

That is section 12, where it states that: "Section 3 of the House of Assembly Act is repealed and the following substituted..."  The section reads:  "3.  The House of Assembly shall continue for no longer than 5 years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members."

 

It was always my understanding that this particular provision is found within the Charter where it talks about the length or lifespan of legislatures both federal and provincial.  I am just curious, without having the benefit of the act in front of me, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could make some comment with respect to Section 12 of Bill No. 28.

 

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

 

MR. DECKER:  Mr. Speaker, this is explained in the Explanatory Notes as well, that Clause 12 of the bill would amend the House of Assembly Act to correct an inconsistency between the Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedom with respect to the time prescribed for the maximum duration of the Legislature.

 

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

 

MR. OTTENHEIMER:  Yes.  My point though, Mr. Speaker, is:  What is the inconsistency?  It was my understanding that this is the wording in the Charter.  It is just an academic point perhaps, and maybe one that certainly I could have a look at afterwards.  I still not convinced that there is, in fact, now a discrepancy between the two.

 

MR. DECKER:  I will take it under advisement (inaudible).

 

MR. OTTENHEIMER:  Okay.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Thank you to the minister.

 

I have reviewed the other sections and essentially what they do, of course, many of the provisions that are found in this particular statute really reflect new legislation that has been introduced in this House over the past six or eight months.

 

I see reference, for example, to the chartered accountants.  We see references to the Pharmaceutical Act and so on, and this now new legislation.  Therefore, it is necessary to make the appropriate changes with respect to the existing wording in the legislation as we find it.

 

Mr. Speaker, there is really little that can be added other than the fact that legislation like this is necessary from time to time to simply bring up to date all pieces of legislation which reflect accurately changes in the law, particularly current changes that have been made in this House.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

 

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

 

MR. DECKER:  I could tell the Member for St. John's East.  The present act reads:  The House of Assembly shall continue, notwithstanding the demise of the Crown, for 5 years from the day on which it shall be by proclamation to meet unless (inaudible) dissolved. 

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. DECKER:  That is right, yes.

 

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

 

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In the Statute Law" read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 28)

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, the Medical Act, Bill No. 20.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Okay, go ahead, that is fine.

 

MR. TULK: Why?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  No, go ahead.

 

MR. TULK:   Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services is out so she has left me, I must say, a pretty good set of notes.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Can I have a copy?

 

MR. TULK:  I do not see why not, to tell you the truth.

 

Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Medical Act to -

 

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

 

The hon. Government House Leader is introducing the bill on Order No. 17, Bill No. 20, is it?

 

MR. TULK:  Bill No. 20.

 

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act".  (Bill No. 20)

 

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Health left a fairly good set of notes.  The purpose of this bill is to amend the Medical Act to facilitate the establishment in the Province of a prescription drug monitoring program.  To be frank with you, I think there is a great deal of call for this.

 

Mr. Speaker, the abuse and misuse of prescription drugs is an increasingly serious problem in this Province.  To combat this growing problem, government has already announced its intention to implement a prescription drug monitoring program and has provided funding for this initiative in the 1998-1999 Budget.  This program will monitor the prescribing and dispensing of a specific list of prescription drugs which are at high risk for abuse.

 

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that there was extensive consultation carried out with all of the stakeholders who would be affected by this piece of legislation, and those people who have become increasingly concerned about the inappropriate use of high-risk prescription drugs.

 

The proposed amendment is necessary to provide the medical board, which has the statutory authority to regulate physicians in the Province with sufficient authority to carry out this monitoring function as part of the program.  At present the board, as I understand it, can only investigate physicians after a hearing is commenced.  The amendment will allow the medical board solely to investigate with respect to the PMP.  It does not provide the medical board with any additional investigative powers.

 

While patient confidentiality is a major concern, the inappropriate use of prescription drugs is a significant societal problem which needs to be addressed.  Under this program the medical board - this is wonderful stuff - will have access to all prescription information relating to the list of monitored drugs, but the board will follow up on only a small number of prescriptions.  These will be cases where accessing of these high-risk abuse prone medications is inappropriate and suggests personal abuse are the illegal diversion of the drugs.  The main focus of the program is to identify patients who are at risk and need medical assistance.

 

To further protect patient confidentiality, the PMP will use a unique identifier so as to ensure that only when patients are suspected of abuse or misuse would they be identified by name and address.

 

The establishment of the program is a joint venture between the medical board and the Minister of Health and Community Services.  Regulations will be established under the Medical Act to govern the operation of the program which will deal with issues of concern such as confidentiality and security.  Regulations are made by the medical board subject to the minister's approval.

 

An advisory board representing the appropriate stakeholders, such as the medical board, Newfoundland Pharmaceutical Association, Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, Newfoundland Dental Association, the Department of Health and Community Services, and consumers, will be established by the minister and the medical board - and not the former minister.  This advisory board will oversee the operation of the - you are going to do the next bill right?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  If you want someone so you don't have to read it, sit down and I will do it for you.

 

MR. TULK:  You are going to do the next one?

 

This advisory board will oversee the operation of the program by the medical board.  The advisory board will not deal with individual cases and will not have access to personal information on individuals.  This information will be held only by the medical board.

 

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

 

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I rise to have a few comments on Bill No. 20.  I might add that I do not always disagree with the Minister of Health and Community Services at all.  I think it is important in this case that we have this legislation here, a prescription drug monitoring program.

 

I would assume, with the people out there who are getting access to double, triple, quadruple, numerous prescriptions out there, there has to be a check; I guess for more then one reason too.  It is not only the cost to the system, but in particular the use of those particular drugs and the effects they have on people, the addictions and other problems, medical and social, that arise from the specific misuse of drugs.  A drug monitoring program, I think, is a positive step.

 

The minister who introduced the bill said they have consulted with the parties involved and that is very important, when legislation comes to this House, that the parties affected by legislation should have a degree of consultation with the minister to be able to put forth their particular views.

 

I have seen bills come forward on the eve of coming into the House where people have not been consulted in the specific areas.  In this case the minister assures us that it is in consultation.  I am sure, by virtue of what is indicated here, there would be a practitioner who would have to comply in providing information that is important in allowing the board to be able to do its job in monitoring that.

 

If someone does not comply, there is action.  If someone refuses to comply, it says, "...is guilty of professional misconduct".  Of course, if somebody does not play the game and cooperate in the process, they will have to take the necessary action as a result of that.  When they are guilty of professional misconduct, there are measures in place to be dealt with by, I would assume, the medical board.

 

Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything further.  This is pretty straightforward.  I agree with the legislation.  It is positive.  As I said before, I say to the Government House Leader, I agree the Minister of Health and Community Services on this.  I agree with this and I do not see any reason why we cannot move it through quickly.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  The Minister of Health and Community Services agrees with me on other issues.  She even said today, I think, on the news, that she agrees with me on the salary cap - on removing the cap.  I would say she is in the position to do it.  The position, some of the things she said, are not entirely factual at all.  She has the power to do it.  To tell us we are down into collective bargaining or a negotiation issue misrepresents the real structure of it.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Who?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I am not complaining on this bill.  Do not get excited, Government House Leader, because you will have to introduce another bill within another couple of minutes, I am sure.  I would assume the Government House Leader is going to introduce Bill No. 21 also, I think.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Bill No. 20 is fine with me.  I would support that.  I am not sure if there are any other of my colleagues who want to speak on it.  If they do -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I am not forcing, I say to the Government House Leader, any of my colleagues to speak on this.  If they do not want to they do not have to and we can move on.  I am not going to twist any arms.  As the critic, I speak on behalf of the caucus here and we support this piece of legislation.

 

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 the bill currently before the House, "An Act To Amend the Medical Act".  With respect to the monitoring of prescription drugs, this bill is long overdue.  We have had a terrible problem in this Province, and in particular I would say in this city, with the abuse of prescription drugs in an organized way, but not only by individuals who have been going and making the rounds of various doctors.  I would say there has been a fair bit of neglect on the part of a few, not very many, medical practitioners who have not been as scrupulous as they should have been with respect to the issuing of prescriptions for drugs.

 

I have had calls over the past while from individuals complaining about their particular neighbourhood, the ease with which individuals can get their hands on prescription drugs and fill those prescriptions and sell them in the various neighbourhoods.  It is a problem that has been recognized by the Pharmaceutical Association, by some members of the Medical Association, and it is high time the government acted on it. There are a few prescription drugs that are prone to abuse.  Some surprising ones, I suppose, like Ritalin, which are not only prone to abuse but prone to over-prescription, I would say, not only in terms of people getting their hands on it for the purposes of resale on the street market, but also it appears across the country that it is a drug which is prescribed far too often, sometimes in cases where it is not called for.

 

We have heard complaints in the national media recently about the cutbacks in educational funding and educational support leading to an attempt (inaudible) by school authorities of having children in the classroom controlled by the use of Ritalin, and hoping that is going to solve the supervision problem, when the real problem is that the students are being deprived of an adequate teaching staff.

 

I haven't heard too many examples of it in this Province, but we have heard national media in Quebec recently, parents complaining about that.  I would suspect when -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  I think what is going to happen in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when we see the full effect of the Minister of Education's policies on throwing everybody into the one classroom, getting people who last year and the year before and this year were entitled to special education services, now being thrown into the classroom with everybody else, and the classroom teacher being expected to supervise not only the average student, who is able to keep up with the program, but also those who cannot possibly keep up with it, who need remedial assistance, whether it be remedial reading or remedial help or special education needs.

 

They are being thrown into the classroom, making a mockery of the report of Dr. Patricia Canning, who produced a very valuable report to the Department of Education last year.  Now it is being distorted by the officials in the Department of Education to deprive students of the full benefit of proper educational instruction and proper supervision in the classroom.  I think we are going to see some of that happening here on a broader base than we have had before.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  I know the Government House Leader wants to speak on this bill on behalf of the minister and answer some of the questions and criticisms that are being brought forth, and no doubt he will when he gets his chance.  In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I just want to address one or two issues with respect to this bill.

 

What we see here is something less, I would suspect, than we need.  There has been a suggestion that is a couple of years old now - I didn't hear the Government House Leader mention it; perhaps he can address it when he replies - of some method of obtaining information, maintaining information, on a double or triple prescription pad so that this information can be collected and gathered.  The cost of that hasn't been discussed in relation to this bill.  We do need a better monitoring system.  We do need to have the ability to control these problems at their source.

 

I would say it is a heck of a lot easier to control this problem at the doctor level than it is at the patient level.  I know we have a system, and we value it, where anyone can go to a doctor of their choice, and we should keep that up.  There are many reasons why one might want to go to a different doctor for a particular problem; matters of privacy, matters of community.  You may not want to go, in a small community, to a doctor who is also your neighbour who is also, perhaps, the doctor in the community where you teach or work or have other considerations.  It may well be an important consideration, whether it be for the nature of the problem or the fact that you really do want a second opinion, because you may not have the same kind of faith in that doctor's opinion for what might be regarded as a tricky or potentially serious illness, and you may not want to insult that person.  You should not have to go through any special procedure to be able to see a different doctor.

 

I would be opposed to removing that freedom of choice in terms of doctors that we value as part of our Medicare program.  There ought to be an opportunity to identify those few medical practitioners who are perhaps a little loose with the pen when it comes to certain drugs.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  Poised for victory, I say to the Minister of Justice, in the Strait of Belle Isle.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  We almost did once before.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  He now works for a Liberal minister but he probably still is a good NDP.

 

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the bill for a minute.  I know the Minister of Justice is very good at setting me off on a different tactic, because he always has something interesting to say.  He likes to hear me talk almost as much as I do.

 

Mr. Speaker, I digress.  I will get back to the point, onto the straight and narrow, onto the bill itself.  It is an important piece of legislation.  It is an issue that hurts.  It is an important bill because it does protect people who are in neighbourhoods where these prescription drugs are being resold after being prescribed.  It hurts young children, it hurts adolescence, it hurts neighbourhoods, it hurts parents who are trying to bring up their children properly and give them a chance in life, and I support it, Mr. Speaker.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER:  If the minister speaks now, he closes the debate.

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I rise to close the debate on this bill in the absence of the Minister of Health and Community Services.  Let it be known that everybody in this House was unanimous that this bill is a good bill.  I want the Minister of Health and Community Services to know this.  Even the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader, the critic on Health, even he said this was a great bill.

 

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

 

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act" read a second time, ordered referred to a Commitment of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 20)

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, today is the second, is it, Tuesday?

 

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  You read the wrong bill?  What did you tell us for?  We didn't know the difference.

 

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

 

Let's revert to the reading.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Bill No. 21.

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  You have to ask me:  When shall this bill be read, tomorrow?

 

MR. SPEAKER:  When shall this bill be referred to the appropriate Committee, now or tomorrow?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SPEAKER:  Tomorrow.

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, Order No. 18, Bill No. 21, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act".

 

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act".  (Bill No. 21)

 

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

 

MR. MATTHEWS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

I know the hon. Member for Ferryland, it must be his worst nightmare for me to be up introducing a health bill.  We are very supportive of each other here as colleagues, particularly Cabinet colleagues.  In the interest of expediting the business of the House, and in the interest of ensuring that this legislation passes, and in the interest of ensuring that my colleagues' legislation gets through quickly and expediently, and it is well understood, I hereby introduce this bill for debate.

 

Simply put, this is a very simple amendment that is introduced to provide greater clarity as to the intent of the current act with respect to when government can and how government can regulate the operation of private clinics in the Province.  The bill is rather self-explanatory in the very, very brief sense, but it is to basically ensure that government has the right and the ability to be able to say when a private clinic can operate, on what basis it can operate, and when a private clinic cannot operate.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. MATTHEWS:  You may want to call it that type of amendment.  I choose to use other language.  I choose to call it, "An Act To Amend The Medical Care Insurance Act".  If the hon. member feels there is some other intent or purpose for the bill, let him so expound upon it when he rises to speak in the debate.  Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill at this time.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  Hear, hear!

 

MR. SPEAKER (Snow):  The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

The former Minister of Health is at least the third best if not the best Minister of Health since I came to the House.  There have only been three, I say.  There have only been three.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, thank God.  You did the job on yourself before I got at you.  That is what happened to you.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, you did not.  No, well in 1992 - I did not come to the House until the fall of 1992.  Didn't they have fired you before that?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, I think you went out of there -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  July of the next year.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, I got elected in June of 1992 but I was the Education critic from 1992 until May of 1993 and then I was Health critic.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, from 1992-1993. 

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, that is right.  That is why they re-elected me with such a big majority.  The minister -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, that is right, got both of you elected.

 

I have a few questions for whomever may wish to answer these.  The former Minister of Health might be more familiar with these.

 

The bill itself just says the Cabinet "...may prescribe, by regulation, the facilities in which insured services may be provided."

 

For example, I say to the minister, what specifically are you doing - is the Works, Services and Transportation Minister the acting minister in the absence of the Minister of Health and Community Services?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, okay.  I am just wondering for my information who is.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Okay.  So I will ask the questions to - the minister does not mind.  Anyway, it does not really matter to me as long as I get them answered.  In fact, I had intended to ask - I know the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi asked:  Is this one that prescribes where there are insured services, like the Morgentaler clinic he made reference to, but I have some questions.  For example, if someone wanted to set up and say we are going to perform a facility where we can perform x-ray services, or they want to perform other services, if they want to perform - pardon?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  They can do it if government allows them to do it.  For instance, let's use an example.  The Cancer Treatment Research Foundation runs a cancer clinic.  What about if the health care board on the West Coast wanted to run a cancer clinic or they wanted to run another clinic?

 

MR. HARRIS:  What about if three or four cancer specialist have their own private clinic?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Or they wanted to have another clinic? 

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  That is a good point.  Or if any group of specialists wanted to set up their own clinic?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  Private hospitals.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  A private hospital?  British Columbia, I think, are building a big hospital to cater to the market from the U.S. to come in and charge a fee.  I would like the know the full implications.

 

When the Grace Hospital, for instance, is no longer in operation, and a team wanted to go in and run that facility and say we are going to provide a service there, does that limit that?  I mean, this is a little vague.  All it says is:  "prescribing the facilities in which insured services may be provided".

 

Insured services can be provided in facilities run under the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, under other health care corporations, under Community Health.  What facilities might be excluded?

 

Insured services can occur, I guess, at the Morgentaler Clinic.  They can occur there.  The Province pays the price in funding that they decided they are not going to do.  In other words, Cabinet is going to have basically the authority to say when a situation arises that this can be a licensed facility and this can't.

 

What about a group of medical professionals like cancer specialists, that is one example, who wanted to set up a clinic?  Could they do so if it is not going to cost this Province any extra money?  Or radiologists, if they wanted to go out in a specific area and provide services?  That may be more cost efficient.  What are the limitations there?  It's very vague.  I just looked at the statute here, section 44.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, this is the Medical Care Insurance Act here.

 

Section (c.1).  It says here under section 44, the Medical Care Insurance Act, that:

 

"The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations

 

(a) respecting the establishment of the Newfoundland Medical Care Insurance Fund and the administration of the fund by the commission;

 

(b) defining what medical services in the province provided or authorized by a physician are insured services for the purposes of this Act..."

 

The next one is where the amendment is coming: "(c) prescribing what services are not insured services for the purposes of this Act..."

 

In other words, they are going to say what are not insured services, of course which is being done.  Some services are insured and others are not.  Then it adds to that (c.1), "prescribing the facilities in which insured services may be provided."

 

In other words, right now there is no specific description or facilities under any control, basically, I assume right now where insured serviced can be preformed.  They can be performed anywhere.  Technically, they could be performed in a person's home right now.  For instance, the minister said the high risk of infection here, we have to get them out of hospital, it is better to have people in their homes all the time.  According to that assumption we might have travelling surgeons going around doing operations in homes.

 

Can a home be established?  Can any building be established to be able to perform things outside what we call an acute care facility?  Can they perform certain procedures and be subject to the ability of being insured services performed in these areas?  Because what should constitute whether you are insured for the service?  Is it the structure in which you perform it, or is it the level of competence and ability of the person to perform that particular service, the degree of training?  With mortar and bricks you can make any structure suitable to be able to perform certain medical services in.

 

What scope has it and what type of limitations, and what is the intent and the rationale in moving it forth?  We haven't seen any of that.  I see the specifics there, and I know what that specific thing states, but we haven't been told the rationale, what it is intended to do there.  I think we deserve to have some explanation of what is intended to be done by that.

 

Other than that I will just leave it at that for now.  I'm sure the acting minister may be able to answer some of these.  I'm not sure if some of my colleagues have any particular questions on it.  If they have it's up to them.  I know the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi was interested.  I don't know if he has any particular questions.  The bill was introduced by the other minister, so the minister still could respond I guess without closing debate on this particular bill.  If not, I could certainly give leave of my time if she wanted to do so now, or take it under advisement.  If there are other questions then the minister will speak after, okay?  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

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

 

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I've looked carefully at the bill.  It is a very small bill but it's a very small bill about a very big issue, and that is: to what extent will this government allow our health system, our medicare system, to be operated in terms of the type of facility, to what extent will the government allow insurances services to occur outside of hospitals.

 

I understand the situation the government found itself in with the Morgentaler Clinic.  It was a private clinic, and it's one of those exceptions I suppose to the rule that have been allowed and permitted across the country, even under the strict guidelines of Medicare, because of the nature of the service provided and the controversy surrounding it, and the way in which the service came to be provided not only in this Province but in other provinces.  It does qualify as a private clinic, and many people who fight hard to preserve the basic principles of Medicare have also come on side with respect to support for the Morgentaler Clinic and the payment for insurance services provided at that clinic.

 

It does raise the question though: What is government's intention here?  Is its government's intention to insure that their regulations allow and provide for what has now been done and undertaken by the Province in order to comply with the Canada Health Act and to avoid the penalties that the Government of Canada has been imposing on this Province?  Is that the sole purpose of the act?  If it is, can we hear a very specific and strong statement from government on its opposition to allowing the development of private health care institutions?  As the former Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, has said, what is to stop, if Cabinet allows it, a group of surgeons or radiologists or whomever to establish a private hospital?

 

There is a lot of pressure on the Alberta government, or perhaps even encouragement by the Alberta Government, to get involved in private health care facilities.  There is a problem I suspect with Alberta physicians wanting to get into private provision of health care.  In order to make that sort of thing feasible and profitable, of course they would want to provide insured services as well to the public or even to those who would be paying clients for extra services, or what they like to call `extra billing' in Alberta.  I would like to hear, based on this bill: Yes, we are looking at a provision of the legislation which allows the Cabinet by regulation to prescribe the facilities in which insured services may be provided.

 

What I am saying is that at the drop of a hat or an Order in Council Cabinet could legitimize private health care clinics under this particular regulation.  I understand the necessity of insuring that the regulations are adequate to look after the situation, the one situation that we have in the Province that needs this type of support.  In saying that I would ask the government: Why is this power being granted so broadly if there is no intention on the part of government and no plans on the part of government, no consideration on the part of government, of adopting any kind of private health care operation or supporting any private health care institution in this Province.

 

I would hope that the minister will assure the House and the people of this Province that it is contrary to the government's policy.  That not only is government not considering it, but it is totally opposed to the private provision of health care services and clinics in the Province, tolerating as it does and we do the exception that exists for the Morgentaler Clinic.

 

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

 

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

 

MS BETTNEY:  Yes, Mr. Speaker.  I believe the Minister of Health and Community Services has spoken many times in this House and elsewhere publicly with respect to her position and this government's position on our publicly-funded health care system.

 

The purpose of this amendment is specifically to insure that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has sufficient regulatory authority to prescribe the facilities in which insurance services can take place and be licensed, and therefore to actually protect government's position in this and insure that we won't see a proliferation of privately funded clinics.

 

The Province does have an extensive public health care system and that has many needs.  The intention of this particular bill is to really limit the spending of health dollars on other than publicly funded insured services in the manner in which government intends.  We are seeking to restrict the establishment of private clinics, to avoid unnecessary strain on our public health system, and to insure that our publicly-funded health care system is not unduly fragmented.

 

This amendment, I might point out, will not disallow the operation of clinics offering services which are not insured through MCP, but it will restrict those that can provide insured services.  I believe, in conclusion, that this amendment will help the Province to protect our publicly funded health care system, and it is what is required at this point to support the current regulations we have in place.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

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

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, I call Bill 22, the Income Tax  Act Bill.  Let me get the order number.  I'm sorry about that.  Order No. 14.

 

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act."  (Bill No. 22).

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, this basically is an enabling piece of legislation which enables the government to make regulations concerning an income tax credit for the telefilm industry.

 

If I could just say to the Opposition House Leader, this industry - and you will note the ministerial statement I gave today on the industry - has a great deal of potential for Newfoundland and Labrador.  Because we do have some of the best scenery, we have some of the best stories.  The strange thing is it seems we have just about what it is that people are looking for these days and we want to take advantage of that.

 

It is very labour-intensive, it is an industry that can provide a great number of jobs in this Province, and a great number of the kinds of skills that our people have besides the acting skills, beside all the skills that are necessary to make those things.  I'm talking about the making of sets and so on and so forth.  While I don't have - I say this and I want the Opposition House Leader to hear this.  This is an enabling piece of legislation which enables us to make regulations as per the Income Tax Act.  I'm sure they would be curious to find out just what are the kind of ideas that we have in mind.  I don't have that in front of me at the present time, but we do have to take this bill through Committee.  At that point in time if there are any questions as to how you are going to give this tax credit, or what you are thinking about, I'm not sure the government has exactly made up its own mind yet what it's going to do.

 

I say to the hon. gentleman though that we do want to insure - the Nova Scotia industry put this stuff in place some years ago.  The truth of the matter is that if you talk to some of the people from Newfoundland, for example, who are in Nova Scotia acting, doing some of the plays and that up there, they will tell you that one of the big problems down here, and it has been here for some time, is that the incentive is not here for people to stay in the Province.  We think this can go a long way to alleviate those problems.  To be frank with you, we would like, and I would like, as the minister who is attached to it - now the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board will have something to say about that I'm sure - but I would like to put it in an incentive that would perhaps help us catch up to Nova Scotia.  That might very well mean that the incentive might be better here than it would be for a film corporation to go to Halifax.

 

Let me just say this to the hon. gentlemen that in Committee I'm sure - I would anyway, and I think the Minister of Finance would be -  we would be prepared to talk about the range of options we are considering.  Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

 

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

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The bill here is not in great detail.  I know that there are some things I did have to ask on it.  For example, things like under clause 1: "`8.1 (1) A corporation producing an eligible film or video in the province may apply to the minister...'"  What constitutes an eligible film or video?  It would be important to know that.

 

I certainly haven't researched in other provinces, and it is not in my area as critic.  My colleague who is the critic has a commitment.  I'm not sure what has been researched in that particular area.  I might say we have to be competitive with our counterparts in Nova Scotia.  We have a tremendous province, we have a very picturesque province, one of the most picturesque provinces in the entire country.  It has a lot of things to offer.

 

MR. FITZGERALD:  `Beaton,' I have always said that Newfoundland has the finest looking women and the ugliest looking men.

 

MR. TULK:  Let me tell you something, (inaudible).  People who travel the world will tell you the same thing (inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  It seems like I am getting shut out of this debate here someway or other.  In my district, for example, there have been two movies done.  Does anyone remember Orca in Petty Harbour?  There is another one.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, I'm not talking about his district, I am talking about my district, up in Brigus South.  The Tamils came in and they landed.  It slips from my mind now, the film.  It was a beautiful area.  In fact, it was mentioned in the House that they are here now from Los Angeles looking at two sites.  They were looking at a couple of areas even up in my district.  They were looking at sites to produce videos.  Because they always want to go to the most picturesque district in the Province, that is why.

 

MR. FITZGERALD:  That is where all the fighting takes place.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No, it is not at all.

 

MR. FITZGERALD:  That is where all the fighting takes place, up in his district.  I don't know why he is always talking about it.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No further comment, I say to the Government House Leader, I don't want to start, I tell you.  You won't get out of here tonight, I tell you.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible)

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Good PCs don't fight up in my district.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  What?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  PCs in my district don't fight, good PCs, I can tell you.  That is all I will say.  I won't say anything else.

 

I did have a question.  I'm sure the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when he gets to Committee, or the Government House Leader, can address this.  It says "A corporation producing an eligible film or video in the province may apply to the minister..."  What constitutes an eligible film or video?  In terms of, like, content, or I guess there is a percentage of how much is filmed in this Province, or whether it is wholly filmed in this Province?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, those types of things.  Yes, it says, but at least we have to have certain regulations.  We can't have it at the whim of Cabinet to make decisions.  The same Cabinet made a decision to double crab licenses.  They vote for it and then come back and double the guarantee.  I don't have much faith in the Cabinet if they are going to make a decision on a film industry, the same one that made a decision there.  In fact I looked around and saw some many over on that side nodding their heads and agreeing with me when I spoke on the other bill.  I saw so many heads nodding and agreeing with me.  I don't think that there are too many over there who disagree.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible)!

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I could say that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, look, he is representing a district, he has to fight for something in his district.  That is a normal response.  He wants to fight for and represent his district, and there isn't much other employment.  The fear for him is that if that went and nobody else came in there are a lot of people who are going to be hurt in his district.  I understand that.  That is a genuine concern, I say, and I appreciate that concern.  It is a big issue of the thing that is stake, and I've been arguing on it, and I wouldn't want to see it happen in my district, but it has happened too, I say to my colleague across the House there, and some of these are concerns.

 

Clause 1 says: "`The tax credit shall be calculated in a manner prescribed by regulation.'"  I agree, by the way, with a tax credit system to promote industries like the film or movie making industry here that might bring people in.  Because the world is starting to see the beauty of our Province and it's very positive.  I think we need to have some idea of where government is going with this, not a carte blanche thing to pass out there.  Let us know is it on par, on a line, with the credits that are given in Nova Scotia?  How does it compare with other provinces?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  No doubt we are behind.  I can tell you, a couple of years ago or more a company came in and wanted to talk and do business here.  They didn't get much cooperation at the time.  I won't name the minister who was involved back in one of the government departments, and I will make it general, which wasn't too happy and went out and did business in another province.  That has happened here.  It wasn't just because of the lack of a tax credit.  There were other factors.  We have to -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Pardon?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Sure, but there has to be in place a certain structure, a point which we are not going to cross, because otherwise it becomes a giveaway, and we don't want business at the cost of an arm and a leg.  There has to be a net economic benefit there.  We have looked at it and we have discussed numerous areas.  In fact, in one of the bills today, the Marystown Shipyard, for example, Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited on that.  It's fortunate now we have a company that has come in there and is doing good things there and employing a lot of people, but there are points in time when there are lines which you shouldn't cross that we have to set down when we are out trying to get industries off the ground.  You don't give away the shop, I think a former premier said.  We don't sell the shop, in other words, to do it.  That is very important.

 

I know my colleague is here eager to get up and speak on this too.  I don't want to unduly delay second reading of this but I'm sure there are people who want to comment on it.

 

Clause 2 says: "`prescribing the eligibility requirements and the manner and method of calculating a film or video industry tax credit.'"  Like I said, we don't know.  Further: "`prescribing for the payment to a corporation of an amount by which a tax credit determined under subsection 8.1(2) exceeds the tax otherwise payable under this Act...'"  What happens if the tax that is due to be paid exceeds that tax credit, do we give them back money?  Is that what is implied there?  It says: "`prescribing for the payment to a corporation of an amount by which a tax credit determined under subsection 8.1(2) exceeds the tax otherwise payable under this Act, and including conditions or restrictions in relation to a payment.'"

 

What happens if the credit is greater than the tax that is available?  Because I think the intent is it would be deducted from the tax payable.  If you pay a $1 million in tax and you have a tax credit of $100,000, that can reduce your income and the amount you will pay.  What happens if it exceeds there, and by giving a lot of credits up front and there might be a low return?  If we get into EDGE legislation, for instance, when companies come in they are going to give them so much for each job, you are going to give them the tax break, a ten-year holiday, and declining for the next five.  We can get into situations where it's costing us more money, where we aren't even getting our basic revenues.  We are paying out more money than if we never had them.

 

We have to look to where we are on this, an explanation there.  I think the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has to give us more information.  The concept of this is good.  The details are from scanty to negligible.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible)

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  Yes, they are very scanty now, I would say to the member.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible)

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  With that, Mr. Speaker, I've asked the questions and I'm all ears to hear what the answers are going to be.

 

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

 

MR. HARRIS:  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to comment on the bill now before the House to amend the Income Tax Act.

 

Let me say first that if I were trying to figure out what government was up to and read this bill, I would have no idea other than that they intend to favour the film industry with what is called a refundable tax credit.  I don't know what other legislatures in this country entertain such legislation without laughing it off the floor.  I don't know what legislatures in this country would entertain such legislation without a program being announced.

 

We listen to the Minister of Finance in Ottawa describing in detail the kind of programs, measures and income tax measures that are going to be undertaken by the Government of Canada for two particular objectives of government.  We have debates over programs, over how they are going to operate, and what the requirements are going to be.  At some point during the course of the parliament you have what is called enabling legislation.

 

We have before us enabling legislation enabling the government to do exactly what it wants without telling us what the nature of the program is going to be, how much money we are talking about, how they are going to decide who gets it, or whether they are going to have some sort of loosey-goosey operation which allows them to give money willy-nilly.  I do not know if that is a mixed metaphor or not, but a loose-goosey operation allows them to give money willy-nilly.

 

I know the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would never propose enabling legislation without being able to answer the questions as to what the program he was proposing was going to do.  I don't think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would do that.  I think he would say: I've a plan, I've an idea, here is what I think we should do.  Convince people it is a worthy thing to do, and then produce enabling legislation.  He would say: I need this legislation in order to allow me to implement this program.

 

What do we have?  Are we going to have another situation where we are coming in here a year or two from now and asking: Who did you give refundable tax credit to?  How much was it?  Oh, I'm sorry, that is a state secret, that is a private contractual arrangement.  We can't tell you that, that is a competitive secret.  We will have the Premier pontificating about the interference with the business operations of a private company like we have with the call centres.

 

I don't have any objections to having government programs to support the film industry.  The film industry is something that has a fair degree of potential in this Province.  There is a lot of people, and I know a lot of them, who are involved in the film industry.  They have been at it for a long time without very much government support in many cases.  I just don't know who, in particular, this is aimed at.  It's not aimed at investors.  I know some of the previous programs, national programs, existed to provide for tax credits for investors in films under the Canadian Income Tax Act.  There was a fair bit of abuse of that system, and it was criticized by the Auditor-General.

 

Now we have a system where we are going to have not only tax credits, where we get to write off the taxes, we have two provisions in Clause 8.1 (4), "`Where the tax credit calculated in accordance with subsection (2) exceeds the tax otherwise payable under this Act, the minister may pay the amount of the excess to the corporation in the matter prescribed by regulation.'"  A refundable tax credit, basically a hand-out from the public purse to a corporation based on rules and regulations that we know not off!

We know nothing about them, and the minister over there, in response to the Opposition House Leader, says: We could do it this way, we might do it that way, we might have to boost them up and give them a little bit more, or we might have to match this one and match that one.  That is no way to run a government, that is no way to come into the House -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

 

MR. HARRIS:  - and say: Here is how we are going to spend public money, Mr. Speaker, willy-nilly.

 

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

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.  I just say to the hon. gentleman that if he wants to do those gyrations he is doing over there, why doesn't he get out on the middle of the floor and do them, so we can all see?

 

MR. SPEAKER:  Order, please!

 

There is no point of order.

 

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

 

MR. HARRIS:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It is the minister and his government who will be doing the dancing.  They will be doing the dancing like they were doing with the call centres a week or so ago, when they can't tell you what the contract is, how much money the private enterprise put into it themselves, can't disclose that.  Don't know whether to throw out another million here, another million there.  We should have one bill, the government can do exactly what it wants in Cabinet.  That is the kind of legislation this government would want: The government can do exactly what it pleases.  That is the kind of legislation we have here.  We can give out money based on regulations that will pass in Cabinet, we can have refundable tax credits.  We can have a schedule to the regulations saying the following corporations shall receive the money and other ones shouldn't.

 

That is not the kind of program that we want to see.  We want to see a program that has, one of the favourite words, transparency.  Let's see some transparency.  How can we evaluate this legislation without knowing what program it is enabling?  That is what we don't know.  That is like saying the government can give grants to whoever it decides in the regulations should get them.  That isn't the way to run the public finance.  The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board should be ashamed of himself, bringing in legislation like this to the House of Assembly.  It's a wonder the whole Opposition is not up in arms about it.  It's a wonder the entire Opposition is not up in arms about this legislation, enabling legislation, enabling a program that doesn't exist.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  It is not gone through yet.  This is only second reading.

 

MR. HARRIS:  It doesn't exist!  Lots of time for them to get up in arms, I know.  (Inaudible) the whole summer ahead of us.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  We have the whole summer ahead of us, I say to the Government House Leader.  We have the whole summer ahead of us and lots of time for the Opposition get up in arms in its entirety.  I know the Member for Bonavista South wants to speak.  He was tugging on the coat-tails of the Opposition House Leader, he was so anxious to get up and speak.

 

MR. FITZGERALD:  `Jack,' you got (inaudible) all wrong.  I want to get out of here.  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  I misunderstood.  I don't mean to misrepresent the motives of the hon. member.  I'm sorry, I apologize, I misrepresented the motives of the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

 

Mr. Speaker, all kidding aside, this is the kind of legislation that we should not see in this House.  We should not see it, government should not be expecting it to be passed.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  That is like the Kodak bill, is it?

 

MR. HARRIS:  It is kind of like the Kodak bill.  The Kodak bill, a snapshot in time.  Give them the power to do exactly what they want.  That is the kind of power they want to see so they can go ahead in Cabinet and decide which films and which companies they are going to support and which ones they aren't, figure out how to craft the regulations to support...  The Member for St. John's West was talking about the Kodak bill, she said they will be exposed.  They will be exposed in due course, Mr. Speaker -

 

MR. SHELLEY:  We will see all the negatives.

 

MR. HARRIS:  Yes, there will be lots of negatives, Mr. Speaker, in this program before it is all over.  The Premier will be getting up in the House saying: No, we can't talk about the details, this is a private business operation.  That is what I don't like about this legislation.  There is no transparency.  It is deciding on a refundable tax credit which is another form of grant.  It doesn't sound like a grant, it doesn't sound like a government hand-out, but that is what it is, a refundable tax credit designed to benefit certain corporations.

 

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board was here to explain the program, give an announcement on this program.  The Film Development Corporation has been around for four, five or six months.  I went to the Delta Hotel.  The Premier was there and the Film Development Corporation.  Danny Williams I think was there, he is the chairman of the Corporation.  There were other people there.  The new executive director wasn't there, he wasn't chosen then.  There has been lots of time for the government -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. HARRIS:  Danny Williams was there, Mr. Speaker, with the Premier announcing the Corporation, and they have had six months or eight months more to come up with a program that they could lay out, roll out.  They could have a roll out - I think those are the Premier's favourite words - roll out the program, have a public relations exercise, show us the details: This is the kind of program we have.  Turn on the public relations, hire the friend of the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, the fellow with the - what is it he had?  No, I don't know.  I won't talk about that.  No, I don't want to talk about the brown paper bag.  I don't think this is the proper place for it.

 

They could hire the right kind of public relations firm, identify who the targets of this tax credit are, show the people of this Province how their money is going to be well spent attracting corporations and film development productions to this Province that would otherwise not be here.  Show us an analysis of what happened in Nova Scotia.  Never mind just saying that their industry is bigger than ours.  We know their industry is bigger than ours.  They had a film development corporation ten years before we did.  Why do you think This Hour Has 22 Minutes is being produced in Halifax?  Because they had a film development corporation in Nova Scotia before this government came up with it, that's why.  That's the kind of information we want to know.  What role did the tax credit have to play in that?  Did it have any?  The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the government haven't told us that.

 

This is not a `gimme' for the government.  I know the minister wants to get all his legislation through.  There is a Committee stage, and I know the Opposition is getting riled up by the minute, and this is not over yet.

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  I asked good questions.

 

MR. HARRIS:  I know, the member asked very good questions.  Some of the same ones I am asking, and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, some time later on this summer when we finish in this debate we will have those questions answered.  It is not something I'm prepared to support without seeing the beef, without seeing the details, without seeing a program.  It is no good to say: We might do this, we might do that, we might do something else, just give us the power to do it.  That is not the way to pass legislation, particularly involving the expenditure of public funds.

 

Those are my comments on this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I hope all hon. members will consider them, because they are very sincere and important questions related to the public finances of the Province.

 

MR. SPEAKER:  The hon. the Government House Leader if he speaks now will close the debate.

 

The hon. the Government House Leader.

 

MR. TULK:  What an onslaught from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

 

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.  (Bill No. 22)

 

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

 

MR. TULK:  Mr. Speaker, before we move the adjournment of the House let me just advise hon. members that tomorrow is supposed to be Private Members' Day, but we have agreed to give ours up.  I think everybody is agreed that we will do a bit of debating.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  Jack, go home and read a story to your poor little girl (inaudible).

 

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, Bill 24, the public tender act; the local preference act, Bill 25; and then we will do Committee on the medical act, Bill 20.  We will do Bill 30 too, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.  Here is the way we will go: Bills 22, 24, 30, and then -

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  (Inaudible), Bills 24, 25 and 30.

 

MR. TULK:  They are concerned about which way you come with the numbers.  What do you say, `Loyola,' what do you want?

 

MR. SULLIVAN:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  Yes?

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  We just did them, Bills 24, 25 and 30.  Then, Mr. Speaker, if there is any time left in the day we will do Committee on Bills 20, 21 -

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  Yes, but I'm saying if there is any time left.  I'm just giving you the order.  Bill 22 and Bill 28.

 

AN HON. MEMBER:  (Inaudible).

 

MR. TULK:  No.  I mean, I'm (inaudible).  We will see tomorrow.

 

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

 

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