December

19, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 57

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, on a point of

order.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask leave today to rise in the House to send condolences to

the family and pay tribute to a person who has contributed greatly to our

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FRENCH: Born in 1912 in Bay Roberts, Mr. Speaker,

Oscar Hierlihy was Newfoundland's pioneer in Radio and Television Broadcasting.

Oscar began his career with Ayre & Sons in 1927 when he built a radio

transmitter which revolutionized the sales strategy for his company.

In the 1930s, Oscar was in the forefront of development of

what was later to become known as the CBC. From 1951, the year CJON began

broadcasting to his retirement in 1977, he was employed with the company. In

1991, he was awarded Canada's highest honour to a civilian, that being the Order

of Canada. His book entitled: Memories of Newfoundland Pioneer in Radio and

Television was published in 1994.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour and the privilege of growing up

next to the Hierlihy family and I knew them quite well. I would like to ask that

this House send condolences to his wife of fifty-seven years, Joan, and to his

children Marilyn, Jim, Jo-anne and John and to pay tribute to this wonderful

pioneer and Newfoundlander, Oscar Hierlihy.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the

House would also like to join the hon. member in expressing our condolences to

the wife and family of Oscar.

This gentleman goes back to the days when Newfoundland was a

little country and, Mr. Speaker, we made tremendous strides in various areas and

in the area of radio and communication where we can stand proud, and it is

because of men such as this, the contribution that they made to radio in the

early days of radio and in the latter days of Newfoundland as a country, it is

certainly an honour to pay tribute to such a man and we would be pleased to join

with the hon. member to extend condolences to the family.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Member for Conception Bay South

and the Minister of Justice in recognizing the contribution of Oscar Hierlihy to

the Province as a true pioneer in the area of broadcast and radio when we were a

separate country as the minister indicated, and offer my condolences along with

that of my Party to the family of the late Oscar Hierlihy.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the good news continues.

This has been a great day so far and I have another little bit of good news

right now for the people of Westport and Purbeck's Cove.

I am pleased to inform the House today that Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro has completed the connection of the communities of Westport and

Purbeck's Cove to the main island electrical transmission system. These

communities had been supplied by diesel since the 1960's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The $1,225,000 project involved the

construction of 40 km of distribution lines and associated equipment and after

forty years they are finally on the grid.

This connection will generally result in electrical rates

decreasing by 7 per cent for residential customers and 25 per cent for business

customers in that area. Meter readings taken after November 30, 1996 will be

billed at the island interconnected electrical rates even though there may be a

portion of the month when customers were still being supplied by

diesel-generation. Meetings were held with community leaders on November 18,

1996 to advise them of these changes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. Good news for Christmas at Purbeck's

Cove and Westport.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

like to thank the minister first of all for the three copies actually of the

statement. One at the office and two since I arrived at the House, to make sure

that I did get the good news, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted and we got a great

charge out of what I said to the minister but I am delighted for the people in

Westport and Purbeck's Cove of course and any time you see a decrease in taxes

everybody is delighted to see that. Hopefully there will not be increases in

taxes in electricity rates across the Province.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh they will April 1st. April 1st, they

will.

MR. SHELLEY: There will be lots of Christmas tree lights

in Westport and Purbeck's Cove this year, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I will ask the minister if he will

table in this House the Province's energy plan for the next decade?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell him the plan Rex, we are going to

light it up.

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, we are going to light it all up, that's

right.

The Province does not do a plan on its own. Electrical

planning is done by Hydro Corporation for its customers, by Newfoundland Light

and Power for its customers, and under the Public Utilities Board and the

Electrical Power Control Act there is a role for the Public Utilities Board now

in reviewing these plans as they are done, and that is the way it will be done

in the future.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we have a big problem if there is no energy plan for

this Province. I think we have severe problems. There are new requirements for

energy, especially today with the announcement of a smelter and refinery

complex, and I think that we have great potential there and it makes the plan

all the more important I say to the minister. Where do you plan to get the

energy to supply the nickel smelter and refinery at Argentia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not say there was no

plan. l said government does not prepare such plans. Hydro has its plans, Light

and Power has it plans, and they do continuous planning for their electrical

customers and their needs for the future. They are always doing that and

maintaining their plans.

But let us get to the point, your question is really directed

at where will the power come from to satisfy the needs for the smelter and

refinery? There are several options and Hydro right now is addressing that. The

company sent a letter to Hydro some weeks ago saying they needed 170 megawatts

of firm power, and it may be up to 200 megawatts at peak capacity. The Hydro

Corporation is now reviewing the options for that power and expects to make some

representations and decisions relative to that in the near future.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he feels it should be done - Yes - if

it should be done by Hydro on behalf of the people so we can benefit from the

resource or whether it should be provided by private individuals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the electrical power policy of

this Province is that we must work on leased cost power. That was an amendment

we put into the Electrical Power Control Act a year ago, implemented last

January, and that is our power policy for the Province as a government, leased

cost power.

Now, it does not matter who provides it as long as it is

leased cost power. At this time Hydro is evaluating the possibilities, the

opportunities, and Hydro will determine which is the best way to get the lowest

cost power.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the standpoint of the environment and future tourism

development we cannot continue to dam rivers for minimal electrical supply if it

is not going to benefit the people of the province. The electrical consumers

will pay for it. It is our resource.

I ask the minister: Will the minister admit that damming all

the small hydro potential here in the Province is negatively impacting the

development of the Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Absolutely zero effect of anything that is

done on the Island on the Lower Churchill, absolutely zero effect, because

anything that is being done at this time for incremental additions to the grid

has no effect on that particular development at all.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It will have a tremendous impact depending on where the

future facilities will go, future smelters or other facilities. It will have a

tremendous impact, I say to the minister.

I ask the minister: What will it mean to the people of

Labrador who are now depending on thermal energy for the supply of power on this

project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador who are

depending on thermal energy, and I assume you mean generation from diesel, will

not be affected either by the Lower Churchill because you cannot justify the

cost of a line, frankly, to small, tiny, remote towns from the Lower Churchill

to serve that need. You would address that by other means than the Lower

Churchill, not the Lower Churchill power to go to long distance lines like that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say it does have an effect because it limits the locations

where you can put future development in the Province, I say to the minister.

That is how it affects it.

Will the minister table in this House all the feasibility

studies carried out by Hydro on the costs related to the development of the

small hydro sites around the Province, like Star Lake for example?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro did not carry out a

feasibility study on Star Lake, not at all. Several years ago Hydro had a

consultant look at the hydro potential on the Island of Newfoundland, though,

and I believe that report is public. I have certainly distributed it to a number

of people outside of government sources, and given them copies so they can look

at it. It looked at many rivers around the Island of Newfoundland, and it

assessed their economic hydro development potential, rated them as to what it

would cost to get power from many of them. I think the report was done by Acres.

It might have been ShawMont. There have been a number of reports, but there is

one that I have certainly made public that was done on the Island of

Newfoundland. But specifically Star Lake? No, there was nothing done

specifically on Star Lake.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly look forward to getting a copy from your office,

I say to the minister.

I ask the minister, what royalties will the Province receive

on our resources by developing such projects as Star Lake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we don't get royalties from a

Star Lake development. In case the hon. member is not familiar with what was

done, Hydro needed by its estimate up to 50 megawatts of power to add to the

grid as an incremental load because of our growth load. It put out a call for

proposals, a tender call in effect. A call for proposals to get the least cost

power that would come available.

Several companies replied. Over thirty replied in the first

round. Over thirty sites. In the final round I think the number was thirteen or

twelve that replied. Of these, four were accepted and they were the four with

the lowest cost power rates. That is how they were selected. We, the people who

pay electrical bills, pay for the power. If we charge a royalty on top of that

we the people will pay that royalty as well. We want least cost power for our

people.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I differ from the

minister on royalties on resources. I feel that we should get royalties on

resources. It is unfortunate the minister doesn't feel that way. Look at the

Upper Churchill, I say to the minister, if you feel royalties. Do we forego

royalties there and affect rates? I ask the minister, and we have recently heard

numerous comments on the potential development of the Upper Humber - it has been

in the media for the past few days. Will the minister confirm that a water

resources study indicated that it is relatively expensive and has environmental

problems and will probably not be studied further?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I believe in royalties on

resources too. I certainly do. We have substantial royalties on our mineral

resources, we have substantial royalties on our oil and gas resources. You are

right, on the Upper Churchill we do charge a royalty. I wish it was higher.

Because that is primarily power for export. But when we are developing power

here to get the lowest cost power on the grid, and it's you and it's your

neighbour and it's your other neighbour and all of us in the Province who are

paying these rates, I'm not interested in increasing the rates of electricity by

charging $0.50 a horsepower or some other amount on the horsepower rate for

royalty on water.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final question to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister -

MR. E. BYRNE: They have just driven up electricity rates

(inaudible) HST.

MR. SULLIVAN: We know what they have done. We are well

aware of what they have done. Will the minister confirm that on the recent

announcement on Whiterose, 10,000 barrels a day will fall far short of the 100

million barrels that are needed to kick in the royalty scheme he announced on

June 13?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should stop

confusing water and hydroelectricity and royalty rates on water with what is now

happening with the development of our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Offshore oil and gas is a major industrial

development for this Province. It is going to be with us for the next half

century, and we are going to get major benefits. This morning we had a good news

story with Terra Nova, number two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: It is likely, Mr. Speaker, that Whiterose

will be number three, but nothing guarantees it. There are others out there that

could be ahead of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The story that just happened to get reported

in the newspaper before we got an opportunity to report it properly

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what he asked!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: I will get to what he asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) what he asked.

DR. GIBBONS: Do you want an answer, or do you not?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. They do not want to

hear it.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister read a statement in the House on June 13

indicating that the royalty regime, other than Terra Nova and Hibernia - I will

spell it out for the minister - will not start to kick in until 100 million

barrels of cumulative production occurs. That means the 10,000 barrels a day for

365 days, 3.65 million, is considerably short of the 100 million, which means we

will not get royalties on this production. Will the minister confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should go and

do a little bit of research about what is happening and what is being proposed

with Whiterose.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: It was his own statement, his own words!

DR. GIBBONS: There has never been an oil development done

yet that did not have - I know my statement. There has never been an oil

development yet that did not have some production testing. With regard to

Whiterose, as they do their delineation drilling on Whiterose, when that gets

started - and I personally would love to see it get started in 1998 as is being

proposed, I would love to see it happen. They need to do a considerable amount

of delineation drilling. They need to test the wells that they drill to see what

the flow rates are, to determine the characteristics of that field. And

eventually you will get into the full-blown development of Whiterose, like we

announced this morning for the full-blown development of Terra Nova, when you

are going to put a production system on stream, and it will be done the way we

all expect it to be done. But do not go complaining about a little bit of

testing to bring Number 3 on stream. I would love to see Number 3 on stream now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

As I pointed out in questions on December 5, a 1993 financial

audit of the Town of Pouch Cove revealed $18,000 was misspent, and a 1995 audit

showed $16,000 was unaccounted for. Does the minister have any new information

on what may have happened to the public funds, and who may or may not be

responsible?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

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

As suspected.

When I asked the minister on December 5 whether he would

support sending the Auditor General into Pouch Cove to get to the bottom of the

disappearance of public funds, the minister said he would not support such an

investigation because it would cost too much money. But the Auditor General

already has her own budget; all she has to do is add Pouch Cove to her agenda

for investigations.

Will the minister acknowledge that such an investigation by

the Auditor General would cost much less than the $150,000 to $200,000 he

suggested in the House at that time, and that it would not cost taxpayers extra

money, as he suggested? Will he change his mind and request an Auditor General's

investigation into the Town of Pouch Cove from November, 1993, to September,

1996?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that it would

cost $150,000 to $200,000. At the time I said it cost that much to do Conception

Bay South, and I would not want to spend that much in the smaller community of

Pouch Cove. Since then, the Auditor General has told me that it would cost

somewhere in the range of $40,000 to do an audit in Pouch Cove.

The position of the department, and my position, is that if

Pouch Cove wants an audit, then Pouch Cove should pay for an audit. Even though

the Auditor General has a budget, it will still cost the taxpayers of this

Province, if I send in the Auditor General, at $40,000.

I have no intention of doing that. My department has met with

the town council and the mayor, and as of yesterday, the decision was that we

will not interfere with what is going on in Pouch Cove. If the people of Pouch

Cove, or the Town Council of Pouch Cove, want to call in a firm to audit their

books, they are welcome to do so, but if they do, then the people of Pouch Cove

have to pay for it.

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

supplementary.

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

Mr. Speaker, Hansard, December 5, 1996, Mr. A. Reid: `No, we

would have to pay for it, the government themselves, so you would be looking at

$150,000 to $200,000 if they went to do that type' of investigation.

Those are his words, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: It is hard to put a price

on truth, or on its value to people, or having their names cleared. Does the

minister not believe the Auditor General, through an audit, could uncover

valuable pieces that are missing from the puzzle and perhaps clear the names of

those now suffering under a cloud of innuendo and suspicion? Why is the minister

so wary about having her look into the affairs of Pouch Cove? Would the minister

not agree that a clean slate for the Town of Pouch Cove would be most

encouraging to attract candidates for the September, 1997, municipal election?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, you, as a former town

councillor in your community, must realize - and anyone here, I suppose, who has

had any dealings with councils over the years - that if at the whim of a

politician, in this case, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, or of a

mayor - if they find something going on in their town, or hear tell of

something, then they are going to be rushing in to me, as the minister, and say:

Send us the Auditor General.

In the case that we had to deal with in Conception Bay South,

which I think was a much more extreme case than what Pouch Cove is, by the way -

and I can argue that with you, too, if you want me to - we found ourselves in an

entirely different situation in Conception Bay South. We felt that we needed to

send in someone like the Auditor General.

If I start sending the Auditor General into communities

around this Province because there are residents in the communities who feel

there is something wrong going on in the town, can you imagine? The Auditor

General would probably want a staff of 300 or 400 people. The answer has been,

from the very beginning, no, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of sending the

Auditor General into Pouch Cove. My own staff are at present, even today,

helping the town council, doing some investigations, making some suggestions for

a better way to operate the community more efficiently. Most importantly, I

suppose, I, as a minister, have taken the approach -and I have been this way

with one exception, I suppose, in the last couple of years - that communities

have to be left alone. Councils, elected people have to be left alone in this

Province to run their own affairs. And I am saying to the council in Pouch Cove,

clean up your act. The RCMP have been in there, the Newfoundland Constabulary

have been in there and they cannot find anything. What in the name of heavens

will the Auditor General find if she goes in there? So the answer is again,

categorically, the Auditor General is not going into Pouch Cove. If they want an

audit, let them hire an independent company and let them pay for the cost of the

audit that would be performed.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Minister, you say that you sent the Auditor General into

the town of Conception Bay South to do an investigation. As you know yourself,

Pouch Cove has had two police investigations. Both the RCMP and the RNC have

done investigations within the town of Pouch Cove. Two different audits have

been done in the town of Pouch Cove. They both show that there was $18,000, and

$16,000 in the second one that - a minimum of $16,000, it could be more, and you

say all that is going on there is that the people in the town are requesting the

Auditor General's investigation, and there has been nothing proven in the town

of Pouch Cove?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Again I ask the minister: Will you not - I

mean, you are saying that you will not send in the Auditor General, but do you

not you see the seriousness of the situation in Pouch Cove? It is a special

case. There have been two police investigations and again, I plead with you to

send them in to give it a clean slate and to clear people's names.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming there must be

somebody living in Pouch Cove that has as much knowledge or as much commonsense

as I do, someone from Carbonear. So if there is somebody in Pouch Cove that has

as much commonsense as -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: They all do? Well there is your answer. If

they all do then they do not need me. They have enough commonsense down there to

make their own decisions on whether or not they want an audited report. Now,

somebody down in the area - why should the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs have -

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, 841 people requested it!

MR. A. REID: I do not care if it was 8,000.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: It does not make one bit of difference to

me. I am not sending the Auditor General in and have the government of this

Province to take taxpayers' dollars and pay $40,000 or $50,000 for an audit. If

the people of Pouch Cove, the mayor or the council, want an audit, let them do

the audit themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. Can the

Minister of Finance tell us what method of hiring was used when hiring key

people at the Marble Mountain Development Corporation and the Marble Mountain

Management Corporation?

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

MR. DICKS: Ability, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Ability or lack thereof.

Can the minister tell us what ability or expertise the

general manager, the chair of the development corporation, the chair of the

management corporation and the person in charge of marketing have in the skiing

industry?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not get all the positions that he asked about. I will

be pleased to comment on them all. There is a development corporation itself

which remains as it was. That selection has been in place for some years, or

they are Cabinet appointments. When we looked at the fact that the ski hill had

come off a very bad year last year because there was no snow, we did not think

it was an appropriate time to privatize it. The offers we had were not

substantial enough to warrant divesting of a $30 million asset investment by

government. What we decided to do to make the process a little simpler was to

separate the operations of the ski hill from the long-term development

prospects, so we decided to incorporate a management corporation and the person

who was selected to that was Mr. Greg White, a Corner Brook accountant who is a

long-time skier, who knows it quite well who is also on the Marble Mountain

Development Corporation Board, he was there as interim chairman for a period of

time and the best person whom we knew to fulfil that function. The other people

- I think the previous chairman was there in place, Dr. Bob Sexton who is also a

long-time skier as well and if the member wants me to comment on the other

positions, I will do so but I just forget which they were now.

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

supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he said he did not get all the

positions but his friends did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OSBORNE: Will the minister confirm that the

government's prerequisite in hiring for these key positions as well as other key

positions at Marble Mountain were that the people hired had to have very strong

Liberal ties?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and

his party do not have the problem that I do in Corner Brook. It is very

difficult when I choose someone in Corner Brook to do so who is not my friend. I

am sure the hon. member has the opposite problem and his party given the numbers

on that side of the House and this side of the House.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that since the people were

appointed at Marble Mountain, there has been an awful lot of community support.

One of the things that happened for a variety of unfortunate reasons over the

last number of years, was that, the support of the local community was

(inaudible) in local ski community. Since we have appointed Mr. White and he

selected the management team they have done two things. One is that they focus

on operations, they have gotten down the cost of running the hill and for

instance, last year, approximately $200,000 was spent before December 15 trying

to make snow in roughly similar conditions to the ones we have now.

The people who are selected in running the hill are doing it

on a very, very sound management basis. They are being very prudent, they are

watching the costs there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - and I can tell the hon. member that we look

forward to a successful year, God willing, we may even have God-given snow on

the ski hill, but I can assure the hon. member, that whatever the results of the

operations this year, the cost (inaudible) Marble Mountain has been very

substantially reduced, we put privatization and expansion on hold until we are

able to put it on a sound footing and to have some confidence that God willing

in sending us a little snow, we will have a good year and I just want to say one

other thing.

One of the most important things in supporting the ski hill

in Corner Brook is that you have the constant local skiing community coming off

a bad year, a disastrous year last year, I am pleased to say that the number of

season passes sold in Corner Brook was actually greater than they were last

year, when people had not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: - which tells you something about the

confidence of the people of Corner Brook in the management team in place at

Marble Mountain and, I invite the hon. member to come and have a look this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

My question today is for the Minister of Employment and

Labour.

Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, first aid

training in the Province is mandatory in all industrial workplaces. Why is it,

that in Newfoundland and Labrador, the only accredited agency eligible to

provide first aid training is the St. John Ambulance?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I thank the member for his question, Mr.

Speaker, and I would like to indicate to him that during the past number of

years, the decision by government has been that the St. John Ambulance be the

agency that delivers occupational health and safety training, first aid training

for government and certified by government, that has been the case for a number

of years and we are undertaking a review of that at this point in time. The Red

Cross has been in and made a presentation to the department and we are looking

at that issue as we speak. During the next number of weeks we will conduct a

review and then a further decision will be made.

Basically, in the past, it has been felt that the market for

those services could only be supported by one agency but to the government it is

open-minded and we will consider new information as we receive it and we are, at

this point in time.

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only province

in the country that has not accredited the Canadian Red Cross to provide first

aid training. Even Prince Edward Island finds it has a sufficient marketplace to

be able to accredit the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance. This will make a

fair market approach and it will provide a fair market basis for both the Red

Cross and the St. John Ambulance. I want to ask the minister if he will give

assurances today, that after the review he is doing now, he will be looking at

extending that accreditation to the Red Cross as is done in all other Canadian

provinces?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member that we

are conducting a review, but I cannot give a commitment as to what the final

decision will be because that will be made by the caucus and the Cabinet. Once

we have the information and we have evaluated fully the information, because it

is an issue that has been brought to our attention, as we go forward we will

look at all the information, we will bring forth a recommendation to government

for a final decision and we will do so with all of the information that has been

provided to us, both by St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross.

We are sensitive to the fact that we are the only Province,

but it is also a big Province to deliver the programs in, and we are looking at

the markets and so on for the future. We are looking at all the information and

I undertake to ensure that the House of Assembly will know in due course what

decision will be made by the Cabinet and by government.

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

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same

minister but not necessarily a supplementary. A few weeks ago the minister said

in this House that he was looking at workers' compensation benefits for home

care workers, and in particular in connection with the workers on the Southern

Shore. The minister said he was talking to the Workers' Compensation Commission,

and I am wondering if today he might be able to tell us that he will be able on

tomorrow to announce more good news, make a Ministerial Statement, and tell the

home care workers of this Province that they are going to be covered under

workers' compensation benefits?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the

Opposition is acknowledging all of the good news that government has been

announcing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: We really, sincerely appreciate the

Opposition House Leader giving a compliment to the government before Christmas.

We really appreciate that.

Specifically, on that issue we are looking carefully at the

coverage of workers' compensation for home care workers. I must point out that

home care workers in the Province can apply for coverage on an individual basis,

or an employer can apply for coverage. They can be covered under the act. What

we are talking about here is having the government, or the department and so on,

that is perceived as the employer, depending on whether they are the employer as

designated by the Labour Relations Board.

I am just letting the House know the information because I

have looked into the matter, and we are looking into the matter further, along

with the rest of Cabinet. We are looking at it and see where it goes in the very

short course.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for one quick question, the

hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have a question for the Minister of

Education.

In the last couple of months I have dealt with close to

forty-two students who have had trouble receiving HRD funding because of the

criteria at HRD. They are finding out that on one hand students in the same

classes are getting HRD funding and on the other hand are not getting it. Is the

minister aware of the situation, has he received any representation from people

across the Province or in his district, and if so, what action has he taken to

correct the situation?

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

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

I certainly appreciate the question in bringing attention

again to this matter as it is very important for a group of people in the

Province. We did have quite a number of representations some time ago, months

ago actually, when this first became an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador as we

began to experience the changes in the federal system with the HRD and how they

are going to go into the future to provide opportunities for people who need

training and re-training to access some level of income support.

We understand that there are those who got caught in

midstream in terms of a mechanism that has been in place and that was being

discontinued, and while new mechanisms that were being discussed and ready for

implementation had not yet come on stream. Recently, we haven't had many

representations at all because when it was dealt with before it was made quite

clear that because the federal government through a mechanism it was funding

through HRD had changed the plans, and that the provincial government did not

have any means or wherewithall, fiscally, financially, or otherwise to step in

and continue their funding in between.

Mr. Speaker, a new system in coming in place on April 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: The discussion as to exactly how students

will be dealt with in that area will be finalized before then.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to present

to the House the report of the Public Accounts of the Province, volumes one to

four, for the fiscal year ended March 31 1996. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the report of

the Public Tender Act exemptions for the month of October 1996.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. WISEMAN: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I didn't expect to

cause so much excitement on the other side of the House. I guess with all the

good news we have been announcing lately I can understand their desperation.

Anyway, I rise today on behalf of some 500 residents of the

Province who have some concerns with bus safety. As the member for the area I

have an obligation to present to the House the petition they have given me. It

isn't a new petition, It was presented by the Opposition. I suppose when you are

in a situation like this -

MR. E. BYRNE: Does the member support his constituents in

their request?

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

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is always a question I

suppose when somebody presents a petition whether they support it or not, but I

think the Standing Orders on petitions are very clear. You don't have to be

clear whether you support something or not. I have an obligation, as I have

said, to present a petition. The petition is calling for paid adult monitors on

school buses.

I applaud the committee for its work in pursuing the paid

adult monitor situation. In doing so the committee also expressed a number of

concerns it has with school busing, its main goal of course being paid adult bus

monitors. It was concerned about educational programs on bus safety, driver

training, bus regulation and maintenance, double runs.

I must tell you I was impressed with the hon. Minister of

Education who took the time out of his busy

schedule to go to my district and

meet with residents of the area who had concerns about school reform. As it

turned out -

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WISEMAN: - at that particular meeting, the biggest

concern they had was school busing.

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not quite

clear. The member is presenting a petition. Under Standing Order No. 90 it

clearly states that "...every Member offering a petition to the House shall sign

it with his or her own hand," indicating that he or she therefore supports the

petition. In this particular case the member is not clear. If he isn't

supporting it he has no right to present it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I could?

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

point of order.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) comment on that particular

statement. Signing with his or her own hand does not indicate support. It

indicates that the member is telling the House of Assembly this is a valid

petition, that it meets the requirements of the House in every way, shape and

form, and has nothing to do with the member's agreement. Simply that he is

authorizing, validating this as a proper petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair again is not aware whether

or not the hon. member has signed the petition. I assume that he was presenting

it to the House, that he has signed it

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

MR. WISEMAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I was

impressed with the hon. Minister of Education who took the time out of his busy

schedule to go to my area and listen to the concerns of the people in my area.

At that particular meeting, as I have said, the greatest concern was the safety

of school busing. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that all of us on this side of

the House are always concerned about the safety of our children and all the

children in Newfoundland and Labrador. I, along with the Minister of Education

and the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, met with the safety

committee of Holy Family School and had a great discussion about their concerns.

An honest upfront discussion, that they fully understand the situation. They

fully understand the whole busing situation. As the minister said, looking at

putting in paid bus monitors would cost the Province in excess of $4 million.

I had the pleasure of meeting with the school in the district

of Conception Bay South, All Saints School. The parents there put together a

group of adult monitors who would monitor the busing of children. They were not

looking for paid adult bus monitors but nevertheless it is a concern that the

committee of Holy Family School want brought to this House - the Opposition

Leader has done it, unfortunately he got, I think 10,000 names and myself and

the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island was given 500 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, by leave.

MR. WISEMAN: Did I get leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. WISEMAN: One of the other concerns, Mr. Speaker, was

also with the educational program on bus safety. The minister has covered all

the concerns that has been brought out. He has made it possible now in the new

reform of education that school boards can collect monies from parents who so

desire to have adult paid bus monitors, to pay these bus monitors. So, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the government will pursue all of these issues. They

will work in the best interest of the people that we serve and I know that they

will be honest and upfront in their deliberations. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

& Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I too stand to present a petition

today on behalf of the residents of Paradise. The same petition as presented by

my colleague from Topsail and indeed the same petition as presented by a member

of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition some days ago. The prayer of the petition has

already been read into record, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure all members of

the House of Assembly that in order to present this petition I too have signed

it.

Mr. Speaker, part of the petition and indeed part of the

letter that was sent to us basically says that we ask the hon. minister and his

government to show compassion, leadership and understanding to ensure the safe

transportation of our children. Mr. Speaker, I believe that that was exactly

what the minister showed to the residents and the parents in Paradise area when

he met with them some two weeks ago and listened to their concerns on many

aspects with respect to education and in particular bus transportation. I fully

believe that the some thirty-odd people who attended that meeting went away with

a feeling that, without a doubt, they had received a fair and impartial hearing,

that the minister indeed heard their message and throughout the meeting some

ideas evolved that could meet the needs of bus monitors for the children in the

Paradise area and indeed for across the Province.

I want to commend the organizers of the petition and indeed

the parents who came to meet with my colleague from Topsail and the Minister of

Education some three or four weeks ago. I wanted to commend them for the

presentation that they made, for the homework that they had carried out

themselves to ensure that all aspects of their concerns were not simply being

verbalized at a meeting but indeed were being covered in a solid, safe and I

guess indeed in a matter of fact kind of way. So my compliments to those people

who are involved in that.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Paradise I too

present a petition to the House of Assembly today.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would move that this House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

CHAIR: Motion No. 3. That is the adjourned debate on Bill

No. 48.

It has been moved and seconded that pursuant to Standing

Order 50 that the debate on Bill No. 48 entitled

An Act To Revise The Law

Respecting The Operation Of Schools In The Province in the name of the hon. the

Minister of Education shall not be further adjourned and that further

consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses,

section or

sections,

Schedule or Schedules,

preamble or

preambles, title or titles, or

whatever else might be related to debate in Committee of the Whole House

respecting Bill No. 48 shall be the first business of the Committee when next

called by the House, and shall not be further postponed.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 13, Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 48.

CHAIR: Okay. The adjourned debate on Bill No. 48.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Before we begin the debate this afternoon,

I wonder if I could have leave to inform the House that we on this side will not

be using the usual Thursday afternoon, the Late Show at 4:30 p.m. today. So we

can all govern ourselves according. It might be of some help to some of the

ministers or to our side and this side (inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, if a motion is necessary, I would

move that the House not adjourn in its normal fashion at 4:30 p.m. but that we

continue past 5:00 p.m., past 4:30 p.m, and whatever is necessary to conclude

the business of the House. I would so move.

CHAIR: Okay. Today being Thursday, automatically at 4:30

p.m. there is an adjournment debate. It has been moved and seconded that the

House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: (Inaudible) Orders of the Day.

Shall clause 1 carry?

Sorry. The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the limited

time that is available, what I propose to do - there are a number of amendments

which we didn't have an opportunity to deal with up to this point. What I would

like to do is just deal with a number of amendments at this time at this

particular stage of the proceedings. I have provided a copy of the draft wording

to the hon. minister, and perhaps the best way to deal with this is if we just

immediately get into this. Any commentary with respect to any of the particular

clauses or the particular amendments will be done by my colleagues in a

continuation of this debate.

CHAIR: For the benefit of the -

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I would like to begin, Mr. Chairman -

CHAIR: Yes, but for the benefit of the hon. member, and

to ensure the smooth flow, probably what we can do is look at each clause and

pass each clause before we start proceeding and have a whole slew of amendments.

If you have amendments to clause 1 we will consider these, or any other member

of the House, if they have amendments to clause 1, and then we will go on to

clause 2.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, obviously in this

particular piece of legislation there are some 120 clauses, I believe. We have

approximately nine or ten amendments. With the approval of the House, one other

possibility perhaps is if we could just deal with these amendments, with these

specific clauses, and then perhaps revert to the traditional way of

clause-by-clause. Is that an option that may be considered?

CHAIR: No, we have to consider the amendments for each

particular clause. If not, we are going to get really confused. Actually, they

are out of order because right now we are debating clause 1 of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clause 1 only.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Are you just

standing or do you want to speak?

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, I guess, Mr. Chairman.

I am wondering if we could, in the interest of facilitating

some of the commentary that my colleague wants to make on this bill, knowing the

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I am trying to listen to the hon. the Opposition House

Leader. He is debating a procedure, and if I cannot him, the Chair is unable to

direct the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: I am wondering if I could make a proposal

to my hon. colleague across the way - and we have not had a chance to discuss

this. My colleague, the critic for education, has a number of things he would

like to say relative to this particular piece of legislation. He may go beyond

his normal twenty-minute allocation on the closure. I am wondering if we could

have an arrangement whereby any time that he might go beyond that we would

merely deduct it from any other speaker, so the total number of minutes taken

would not exceed the maximum allocated to this side of the House on the closure

motion?

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with that. The

truth is, nine, or ten, or eleven times, twenty minutes is allowed in this

debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that `Jack', eleven times twenty?

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind hon. members -

MR. TULK: When that time is used, the vote is called, so

I give the people leave, Mr. Chairman, to use up their time however they see

fit. It is Opposition time, basically, and if we want any more than that we will

have to use it from our time.

CHAIR: We will look at the different clauses. It is a lot

easier for the Chair, and it is in order that we look at the amendments to each

clause rather than going all over the place.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: In other words, you are starting now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With clause 1.

On motion, clause 1, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

Probably the hon. Member for St. John's East can tell us

which clauses he has amendments for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Number 5 is the first one.

On motion, clauses 2 through 4, inclusive, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

An amendment being presented is with respect to clause 5. As

indicated, I believe the hon. the minister has a copy of this before him. The

proposal is that clause 5.(

a) of the bill be deleted and the following

substituted with respect to excuse from attendance.

Section 5.(

a) states: "is unable to attend school by reason

of illness or when the parent, after reasonable consideration, determines that

it is not safe due to inclement weather or any other avoidable cause."

Paragraph 5.(

b) would then become paragraph 5.(c). Paragraph

5.(

b) now reads: "is unable to attend school due to illness, but the principal

may require by advance notice a medical note in cases where illness is frequent

and suspect."

Paragraph 5.(

c) would become paragraph 5.(d); (

d) would

become (e); (

e) would become (f); and (

f) would become (g).

And the explanatory note there, Mr. Chairman, that these

changes reflect parents' rights to decide if weather conditions prevent safe

transport to school and the unnecessary use of a medical system for doctors'

notes required by principals to certify a child's illness without guidelines as

to when such a note should be requested.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. GRIMES: I just want to point out, again having seen

the proposed amendment in these last few seconds, it is unfortunate again, I

might point out, because we have dealt with a number of amendments over the last

week or so, and in dealing with all of the stakeholders, the Home and School

Federation which speaks for parents, the school boards which have parents

sitting on the board representing their students and the interest of students,

the Teachers Association and others -

This could make some sense, Mr. Chairman, but I am not in a

position to say that government should support it because every stakeholder in

the system has had this legislation for a week or ten days; they brought forward

positions that they thought were important and needed improvement or change, and

nobody has mentioned this. Nobody sees the current wording of clause 5 as

causing any difficulty and does not see the need for any correction.

This would be a fundamental shift, suggesting that parents

themselves, without the current 5.(

a) of having to notify the teacher if there

is going to be an absence, could decide to keep a child at home. It seems to

have some merit but it is not consistent with the intent of the bill, the way it

has been crafted, and the stakeholders in the system, the parents through the

Home and School Federation, the parents through the school trustees, and the

teachers themselves have all seen this and have not proposed this kind of

amendment. So, Mr. Chairman, on that basis I do not see how we can suggest that

the government can vote for this amendment. I would have to recommend to my

colleagues that we vote to defeat the amendment.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 5, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 6 through 11 carry?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The next amendment is clause 14, is it not?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Maybe just to help facilitate here - I

know the hon. the minister has a copy.

MR. GRIMES: Not unless I am getting them now. I heard

they were sent to my office.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: They were sent over to your office this

morning, Mr. Minister.

MR. GRIMES: I just got a call saying they just got them.

I guess this is these I am receiving here now.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: If it is of assistance to the table

officers there are about ten, so perhaps if I gave you a copy of each.

On motion, clauses 6 through 11, carried.

The next one, Mr. Chairman, is clause 12, where there are

amendments.

MR. TULK: Clause 12.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The amendment being proposed, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to clause 12 is specifically with reference to 12.(5) of

the bill being deleted and the following substituted - and this is with respect

to student records: "A student record may be reviewed, by the principal and

teachers of the school where the student is registered and with written

permission from the parent or a student who is 19 years of age or older may be

reviewed by board employees where that board has jurisdiction over the school

where the student is registered, to assist in the instruction of the student to

whom that student record pertains."

The explanatory note says: "This amendment is to clarify when

and by whom a student record may be used for the purpose of assisting

instruction to the student."

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Maybe to facilitate matters, too, Mr.

Chairman, I just might repeat part of the comment I made with respect to the

prior amendment. These amendments again, while they may have merit because of

the fact that we have not seen them, they have not come forward from any of the

stakeholder in education, all of whom have reviewed this legislation, and all of

whom will have some amendments made by virtue of those that will be proposed

starting with clause 14. There are seven that we are proposing to change. Some

were proposed by the Opposition critic, some by the Teachers Association, some

by the denominational authorities, some by parents representatives, and we are

proposing some.

I might just add that all I am saying generally is, as the

hon. member proposes the amendments, I will be recommending to my colleagues

that but we vote no to these amendments they had been proposing and we will be

voting yes to the ones that we give notice to starting with clause 14.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendments say `aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 12 and 13, carried.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, the table has the amendment

that is being proposed based upon the representation made by the hon. Member for

St. John's East and the Opposition critic for Education in his discussion of the

bill in second reading. For further clarification, Mr. Chairman, with respect to

the ability to charge fees for students who arrive, who are authorized under a

Canadian visitor visa and to assure that regardless of where their point of

entry into the country is, that they will be able to charge a fee in

Newfoundland and Labrador, so we are suggestion the deletion of the phrase in

subsection (2) of clause 14, the deletion of the phrase: from outside Canada, so

that it would read as the hon. member proposed in his presentation at second

reading.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 14 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 15 and 16, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 17, amendment. The hon. the Minister of

Education.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again as a result of a

representation made by the hon. member again at second reading a week or so ago,

and upon further review of the language proposed, certainly clarifies the intent

of clause 17 so that when a parent has made every reasonable effort that they

would not be guilty of any offence under the act, so that clarification, the

table again has the wording of the new 17 (1), that the current 17 (1) of the

bill be deleted and the following substituted which reads, the new 17 (1): A

parent who neglects or refuses to enrol his or her child in school or does not

make every reasonable effort to ensure that his or her child attends school, is

guilty of an offence under this act. So, Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the

addition of the phrase `does not make every reasonable effort' enhances and

improves the intent of

section 17 (1) as referenced by the Opposition critic in

his presentation of second reading.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment, say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clauses 17 as amended, carried.

On motion, clause 18 and 19, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 20, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a small change in the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Subsection 20 (1) of the bill, is amended by deleting the phrase `is entitled

to' and substituting the word `shall'. The note, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is

made to establish consistency respecting parents rights to receive reports on

students respecting attendance, behaviour and progress. Obviously, it is clear

from this amendment, Mr. Chairman, that there is now an obligation as opposed to

a recommendation that parents rights are protected to ensure that all

information with respect to their children as students in the school, would be

forwarded to them.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 20 through 26, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 27, the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, with

respect to clause 27 would be the deletion of adding the phrase, but such

opening shall not be later than September 15 and such closing shall not be later

than June 30 of the following year.

Again, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment with that

there would be certainty with respect to the length of the school year, there

would be limits as to when school commences in September and when school would

close in June. So obviously, there are limitations being put on the ministerial

power respecting the dates of opening and closing and it would provide and

assist parents with respect to their expectations concerning the length of the

school year, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment proposed by

the Member for St. John's East, all in favour?

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 27 through 30, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 31, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER:

Section 31, of the bill, Mr. Chairman,

would be amended by deleting the phrase "and in the afternoon immediately

preceding the time set for the opening of school" and substituting the phrase:

Immediately preceding the time set for the opening of school and during a period

in the afternoon immediately following the time set for the closing of school.

I would ask the minister to carefully look at this particular

wording, Mr. Chairman. It clarifies what I would consider to be somewhat

convoluted wording as

section 31 now reads, and makes it clear that the presence

of a teacher, as required, would be in the morning, prior to, during the day,

and again after a school session in the afternoon. It is unclear as I see it in

the present wording.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, because he did

ask me to take a special look at it, and I did. Not to be unkind in the comment,

because it can sound like that, but this is a repeat of the phrase that has been

in the act for thirty years. Teachers in the system know exactly what it means.

The NLTA looked at it, and has no problem with it. Other wording might be fine,

but every person in the system understands what the current 31 means, has used

it for over thirty years, and it doesn't need any correction.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

On motion, clauses 31 through 35 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 36.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, understanding

wanting to be completely clear with respect to everyone in the Province

understanding that this act does in fact ban any reference to and ability to

administer corporal punishment to students in the school.

The wording was suggested by the hon. Opposition critic again

in his presentation at second reading. (inaudible) some modification of it has

been worked upon with the lawyers. I believe everybody agrees that the words now

being proposed - that the current 36 could be deleted and a new phrase in 36,

the new statement, could be: A person shall not administer corporal punishment

to a student in a school. To make it abundantly clear that no person, employee

or otherwise, is to administer corporal punishment in a school in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment proposed by

the Minister of Education say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 36 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 37 to 73 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 74.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 74(2) of

the bill being deleted and the following substituted. This is with respect to

by-laws: A board may make by-laws that are necessary to carry out its powers and

duties under this Act providing such by-laws are not in contravention of this

Act.

Again, it is just an amendment of clarification, largely. The

wording simply clarifies what I guess is obviously the intent of the

legislation, pursuant to

section 74(2).

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: Defeated.

On motion, clause 74 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 75.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Paragraph 75(1)(u), Mr. Chairman. The

amendment asks for the deletion and the following be substituted with respect to

the duties of boards. Clause 75(1)(

u) would now read, in the amendment: Where

arrangements are made by it for the transportation of students, ensuring that

all vehicles engaged in carrying students to and from school have been

mechanically certified and have adequate liability insurance; that an

appropriate bus safety program is offered to the students who are transported by

bus; and that an adult bus monitoring program is provided.

The explanatory note: These amendments are essential to

correct fundamental errors in the wording of this paragraph, and it also assigns

the responsibility of school bus safety to the board. This issue has been

debated frequently in this House, in various ways, largely being the subject

matter of many petitions. In fact, petitions presented by members opposite on

today's date. It seeks clarification and it illustrates, by way of this

amendment, what the actual responsibility of school boards would be with respect

to the issue of school bus safety.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the amendment proposed by

the Member for St. John's East say, `aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 75 through 77, carried.

Clause 78, The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, again, as per the

amendments that have been provided to the Opposition critic and to the table,

the table has them with respect to

section 78(1) and 78(2). The suggestion is

that 78(3) remain the same but again in consultation with the representatives of

the denominational authorities and with our own legal counsel they have agreed

that the newly suggested wording for 78(1) and 78(2) better clarify and provide

for the rights of the denominational authorities under the Constitution to

assure that this membership is made up of people of the appropriate class.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we are moving the deletion of the current 78(1) and

(2) and the substitution of the new 78(1) and (2) as per the wording provided to the

table. I don't think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, to make a reading into the

record. I think the amendment is well known to the table for the official

minutes and the official recording of the final conversion of the bill.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment of clause 78 as proposed by

the Minister of Education be carried?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what copy of

these amendments that are going around or been on the table of the House but it

was my understanding that the minister did not intend to delete clause 78(3) but

the amendment as proposed I believe will have that affect.

MR. GRIMES: No, we corrected that. There is a new copy -

MR. HARRIS: Well the table does not seem to have the

right copy then I say, Mr. Chairman. I just asked the table for a copy of the

latest, latest version of the amendments and I was produced a copy which has the

effect of leaving clause 78(3) out of the bill. So I am just wondering if the

Chair is in fact possessed of the amendment that the minister is possessed of so

that we know what we are voting on.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education, in

clarification of this amendment.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, for clarification again.

The last copy that was circulated to the Opposition critic and also to the

office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party had picked up on that mistake

because it was raised with me by the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi

last week in the Legislature. As a result we made the corrections with the legal

counsel and the legislative drafts people. We changed the wording and the

amendment is that subclauses 78(1) and 78(2) are deleted which has the effect of

having 78(3) remain. 78(1) and 78(2) only are replaced by new wording, 78(3) in

the act stays as is. So the point that the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi is making is correct but the latest version - and I am sure that the

Opposition critic as well in following through the list that we have here shows

that the fourth point for the fourth amendment reads on the paper, that he has,

that subclauses 78(1) and (2) of the bill are deleted. It makes no reference to

deleting 78(3) so therefore 78(3) is to stay. We will have a 78(1) new language

to clarify it, 78(2) new language to clarify it and 78(3) stays as printed in

the bill, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rose to deal with

that particular point but I understand that if this is my only time to speak on

the closure motion I will enlarge my remarks. I understand from what I was

hearing from the speaker that there is agreement as long as the envelope of

Opposition time was not used up in terms of the closure motion at the committee

stage, then the Government House Leader has no objections and I would be

permitted to speak on other occasions during this debate. As long as I don't use

more than twenty minutes and as long as he doesn't use my twenty minutes.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader on the point

of order.

MR. TULK: Let me assure the hon. gentleman that that was

done by leave. It was done by leave, let me just tell him that.

CHAIR: By leave of the House we agreed I think to have

the exchange in terms of - to go through the clause by clause study of the bill

and look after the amendments. Then if the hon. member wanted to speak for the

twenty minutes he could speak on the enacting clause or the title of the bill,

which is the general discussion of the bill. So we could wait till that time or

the hon. member could take advantage of his twenty minutes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, that will be fine. I understood

that there was an agreement from the House Leaders which I heard, and I just

wanted to ensure that it applied to all members in the Opposition. I know it was

done specifically to accommodate the wishes of the Member for St. John's East,

but as long as it applies to everyone on this side I have no difficulty with

that, and would reserve my remarks for other occasions during the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) done by leave (inaudible)

CHAIR: Yes. I think the agreement was not only for the

hon. Member for St. John's East or the Minister of Education. I think the

agreement we had was that we would go through clause by clause study so we could

deal with the amendments as we come to each clause. If there are other members

in the House who -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Yes. If there are other members of the House who

have amendments we would let them rise and propose their amendments and we would

decide on them and go on again.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, my understanding was that

the time we are taking now will be deducted from the 180 minutes for us and the

twenty minutes from any other members who are here. Therefore I would say to my

colleague for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi that yes, he should participate in the

way that all the members of the Opposition are, but at the end of the day he

would take his full maximum of twenty minutes. Anything beyond that would have

to come from leave from all of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, that is fine.

CHAIR: We are talking about a massive bill here, and the

Chair would prefer to have each clause dealt with first.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I could understand -

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

Would the hon. members to my right, if they want to engage in

a conversation with hon. members across the way, could they go behind the Chair?

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

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I could have it clarified further

because I heard two different things, one from the Government House Leader who

said that we would go through clause by clause and if people wanted to speak for

twenty minutes after that they could. The Opposition House Leader is saying

something different. I prefer the version of the Government House Leader and I'm

sure it is more acceptable to the other side than the more narrow version.

CHAIR: So we can proceed, the Chair is clear in terms of

the deal with the Official Opposition was that the hon. Member for St. John's

East would propose amendments, and the time, if he took an hour, that hour would

be deducted from the Official Opposition's time of the nine members times the

twenty minutes. In the case for the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, he is

entitled to twenty minutes in this debate. If he wanted to debate it on a clause

or he wanted to debate it on the title, it is fine with the Chair and it is fine

with other members. I think we are clear on that. But the situation with regards

to the Official Opposition, if the hon. Member for St. John's East was going to

speak for an hour and a half, then that would be deducted off the Official

Opposition time.

Shall the amendment to clause 78 carry, proposed by the

Minister of Education?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 78 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 79 to 88 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 89.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 89(2) of

the bill is deleted and the following substituted, with respect to the issue of

zoning: Notwithstanding subsection (1), a student who meets the criteria for

admission to a uni-denominational, interdenominational or french language school

may attend a uni-denominational, interdenominational or french language school

respectively outside the attendance zone in which that student resides, but the

board shall not incur transportation costs for

that student.

The explanatory note accompanying this amendment was

necessary to maintain the integrity of the reform process and to ensure equal

rights to all students.

A comment just in passing with respect to this amendment,

obviously, as the explanatory note indicates, the purpose of this is that there

is an integrity maintained with respect to the issue of which school children

will attend, and the implications or consequences of that choice as it affects

busing in this Province.

My suspicion is that if the existing wording continues, this

will be an issue that certainly the Department of Education may have to deal

with from time to time as questions can be asked and explanations requested by

parents - and, in fact, parents who were supporters of reform - as to what the

rationale would be if the suggested wording in the amendment is, in fact, not

followed through.

CHAIR: The amendment proposed to clause 89, as proposed

by the hon. Member for St. John's East, all those in favour, `aye'.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: I would like to speak to the amendment, Mr.

Chairman. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister already. The

question that arises here as to how the attendance policies and how the

selection of appropriate school attendance for each individual student shall

occur. I note that in the materials prepared by the department, by the minister,

and distributed as part of a package, there is included in the package a ballot.

I have a concern, and I am not sure this amendment addresses

it, that I would want to raise about how this choice system is actually going to

work, and whether or not the person who is filling out a ballot on behalf of his

or her child is actually going to get their choice properly reflected in the

ballot.

Now, I know the ballot itself is not a part of the act, that

it can be changed by regulations, but in looking at the choices and how they

would work, because when you are looking at a piece of legislation for analysis

the important thing is to say: Well, how will this really work in practice? And

look for problems that might arise.

In looking at this ballot I see that the choice open to

parents, the preferences open, are only two. They are only either an

interdenominational school or a uni-denominational school of a particular sort.

That may be alright in a community which is only going to end

up having one school, because the choice is clear: Do you want that school to be

uni-denominational, or do you want that school to be a Roman Catholic or

Pentecostal or Seventh-Day Adventist? Uni-denominational school? No problem

there.

What about a parent who lives in St. John's, or Corner Brook,

or Grand Falls, or an area such as CBS, which is likely, because of the

population, to have more than one school? What if the parent - and there are

many, many, such parents who supported the notion of education reform for the

reason that they wanted neighbourhood schools, and they wanted their child to

have the right, as a right, to go to the nearest school.

Mr. Chairman, somehow this legislation has to facilitate that

right, because if - and I went through the scenario with the minister the other

day - for example, a parent wants to send their child to the nearest school, and

as a result of the way the balloting works that school ends up being a

Pentecostal school, the right of that parent to send their child to the nearest

school could be prevented from being operative, or their vote is not even

counted, because if they want their child to go to an interdenominational school

they could end up having to go to an interdenominational school, they could end

up having to go to an interdenominational school further down the road, or two

miles from where they live, because that is the nearest uni-denominational

school. What I would prefer to see, something facilitated into the legislation,

is the third choice, a third choice on this ballot paper which would then be

counted as to whether or not an individual wants their child to attend the

nearest school. So the ballot could then say, interdenominational school,

uni-denominational school, or nearest school, regardless of how that turns out

to be, because I think the preponderance of people who support school reform is

they want to have their child able to attend the nearest school.

If you living in the neighbourhood of MacDonald Drive, you

would like for your child to go to that school, or if you are living in the

neighbourhood of Vanier, Booth Memorial, Prince of Wales, St. Joseph's, or

whatever it happens to be, you would like your child to be able to go to that

school. If you have that choice as a choice, then the parent who is choosing

that particular designation under the ballot would then, presumably, have a

first right of attendance to that nearest school, even if it ends up being a

catholic school, so that they could be included in the attendance policy, so

they would have a priority right to that nearest school over and above others

who are not of the denomination, for example.

If it turns out that St. Joseph's ends up being a Roman

Catholic uni-denominational school and my child is in that neighbourhood and I

chose a nearest school as my option, I get a right to attend St. Joseph's. St.

Joseph's could end up being an interdenominational school, and I do not know

that when casting my ballot, but my first choice is St. Joseph's whether it is

uni or whether it is inter, and that seems to be more in keeping with the spirit

of the reform process, of the referendum, and of the desire of people who want

to see school reform brought about in such a way that the principle of

neighbourhood schools is available to them.

I think, at the end of the day - and I am going to use up a

few minutes, perhaps use up my twenty minutes, in speaking on this bill, to say

that this whole process of school reform that is contained in this Act, the

culmination, if you will, of all the efforts of the last number of years, dozens

of years in some cases for some people, to try to see the school system in this

Province reformed, if the culminating efforts of that are not so as to provide a

basis for children attending the nearest school to them, then perhaps it will

all be for naught. Parents, at the end of the day, will be saying: What did we

go through all this trouble for, if at the end of the day I am precluded by a

series of rules. For example, if a particular parent put uni-denominational down

they are excluded by a school attendance policy from attending the nearest

school because they chose an interdenominational school and their nearest school

turned out to be uni-denominational, and therefore, they have no priority over

anybody else for attendance at that school.

Now, obviously one would expect the people who chose a

uni-denominational school to have first right, and I have no problem with that,

but it is a question of what happens to those who wish to have a child attend

the nearest school whether it is uni or whether it is interdenominational? It

may well be that the person choosing nearest school is an adherent of that

religion. It may well be that a catholic parent would say on this, yes, I have

no problem with a catholic school but I want my child to attend the nearest

school. If it happens to be catholic, so much the better, or they may say, I am

indifferent, and still want to chose the nearest school as of right, so they

might, for fear of the school becoming interdenominational, and therefore not

having the right to attend because they have chosen a uni-denominational school,

end up in the wrong school when they really want their child to go to the

nearest school.

I do not know if I have overly complicated it, Mr. Chairman,

but I know the minister understands my point because I raised it to him

privately the other day. Whether this amendment covers it or not I will leave to

the Member for St. John's East's astute legal mind. I would like to hear the

minister's comments on that point, that there could be a better ballot that

would more likely reflect the wishes of people who want to see their child go to

the nearest school and would be happy -

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I would say to the Opposition House

Leader, I would suggest that I might use all my time now to speak to this point

and elaborate, with the indulgence of members, on the whole issue of school

reform. But perhaps the Opposition House Leader, who takes a great interest in

educational matters, would also want to comment on that particular point at some

point, that in addition to the two choices that are there on the ballot, there

could be an additional choice of: I want my child to go to the nearest school,

and that would be reflected, then, in the attendance policies that the boards

would be carrying out; so that, at the end of the day, once the decision is

made, whether a school is uni-denominational or interdenominational, people in

that neighbourhood who have chosen the nearest school have some priority of

right of attending that particular school. And, as I said, whether the amendment

accomplishes that or not, I leave to the Member for St. John's East, but I think

the principle is there as part of the spirit of Educational Reform that we

should make sure that this legislation at this time, insures that people can

have that right.

In terms of the whole process of school reform, there are

some people concerned. There are many people concerned that we have done all of

this for nought and that the same powers that be are going to exercise those

powers against the wishes of the majority in the referendum. I do not believe

that is the intention of government, but I think we have to be careful in

crafting these amendments in this legislation to insure that parents have the

strongest possible say, the strongest possible choice and the strongest

possibility of that choice being reflected in the actual ability of their child

to attend a school of their choice whether it be a uni-denominational school or

an interdenominational school or indeed, as many parents have expressed, the

nearest school, whether it is uni-denominational or interdenominational.

Because, as all parents will know, the new Term 17 provides that regardless of

whether it is an interdenominational school or a uni-denominational school,

their children have the right to attend religious classes, religious training in

their religion, and that is a greater right than exists in any other province of

Canada, in any state of the United States and, I would suspect, in any country

of the world. This right that parents have, to have their children taught, to be

given religious training in a school system paid for by the public purse,

probably only exists in the Province of Newfoundland of all of the jurisdictions

that I am aware of in the world.

I think that is probably something that has gone unnoticed to

a large extent in the debate over Educational Reform in the debate over the

exact wording of Term 17, in the Senate, in the House of Commons; not before the

Senate Committee, because I took pains to point out to that Committee, that

after Term 17 was passed, that this Province alone, of all the jurisdictions of

Canada and the United States and perhaps as I said, every country of the world,

the denominations that are protected by Term 17, the adherence of those

denominations have the right for their children to be taught religion of their

denomination in every single, public school in the Province and that that right

is there enshrined in the Constitution.

So many parents, Mr. Chairman, will take the view, even if

they are strong adherents of a particular faith, that they want their children

to go to the nearest school and have religion taught to them in that school if

that is their choice.

So that is the point that I wanted to make on this

legislation, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was an appropriate point to make and

when we talk about how the zones will operate and how the system will actually

operate in practice but it is an important point that I think, at the end of the

day, what parents want to know, is whether or not school reform has in fact been

achieved in practice, and whether that will result in their being able to send

to their children to the school nearest them and whether that will be an

effective right.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East. Is he

speaking on clause 89?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, with respect to the same point.

The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi raises an issue, and

I would be interested in the minister's comments. Because we could have a

situation hypothetically, in following on from the comments made by the member,

where a school in a particular neighbourhood has been declared to be

uni-denominational, and a family living directly across the street from that

school which simply wants that child and that family to attend that school, has

no particular preference, but a neighbourhood school, and in accordance with the

comments, on the assumption and understanding that is what reform meant.

How does the minister envisage a particular board responding

to that parent who simply says: I want my child to go to that school across the

street, but that school, because of the designation procedures, has been

designated as uni-denominational, and therefore perhaps has closed its doors to

that family across the street, who may simply be of another denomination - or,

because of the population of the school, not in a position to even welcome that

particular student? That, I think, is perhaps a fundamental hypothetical

situation which could exist. I would be interested in the minister's comments on

that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe it might be very useful for the record as part of

this debate to comment on that issue. Because in tying it into the sections of

the Act, the clause-by-clause, while we are looking at 89(2) now and a proposed

amendment by the Opposition education critic the hon. the Member for St. John's

East, and the commentary on that by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

There are three sections that are tied together with respect

to this issue of designation and the ability for a parent to have a student

attend a particular school as a result of attendance zones and admission

policies. There are three issues: there is a designation issue of the school

itself; there is attendance zones, which we are now discussing in

section 89

which impact upon that; and there is an admission policy which is controlled by

the school board for interdenominational schools and controlled by the

denominational sub-committee for a uni-denominational school.

It is not an issue, in our view, that is appropriate for

amendment in the Act, because the reference to it in the Act actually is back in

section 82, which we have already approved as written. I might remind hon.

members with respect to

section 82, designation, it says: "Commencing on

September 1, 1997, a school shall be an interdenominational school unless the

requirements set out in the regulations for designation as a uni-denominational

school are satisfied" - so regulations are going to determine the designation

process -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, we need to deal with the issue, Mr.

Chairman.

- "following a registration process to determine parental

preference."

We have already agreed that that is going to be standard.

There will be regulations laying out the process. Also the form that the hon.

the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi references is out in its first draft. We

are now having people look at actually, the possibility of including on that

form a third column which would do exactly as the hon. member proposes, the

language being along the lines of saying: The choice for that parent would be

the nearest school regardless of designation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It is the issue we will be looking at in

terms of a possibility for including that on the form.

There is an important message in that. It will not be in the

Act but, Mr. Chairman, it is an issue that ties in with sections 79, and 89

which we are now discussing. Because

section 79 says that for a

uni-denominational school the denominational committee directs the student

admission policy. I think information collected through the process on a form

like that might encourage the sub-committee to have as the second feature of its

admission policy, and this is the issue, that its admission policy clearly would

be the parents who wanted a school of that designation who have been assigned to

it; and secondly, that even if it is a uni-denominational school, as the Member

for St. John's East points out, but the parent is not of that denomination and

wants to go, that the second tier of the admissions policy would be that

neighbourhood children would get access, provided there is still room.

Because there is no guarantee that the uni-denominational

committees will have that as their attendance policy. They are given right by

the Constitution and by

Section 79 to set the attendance policies but I think

the information gathered through a registration process would be useful to them.

It might encourage them to set that as their attendance policy. I believe what

we have heard here in the House today is that members here, everyone involved in

the debate would encourage that to be the actual attendance policy. We could not

dictate under the act, Mr. Chairman, that the attendance policy says they would

have to get priority over the denomination that is running the school because

they have a constitutional right to run uni-denominational schools for children

of one denomination. You can't displace students of that denomination with an

attendance policy that kicks them out even though they have a constitutional

right in favour of children who live closer to the school who are not of the

denomination. So we hope the balance will be struck and we are seriously looking

at using the form that will be prescribed under the regulations with

Section 82,

Mr. Chairman, to deal with that issue because it is an important one. It will be

a critical one and I have been indicating to people that the next major piece

that comes in education reform will be addressing that whole designation process

and sending signals to the boards and to the subcommittees with respect to the

attendance policies, the admission policies and the attendance zones that we are

now discussing in

Section 89, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment proposed by the Member for St.

John's East to clause 89, carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

On motion, clauses 89 - 90, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 91, the hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again the copy that

the table has, accurate at this time, that paragraph 91.(1)(0) of the bill be

deleted and the following substituted and the new 91.(1)(0), Mr. Chairman,

basically just puts in wording that clarifies the fact that there is no

misunderstanding that the director here, by virtue of sitting on these

committees of the board, is in an ex-official position. So it just further

clarifies that the person would be there, the director would be there, could be

there but would not be a voting member. This language better clarifies it, Mr.

Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as proposed by the hon.

Minister of Education, paragraph clause 91.(1)(0) carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against, 'nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 91 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 92 through 94, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 95, The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, again as per the information

provided to the table. Paragraph 95.(4)(

a) of the bill, again we had

representation suggesting that there be an improvement by deleting the current

wording and substituting the wording, "(

a) all matters necessary for the board

to manage, maintain, use, equip and improve the property while the property is

required by the board for the purpose of education; and", and that this wording

be substituted as the new 95.(4)(a). So that issue is there mainly to pick up

with respect to the whole issue of including the word `maintain' along with the

wording that was in the previous 95.(4)(a).

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as proposed by the hon. the

Minister of Education carry?

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 95 as amended, carried.

Shall clauses 96-119 carry?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a

comment with respect to clause 111.

CHAIR: Clause 111, so probably what we will do is 96-110,

carried.

On motion, clauses 96 through 110, carried.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clause 111 has

to do with the establishment of a commission scolaire for the Province and

indicates that the commission scolaire will be established pursuant to

Section

I have received significant representation, Mr. Chairman, by

the Provinciale Federacion for francophone parents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are some real concerns as have been expressed and I am sure the hon.

minister has received documentation from the federation as well, who have

expressed grave concern having lobbied hard, having worked hard, having

communicated at length with the minister and with the department over the course

of many months to see that

Section 111, Mr. Chairman, deals in a very limited

fashion by just simply recognizing the fact that there shall be the

establishment of a commission scolaire for the Province.

Mr. Chairman, what is missing according to many proponents

and supporters of this concept is the structural foundation I guess or the basis

upon which a commission scolaire will be established in our Province. There was

a complete lack of guidelines, Mr. Chairman. There is no indication as to what

the structural basis will be.

The interest of francophone parents and francophone students,

guidelines as to how this board will be established, what the parameters of

instruction will be, the details which generally accommodate, particularly when

a commission such as the type we are talking about now, which is completely new

- there is no tradition; there is no background information which can be of

assistance, I suppose - and this is the time and place, I would say to the

minister, for lengthy, detailed, and complete legislative wording.

Mr. Chairman, there has been documentation and copies have

been forwarded to me by representatives of the Federation des Parents

Francophones de Terra-Neuve et Labrador, and it is quite clear that what the

parents and what the proponents of this commission scolaire are saying is

completely absent. The wording in the present legislation is completely void of

clarification, specification, and wording which is such that makes it clear what

the purpose of a commission scolaire is all about.

I will not go into any other detail other than to make those

few comments. The minister, I am sure, is fully aware of where the parents and

supporters of this commission scolaire are coming from, and again I would be

interested in the minister's comments in virtue of a commitment which has been

made to these parents over, as I say, a series of weeks and months, many months,

of lobbying and hard work by many proponents and many interested parties.

I would be interested in the minister's comments with respect

to the commitment that this government has made to the francophone community of

this Province, whether it be in Labrador, or on the West Coast, in particular

the Port au Port Peninsula, or in the City of St. John's, or any other community

where there is a francophone population. I would be interested in hearing the

minister's comments with respect to this government's commitment to the

francophone people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On motion clauses 110 through to 120, inclusive, carried.

CHAIR: The next amendment we have is to

section 121, an

amendment by the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Section 121 is a repeat of an amendment which was put forward

with respect to Bill 27, the Education Act. It is the identical wording, and it

has to do with a topic about which this Party is passionate, with respect to

resource recovery.

I would like to read the proposed amendment: Resources

realized from reductions in duplication of school boards, administrative

offices, schools and transportation systems through the enactment of the Schools

Act, 1996, shall be devoted to improving the quality of teaching and learning.

It is clear from comments that have been made by members on

this side of the House over the past ten days or so that we feel that a

significant breach of this government, and a complete absence of relevant

wording in the legislation, is that it fails to honour up to its commitment to

the people of this Province in terms of its contribution of money saved being

redirected to the schools and classrooms in our Province.

Mr. Chairman, there is significant government documentation.

We have Hansard in itself. We have the former Minister of Education, and indeed

many representatives of government, who have made it clear to parents and the

people of our Province throughout the referendum debate how savings were to be

redirected and returned to the classrooms of our Province. It is a significant

failure of this legislation. Obviously, the thrust of this amendment is to

ensure that the resources realized from reductions, from the reductions of

school boards, from the refining of administrative offices, and the savings from

busing and so on, that these funds be redirected to the children of our

Province.

It is clear from government's own studies and assessments,

Mr. Chairman, that we have significant weaknesses, and I see absolutely no

reason whatsoever why this legislation fails to deal with this crisis situation.

It is a significant breach, I would say to the minister, and it is a fundamental

failure of this act where it fails to address the fact that the resources

realized are not returned to the people and to the children of this Province.

It is an all-encompassing amendment, and we felt, as an

opposition party, number one, we have an obligation to raise it, the people

voted for reform based on the commitment which was given by government. It was

felt that

section 121 would be the best place, Mr. Chairman, to have this

particular amendment addressed.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, a comment, please. Just for the

record again.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Understanding the

point being made by the Opposition critic and why he feels compelled to make it,

but he understands as well, and we can reference back to a previous Hansard

where I've explained why the government won't support this amendment.

CHAIR: The amendment proposed by the hon. Member for St.

John's East.

All those in favour say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

I declare it defeated.

On motion, clause 121 carried.

CHAIR: We have a

schedule by the hon. member to clause

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, that the bill be

amended by adding immediately after

section 121 the following schedule. The

schedule actually reads in the new Term 17, the new constitutional provision,

which is necessary by virtue of the fact it is referenced in the act itself and

needs to be appended to the act as a schedule. It needs to follow

section 121,

Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall the

schedule as proposed by the hon.

Minister of Education carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before we conclude

debate on this particular bill I want to take the opportunity to thank my

colleague the critic for education the Member for St. John's East who -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: - has done a very commendable job. Also,

give recognition to the minister for being open and willing to receive

suggestions. We wish that we could get a guarantee for the funding to be spent.

However, that is a decision we can bring to the table. We recognize in a

parliamentary democracy that it doesn't always work that way. We will come back

to that topic I'm sure at a later date. Again I want to recognize the tremendous

amount of work that has been done for our caucus and also for the Legislature by

the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Very quickly, I would like to commend the

Opposition spokesman as well. I'm going to half-commend the Minister of

Education. After all, he does get paid for it.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendments, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Opposition

House Leader wanted to move to Order No. 15.

CHAIR: Order No. 15.

MR. TULK: Committee of the Whole on

An Act Respecting

Pension Benefits. You didn't want to move Order No. 14 first, (inaudible)? You

wanted to leave that one till last, I believe you said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Okay. Order No. 15, Bill No. 46.

CHAIR: Order No. 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I do not know whether the Opposition has any amendments or

not, but the Minister of Finance wishes to, when we get there, and I read it at

the table now, with the concurrence of the House. Harvey?

MR. H. HODDER: Oh, yes.

MR. TULK: Clause 54 of the bill is deleted and the

following substituted, `regulations prescribe procedure to divide pension - does

the table have a copy of this?

CLERK: Yes.

MR. TULK: So I do not need to read it into the record. It

is there, but I would so move the amendments as put forward by the Minister of

Finance. You have a copy. I will read it in, okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no.

MR. TULK: On motion Clauses 1 to 53, carried.

On motion, Clause 54 as amended, carried.

On motion Clauses 55 to 81, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 16, Bill No. 51.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Automobile Dealers Act, The

Insurance Adjusters, Agents and Brokers Act, The Insurance Companies Act, The

Real Estate Trading Act And The Trust And Loan Corporations Licensing Act".

(Bill No. 51)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I am going to call Order 17, but I believe the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and the Opposition have agreed on a

slight amendment to this bill, Bill No. 29, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland

And Labrador Volunteer Service Medal".

CHAIR: Order, please!

Did the hon. Government House Leader just call Bill 29?

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And Labrador

Volunteer Service Medal". (Bill No. 29)

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: I wanted to direct the attention of the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs for a second to Clause No. 6. I am

wondering if I could have the attention of the House Leader and the Law Clerk as

well? I do not have this written and I know there is only one word here.

MR. TULK: I think (inaudible) provided that today.

MR. H. HODDER: It is just the one word. In Clause No. 6,

and I think the Law Clerk has that now, it says in the third line when talking

about posthumous awards, `a medal may be awarded'. The word `awarded' might have

a different connotation and perhaps the word could be simply `received' by a

relative of the volunteer, or presented to a relative on behalf of the volunteer

as prescribed by regulations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that okay?

MR. H. HODDER: Yes. The word `awarded' is an incorrect

word here.

MR. A. REID: Maybe presented to -

MR. TULK: I just want to make sure (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Harvey, let us go on to the next one.

MR. H. HODDER: Okay, and maybe the minister and the law

clerk could we just defer this one for a moment?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Yes.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible), Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. A. REID: We also found out that there is no

regulations for this yet, so I am going to omit as prescribed by - we are going

to take that out as well because there is none presently written so we are going

to take that out -

MR. TULK: That does not matter. Once you prescribe

regulation, you have to (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: So I will be taking that out too as well,

okay?

MR. H. HODDER: So you and the clerk will work out an

arrangement?

MR. A. REID: Good.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I believe, and I will ask the

Opposition House Leader to concur or to disagree with me, but I believe that

Order No. 19, Heritage Animals, I think the NDP representative would want to

speak in third reading. I don't believe he wants to speak in second reading, I

think it was third.

AN HON. MEMBER: Third reading, yes.

MR. TULK: Alright. I would call then Order No. 19, Bill

CHAIR: Bill 32, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of

Heritage Animals".

On motion, clauses 1 through 11, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill

without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Motion No.4.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader, To Move,

pursuant to Standing Order 50 that the debate on Bill 45 entitled, "An Act To

Implement the Comprehensive Integrated Tax Co-ordination Agreement Between the

in the name of the Hon. the Minster of Finance and Treasury Board shall not be

further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or

resolutions, clause or clauses,

section or sections,

schedule or schedules,

preamble or

preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to

debate in Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill No. 45 shall be first

business of the Committee when next called by the House, and shall not be

further postponed.

All in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Opposed?

Motion, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 14, Bill 45.

CHAIR: Bill 45, "An Act To Implement the Comprehensive

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador."

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a

similar agreement that we had to the other bill before us today, Motion No. 3 -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, we do not have any amendments but if,

for example, the Leader of the Opposition wishes to go beyond his twenty

minutes, that would be taken from others on this side of the House.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The reason I said I wanted the Minister of

Finance here is that if there were proposed amendments then I would want the

Minister of Finance here to either concur or disagree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: So you have no amendments?

MR. H. HODDER: We have no amendments.

MR. TULK: I have no problem with that, no problem at all.

CHAIR: The Chair is familiar, and I believe all Members

of the House of Assembly are familiar, with the agreement that has been reached

by both parties through the respective House leaders, and the agreement will

apply to the debate on this bill.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some

comments to make on the harmonized bill.

With reference to Bill 45, I feel strongly that taking over

$100 million out of the economy and provincial revenues of this Province, and

not transferring it back into the pockets of consumers, is not a positive step.

We are going to lose, by the minister's admission, $105 million. He has not

provided the figures showing how we are going to lose that. I predicted $150

million. The minister said $90 million would be gotten back in new taxes. He

said, insurance, liquor and tobacco tax, a tax on the private sale of vehicles,

and some other minor ones would bring in $90 million extra taxes by having 15

per cent tax on those items that did not have any Retail Sales Tax on them

before, basically.

Now, over all, when you subtract this $90 million from the

difference we are taking in now under Retail Sales Tax, and subtract it from

what we should take in under the new BS tax, it will be about $240 million minus

the $90 million, which gives us $150 million.

I have asked the minister if he could provide specifics as to

where the difference is. I have not received specifics as to what the difference

is, and I look forward next year to seeing the position on revenues we took in.

Then we will be able to see, by the end of the fiscal year 1998, who is right on

what we predicted on the difference that we would take in in taxes.

A certain portion of the money that is coming out of the

economy, the $150 million, is going on the cost of goods in the Province. A

certain amount is, not all. I am not naive enough to think it is. People in the

field called me when they heard me bring this out in the media, and on open line

discussions. One person in costing, and working in the business end of it for

thirty-four years, indicated that when you have to re-ticket items, unpack them,

warehousing, when you have to change over your cash registers, your computers,

when you have to undergo those costs, it goes on to the price of the goods

because companies are going to get a certain amount of profit.

Some hon. members here in the House are certainly familiar

with doing business. One person shakes their head, is familiar with doing

business. If you pay a 10 per cent higher transportation cost, and you want to

maintain your profit, you drive up the cost of goods. The guy who is a

spokesperson for the Department of Finance, I think, the Member for Conception

Bay East and Bell Island, says that is not so.

I, too, spent over twenty years in numerous types of

businesses, in a variety of businesses, some in manufacturing. I spent time in

the retail business too, I say to the member, and other businesses, and when the

cost of goods, the cost of services, goes up, you increase the cost to the

consumer. That is common sense. You operate on a certain profit, and if the cost

goes up the price of the goods out to consumers goes up. That is common sense.

If you sell a good for $100 and the cost increases, if the cost goes up by $3,

you may increase it to $104.

You may add on your profit margin on the extra cost. That is

the normal way of doing business. Now where has this extra money gone? Who has

benefitted really? Are people out building a home, the first time they want to

start a home, are they going to pay more or less under the harmonized tax?

People building a new home are going to pay more under a new harmonized tax on

the cost of the home. They are going to pay more, I say to the member. We are

going to have numerous increased costs.

The construction association, they have indicated - they had

a news conference talking about the increased cost. The cost of a home is going

up, they said, by around 4 per cent to 5 per cent. So the person out wanting to

build a home is going to have an increase in cost.

What about the people out there with kids, young kids and

raising a family? They did not have this tax on children's clothing before. Now

we are going to see a tax on children's clothing. We are going to see a 15 per

cent tax going on the clothing for kids. Families raising kids today are going

to pay more under this tax. If their kid wants to play hockey at the arena, the

GST of 7 per cent, now ice rentals will go up to 15 per cent. If they want to

take their kid to music lessons or guitar lessons it is going up. If somebody

wants to even enroll them in any particular activities or lessons they are going

to pay a fee.

If anybody wants to use a taxi, people who don't have a car,

seniors and people on fixed incomes, many of them do not have their own

automobiles, are going to have to pay an extra fee now, up to 15 per cent.

People who do have a few dollars are going to pay extra in certain areas. If

people can afford it, well we don't have as much sympathy for people who can

afford it but these people are going to be hit hard. Now are seniors going to be

better off because of this tax? Let's look - and we have an increasing aging

senior population in the Province, so much so that the Minister of Social

Services in her Strategic Social Plan told us that by the Year 2016 and over the

next twenty years we are going to have an economy in the Province in which the

number of seniors are going up, the number of working people are getting less.

That is what is in this government document and we have less people paying taxes

for more people. So seniors and other people are going to be squeezed on

incomes. They are the people who are going to be paying the extra cost to heat

their homes. Extra costs for heating a home, extra cost for electricity, whether

it is heating fuel, gasoline or increased taxes in gasoline.

People here in the Province, people who depend on snowmobiles

as a method of transportation. That is done very much in certain parts, Northern

Newfoundland and particularly Labrador. It is the main mode of transp