December

12, 1997 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLIII No. 50

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like

to welcome to the House of Assembly today sixty-seven Grade IX students from St.

Peter's Elementary School in Upper Island Cove in the District of Port de Grave.

They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Wade Reid, Mr. Calvin Peddle, Mr.

Howie Lundrigan, and Mr. Robert Bishop.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

inform the hon. Members of the House of Assembly of the substantial commitment

of this government to the future of the forest and forest-related industries in

this Province. This year we will see a grand total of $16.15 million spent on

silviculture related work across Newfoundland and Labrador. This includes an

additional $2.5 million dedicated this year by this government through the

Employment Initiatives Fund.

Overall this represents an important investment by the

provincial government, the two pulp and paper companies - Abitibi Price

Consolidated, Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited - and a combination of

federal-provincial expenditures through the transitional jobs fund.

As a result, this year over 16,480 hectares of forest land

were treated, which represents 2,300 hectares more than 1996. This year alone

over 7.5 million seedlings were planted.

This Province has traditionally had a resource-based economy

which is primarily export oriented. The two pulp and paper companies, Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper Ltd. and Abitibi-Consolidated export shipments of newsprint

valued in excess of $600 million. As well, we have a growing lumber industry

which produces up to 70 million board feet per year.

Overall the pulp and paper and sawmilling industries

presently make up over 20 per cent of the manufacturing gross domestic product.

The forest industries provide about 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, and of

these jobs one-third would be related to the sawmilling industry.

Earlier this year the announcement of the twenty-year forest

management plan confirmed a deficit in intermediate-aged timber in the forest on

the Island. Forty-eight per cent of the forest is older than sixty years old,

and forty per cent of the forest is younger than forty years, and therefore will

not be harvestable for another twenty to forty years. Therefore, in order to

improve the current and future wood supply the plan recommends strong forest

management, especially investment in silviculture and forest protection

measures.

Mr. Speaker, we take this challenge seriously and in total,

the 1997 silviculture program sponsored over 200 projects throughout the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: These projects provide meaningful work

that contributes to the long-term viability of the over eighty rural

Newfoundland and Labrador communities that rely on various levels of forestry

related activity. This year alone we have created approximately 23,000 person

weeks of employment - that means over 2,000 seasonal jobs in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, silviculture projects create

immediate wealth through the simple fact that seventy per cent of each dollar

spent is salary related. The level of investment activity this year is proof of

this government's commitment to maximize employment and also to ensure a forest

and forest based industry for the future of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all, I will comment on the improvement. I had a copy

of the statement this time, Mr. Speaker, so it is nice to read along with the

minister.

Mr. Speaker, seriously, this is something that we do not

raise enough in this House of Assembly and it is something that I try to

continue to bring up on a regular basis about the situation with the timber

deficit of some over fifty per cent.

I would say to the minister, I am delighted when I hear this,

but it is nothing new in what the minister is telling us here today, we are just

talking about it again. What I would say, if there is some way where we can put

people to work in this Province, this is it. We should double it, triple it,

quadruple it because, the more we do on silviculture and planting and thinning

and so on, what it does is get us back on track, a little bit at least, when we

talk about a fifty per cent deficit. But, Mr. Speaker, at the same time I would

like to add to this statement something that should be given a lot more of

attention, the mechanical harvesters in this Province and what it is doing to

our industry. Put people back to work and take the mechanical harvesters out of

there, but at the same time double, triple and quadruple silviculture and put

people back to work, it is something that is going to mean a future to this

Province as it relates to the forest industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: You have a nice red tie there Harvey.

Mr. Speaker, on this day, the ninety-sixth anniversary of

Marconi's first Trans Atlantic phone call, it is appropriate as Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal and on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology, the hon. Judy Foote, that I inform the House about advances -

well they are up over there this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: - about advances in electronic communications

in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

The internet is frequently described as a route to the world

- an electronic highway leading to information and knowledge from all corners of

the globe.

Mr. Speaker, because much of our Province is rural, one might

think that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are behind the rest of Canada in

Internet access. However, I am happy to say that is not true - in fact, exactly

the opposite is the case.

Thanks to the efforts of a number of organizations and my

colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, both public and

private, 90 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador will have toll-free access to

the Internet by the end of 1997.

Mr. Speaker, that is a level that will not be reached by

Ontario and Quebec until the year 2000. Yet, by that time 100 per cent of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have toll-free access to the Internet,

should they desire it.

The credit for this technology goes to NewTel Communications

and its $60 million, three-year Rural Services Program which will deliver the

newest of communications services to our smallest and most rural communities.

Our school's Internet system, Mr. Speaker, is even more

advanced. Since April of 1996, all schools in Newfoundland and Labrador have had

access to the Internet. With 100 per cent of our schools online, we have the

highest Internet participation rate in any province in Canada.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a tribute to StemNet - a small

organization within Memorial University which has been offering Internet access

to rural Newfoundland and Labrador since 1993.

In turn, StemNet has been helped by generous assistance from

the private sector. Cable Atlantic is providing high-speed Internet access to

100 of the 250 schools within the cable company's service areas. Cable Atlantic

service through its program named STELLAR, is being supplied free for four

years. As the company expands its cable service area, more schools will be

invited to join STELLAR.

AT&T Canada has also worked with schools of Newfoundland and

Labrador to reduce the cost of long distance Internet access. AT&T has provided

rebates on long distance reducing the costs by almost two-thirds.

Mr. Speaker, in the growing global economy, access to the

world's information through Internet, is becoming increasingly important to the

success of businesses and the overall economic growth of our Province.

Access to the information highway for our rural communities

breaks down barriers once presented by geography. The Internet opens up

opportunities for rural businesses to explore new markets and promote their

products and services throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the forward thinking initiatives of

organizations like: Cable Atlantic, NewTel Communications, Memorial's StemNet,

and AT&T Canada, this Province is at the forefront of Canada's information

highway development. That provides a tremendous competitive advantage to our

rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, access to the information highway can help

develop our economy by fostering the growth of small businesses, creating new

jobs, especially in the rural parts of our Province.

The initiative and vision shown by the private sector in

Newfoundland and Labrador clearly demonstrates its overall commitment to the

further development of this Province. They show confidence in the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador as a good place to invest and do business.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend today the private companies

for their assistance. The companies have helped us in our attempts to revitalize

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to thank the minister, Mr.

Speaker, but first, I would suggest to him, that he get his own `interact' or

his communications Internet in order, because I got one page of a three-page

statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I got one page, too.

MR. H. HODDER: One page here, too.

MR. SHELLEY: It was nice to read along on the last page,

Mr. Speaker.

There is technology; the Page just delivered the rest of it.

Mr. Speaker, as to this whole initiative, I would like to

commend the real people behind this, of course, the people who could not be here

today. The people we would be commending today, of course, AT&T, Mr. Weir at

StemNet, Vince Withers at NewTel, Danny Williams at Cable Atlantic.

This particular service is vital, I say to the minister, and

I have said it many times here, especially in rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the plan so far - I have been checking up on

some of the districts and they are behind in this still. Yes, there is progress

being made, but the timing for it has to speed up. What we need now in order for

small businesses and, of course, schools and students in this Province, to

access the Internet wherever they live in Newfoundland and Labrador, to the far

reaches, that is what is most important, that as quickly as possible - of

course, the more urban centres are right on tap with this, but what we have to

bring in line is the outreach parts of Newfoundland and Labrador so they can

avail of it, the students, the businesses and so on, so we can get caught up

with this age and move on to better things for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon.

colleagues that a St. John's-based company, Marine Industrial and Aviation, has

acquired the Canadian manufacturing and marketing rights for the INDUX line of

asthma ventilation systems from Advanced Design Manufacturing in England.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Marine Industrial and Aviation will perform

final assembly, testing, and packaging of these systems at their facility in St.

John's for distribution throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to inform this House that

Marine Industrial and Aviation has qualified for the incentives available under

the Province's Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprises program.

The EDGE program was designed to attract new, dynamic young

companies like MIA that offer innovative products and services and can compete

and succeed in the global marketplace.

The potential benefits these systems have for the growing

health care sector may indeed be significant. It has particular application in

addressing problems associated with so-called `sick buildings', where poor air

circulation poses problems associated with dust build-up, humidity-related

structure deterioration, and mould spores that may cause asthma-like symptoms.

The INDUX systems eliminate dust mites from rooms and homes

and in so doing provide relief to asthma sufferers. There is also proof that the

systems help prevent the occurrence of asthma. Dust mites are the primary cause

of asthma, a chronic lung condition that affects 1.5 million Canadians. With

this condition growing at 5 per cent to 10 per cent a year, there is a clearly

defined market for this product.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, this operation will create

initial employment for thirteen people and will see a capital investment of

$700,000.

Marine Industrial and Aviation is a prime example of why the

EDGE program is an important component of our prospecting efforts. Not only has

it been instrumental in attracting investment to the Province, but local

companies like MIA have availed of the program to help with their expansion

plans and in marketing their products. Half of the 62 companies to have received

EDGE designation to date are local companies. The incentives available through

EDGE give them the break they need to compete in the global marketplace.

By attracting companies from all sectors, the EDGE program

has been effective in creating jobs, generating investment and assisting in the

government's overall goal to diversify our economy.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to this statement in two parts, first

of all to commend Marine Industrial and Aviation for their

part in going forward

and seeking out the rights to market and manufacture this product in Canada, and

for the co-operation, I am sure, of the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

The second part of my response will be of a more humorous

nature, Mr. Speaker. I direct this towards the Minister of Education who has a

number of sick buildings in the Province, who could probably use this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: There are fifty-five sales for this

product already, and probably, Mr. Speaker, another seventeen throughout

Cabinet. Because I am sure there are a number of dusty shelves over there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: My questions today are for the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs. In recent weeks, residents in most

municipalities have been receiving their municipal assessment notices. It

appears from the wide variety of calls we are getting at our office there is a

lot of concern out there, there is a lot of confusion throughout the Province. I

say to the minister, while we appreciate the right to appeal process, we know

that is an avenue open, and we are also quite aware that municipal councils have

available the right to increase or lower the mill rate to achieve the desired

amount of revenue, I want to ask the minister if he could explain the rationale

that is used by his department to determine market value. Who is consulted in

determining that particular criterion?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the assessment division this

past year did 160,000 assessments. This is the first time in the history of the

Province that all assessments for the whole of the Province have been done in

one year.

I announced in the House last year that after this year, even

though we have signed an agreement saying that assessments would be done every

three years, the assessment agency is telling me the assessments can be

completed now every two years.

We have moved to a new system of evaluation in the Province.

The reason we have moved to a new system of evaluation is because of a number of

court cases that have been filed in the Supreme Court of Canada in a number of

other jurisdictions across the country. I suppose, we are following the lead of

what is being suggested and what is being implemented from one end of the

country to the other. The method we are using today is based upon the actual

value or resale value of the property. How we determine that is based upon going

into a particular area and negotiating and talking on a consultation basis with

the local real estate people, talking to people who have sold property in an

area. There are a number of criterions that we use.

I will say, out of that 160,000 we admit that there have been

some mistakes. There have to be some mistakes. After evaluating 160,000 pieces

of property, guaranteed there are mistakes.

I have noticed in the last couple of days that the assessment

agency has gone out to communities that have problems, and as soon as the

assessment agency is made aware that there are problems in communities we send

people out there immediately to try to correct the problems. Those that we

cannot correct have to go through the legal process of appealing to the town

council. We have made another fourteen days available - just the other day in

the House I mentioned that - to those people who have extra time now, because of

the mail strike, to appeal.

They have the appeals process to go through, and the appeals

process is a local one. The Appeals Commissioner is appointed by the council,

and I have to authorize it. Then, of course, the ultimate appeal is the Supreme

Court of Newfoundland.

The answer to the question is that we have asked everyone we

possibly can in an area to look at the evaluation and give us what they think

the evaluation is.

I will say that we have made some mistakes, but we are - and

in the next couple of weeks - going to correct a lot of those particular

mistakes to which you referred.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are seeing in many communities now many vacant properties.

We are seeing out-migration, the effect it is having, the devastation that is

occurring from the fishery in many rural communities, and still we are seeing an

increase in assessments of 30 and in excess of 50 per cent increase in value in

some of these same communities.

I want to ask the minister: Has the minister given

instructions to the Assessment Division to deliberately raise assessed values

without regard to occupancy, and without regard to any expected market value of

those specific properties?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: The answer to the first part of his

question, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the increase in value, let me just give you

an example. In my own home town of Carbonear, the last assessment that was done

in Carbonear was in 1988. This one was done this year, 1997, so I am assuming

that things have happened to pieces of property in that ten-year period that

will either increase the value of the property or decrease it.

The answer to the second part of the question: That is an

impossibility, and the hon. member knows this. I cannot, and I do not have any

authority because the Assessment Division right now is a new agency established

at arm's length from government.

The hon. member knows, when he looks across the floor and

blames, or tries to blame, this member here for interfering in government

process, he knows the answer to the question before he asks it. I guess that is

what makes him such a good questioner. But I will say to you: No, Mr. Speaker,

there was no interference. The property values are based on legitimate questions

and inquiries made to the real estate people in the areas around the Province. I

certainly did not have anything to do with the hon. member's assessment going up

on his property on the Southern Shore as well as increased in the St. John's

area, so I ask him to refrain from making comments like that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad he gave credit to knowing the answer when I ask

him, because that is more than I can say about the member across the House, I

can assure you, or any of the government members in questions we ask.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It makes you wonder, I say to the minister,

when people out in rural Newfoundland today cannot get anything near the

assessed value for their property. There is something wrong, Minister. Maybe it

is about time you intervened in the process if they cannot get the value. There

is something radically wrong.

I want to ask the minister: Will he admit that the Assessment

Division uses the hit-and-miss approach basically? And will he admit that most

of the assessed values that are done out there are not done by visiting that

particular site? And will he admit that what the Assessment Division is really

doing is relying on the appeal process to correct what is obviously a policy to

deliberately overstate the expected market values of those properties?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that I stood

in this House last year and got accolades from both sides of the House when I

announced that I was taking the Assessment Division of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs and passing it back to the municipalities. Now the hon. member is

standing in the House and he said this. He asked me to take control back of the

Assessment Division, take it over in my department again, and interfere. I don't

think -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which he voted for last spring.

MR. A. REID: Which he voted for me to give to the

municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, that is what he said; he wants me to intervene.

He used the word `intervene'.

Mr. Speaker, the assessment agency in this Province is today

- I do have a certain responsibility for it, because the government is still

contributing a sizeable amount of money to the assessment division. The

assessment division in three years' time will be self-sufficient. Within a

matter of the next couple of months the assessment division will have a board of

directors totally removed from government, with the exception that I will

probably have one person from my department sitting on it in an advisory

capacity.

I say to them quite honestly, I do appreciate - the hon.

member knows I know the value of the houses in Ferryland and Trepassey and

those. I talked to him last year about it. I know what has happened to some of

the values of the properties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: When they can do it, no. It isn't going to

be done that way any more. It can't be done on an on-site visit, I will agree

with you. One hundred and sixty thousand assessments and the Opposition is

crying for assessments every second or third year. I can't do 160,000, so it

isn't done that way. It is done

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: No it isn't. It is done the same way the

real estate board of Newfoundland and Canada does it. Okay? Based on what

property values are next door. I will not interfere with the assessment

division. I do sympathize with the member and with a lot of communities around

where assessments have gone up, Mr. Speaker.

I say to you, give me the next couple of weeks or so to

re-assess, to send my people out where the values are high and we know they are

high. Maybe by that time they will correct them. If they don't then, councils

will have the option to take it to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and

ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada, or ultimately, and only, the

municipalities themselves are the only ones - not the minister or this

government - that have the right to raise or lower taxes as it relates to raise

mill rates or lower mill rates, increase assessments or lowering assessments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has

indicated today (inaudible) something radically wrong and they are off by over

50 per cent and you can't get the value, I think the minister has a

responsibility to do something about those assessments that are way off base.

That is his role as a minister, I've indicated. That isn't interfering, that is

giving direction to get things done right. Not interfering with the assessment

process, but giving direction to make sure they are accurate, I say to the

minister.

What do you do with an area - one in my district, by the way

- twenty-seven sites were evaluated with no building shown on the sites. I mean

twenty-seven, I say to the minister. Other areas with 50-some per cent above a

value that people can get for those properties. There is something wrong, I tell

him. There are a lot of communities outraged.

I ask the minister: Has he directed the assessment division

or given any direction to re-examine the assessment role of certain entire

communities? Has that been done? Are entire communities now in the process of

being reassessed? If they are, could he tell us what communities they are? Will

he also allow other communities that are in the same category out there now that

were assessed by people sitting behind desks at Confederation Building or in the

region that have been grossly unfair or serious flaws? He has a responsibility.

Will he do that to ensure that these particular cases are corrected?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about

twenty-seven sites in his district (inaudible). I will say it again;

twenty-seven out of 160,000 is (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. REID: Why hasn't the hon. member a list of the

other communities instead of talking about twenty-seven? Mr. Speaker, the answer

is - not to all his question, but the last part of his responsibility, will the

minister take it upon himself to look and to make sure that the assessment

division is out there doing a proper, legal, above-board type of assessment? The

answer is: No problem, because the minister has always, in the last five years,

demanded that of the assessment division. I say yes to the hon. member, I will

take it under consideration, and I will insist that they do it in a fair way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just one final

supplementary there. I ask the minister: In instances where there are entire

communities off base, where there are serious flaws there, they have to go

through a process, will the minister ensure that the department, not the

municipalities, picks up the cost for where there are serious flaws made in that

assessment division, and it isn't reflected back on the communities, and the

appeal process too? When it wasn't their fault in the first place.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: If there are flaws found to be at -

AN HON. MEMBER: Abnormal.

MR. A. REID: Abnormal flaws. Mr. Speaker, found, and we

can attribute the blame or the fault for the flaws on the assessment agency. I

am assuming that the assessment agency will absorb the cost, yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have more questions today for the Minister of

Education, some very serious questions on a very serious issue that is

continuing to mount and, as I told the minister yesterday, there is no

agreement. As a matter of fact, as the hours went yesterday and up until this

morning, there are more concerns as we ask more questions; and on my

investigation alone, which is very limited, Mr. Speaker, with the resources we

have, there are a lot of questions starting to come out.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line and the reality is that the

students are still out of class for today; parents have called me as of last

night. They have spent a considerable amount of money and, Mr. Speaker, probably

more importantly, with all the media attention and so on yesterday, these

students are more distraught than ever and worried about the whole situation

they are in, I say to the minister.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he first of all

today, table in the House the application from the Newfoundland Paralegal

Institute for registration under the Private Training Institutions Act and will

he also table a copy of the approvals and the certification issued to

Newfoundland Paralegal Institute by the Superintendent of Private Training

Institutions?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will just wait and see where the questions are

leading because it is unusual at any point in time to ask for that particular

information.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Institute went

through a process in the Department of Education, as have some fifty or sixty

other private training institutions that are licensed to operate in Newfoundland

and Labrador, and I will see what else he is asking because I do not understand

why he asked that question, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is entirely the reason why

I am asking for the process, that is what I have a problem with, the process.

I am going to ask him another question, Mr. Speaker: Will the

minister table in the House also, request from the Newfoundland Paralegal

Institute for exemptions from the Private Training Institutions Act and its

regulations? Will he also table copies of the Orders in Council granting

exemptions from the application of the Act and its regulations, and copies of

correspondence from the Department of Education to the Newfoundland Paralegal

Institute, approving exemptions from the Act and its regulations?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will check and see if any such thing exists. No such thing

exists, to my knowledge; Mr. Speaker, I will certainly check. The investigation

would have been completed probably by yesterday afternoon; I will get a report

some time today. The Department of Education officials had told me at the close

of work yesterday when I checked after the House of Assembly recessed, that they

would expect to be in a position today to either make a statement that the

Newfoundland and Labrador Paralegal Institute is completely in good standing,

and will continue to operate in the Province with a licence from the Department

of Education or, Mr. Speaker, that the results of the ongoing investigation,

that has now been ongoing for about two weeks, would lead to a revoking of the

license for that institute. One or the other, Mr. Speaker, it should be

concluded today.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible.

The minister has not really admitted to a formal

investigation by his own department, by the way, and it is amazing that the

students, the victims of all of this, who still sit in the gallery today, have

still not met with the department and now, they are concluding an investigation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to start with the tip of the

iceberg, the minister admitted yesterday that the advertising of the

Newfoundland Paralegal Institute was misleading and I pointed out to him that

paragraph O of

section 19 of the Act, prohibits the use of advertising that may

intend to mislead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought to get to his

question.

MR. SHELLEY: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker - the

minister says this particular school not only misled students at great cost to

them but broke the law.

Now, what is the minister going to do about it? Is he going

to now do a formal full-scale investigation? I ask again for an independent

inquiry into the department and this particular institute. And is he, at the

very least, today, Mr. Speaker, going to order this school to fully refund all

costs incurred to these students attending this school?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the students, as they have done, would speak for

themselves in whichever they feel most appropriate. At this point in time, they

are choosing to say very little publicly for their own good reasons.

Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, I point out again that

there were requests a couple of times in the last few weeks, in the last couple

of weeks or so, to meet with some students from that institute, that I indicated

I tried to get messages back to them. I think the hon. member, one of our

colleagues here from the Harbour Main area, I do not remember the name of the

riding exactly now, indicated that there were some people - the hon. member who

is asking the questions today, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte had asked

three or four days ago to meet with some students. Both times I indicated there

was no point in meeting with the students, because there was an investigation

that was already into its second week or so, and the only thing I could ever say

to students in a meeting is: I have heard what you have said and I will have an

investigation done. The investigation -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Education (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The investigation is already just about

complete.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out this as well, just for

clarification. Yesterday morning at 9:00 there was a meeting scheduled in our

office, at the Department of Education, for the students and for the officials

of the Department of Education. I indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I would not be

there because I was attending a funeral. The students - which was reported to me

and confirmed again by the officials yesterday afternoon - chose not to meet

with the education officials, but went and met with the owners and operators of

the school instead. The officials were waiting in the Department of Education

for the students to show up, Mr. Speaker, but they did not show up. Now, I

cannot be responsible for that. They chose their own course of action, as they

are doing now by going through this particular member to ask questions in the

Legislature and I am glad to provide the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated there is an

investigation that is now into its final stages and I expect to have a complete

answer today. Either all of the matters that have been put forward to the

particular training institute will be answered to the satisfaction of the

officials in the Department of Education and they will continue to operate - and

we will feel compelled to make a statement to clear their name and say they are

in good standing, if that is the case - or else, Mr. Speaker, we will make a

statement saying that their licence has been revoked and lifted and for what

reasons. That should happen, Mr. Speaker, probably before the end of the workday

today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a shame when you do not understand.

Mr. Speaker, first of all - I do not know how to say this in

this House of Assembly but these - and maybe that is a good reason why the

minister should meet with the students to get the real story, because so far he

has only met with Mr. Woodrow and his group. These students had a tentative date

for Thursday, yes, Mr. Speaker, but they were never, ever told that they had a

meeting confirmed for Thursday. They did not know about the meeting, that it was

actually confirmed. So the minister is out to lunch on that particular thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: After hearing what the minister has said

this morning, the only descent thing is for the minister himself to sit down and

get, for once, the full story directly to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Will the minister do that with these

students?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The officials in the department, as always, would have been

listening to the exchange in Question Period this morning. The information, with

respect to a request for things that were asked in the first couple of

questions, will be available shortly after Question Period. Mr. Speaker, the

investigation - one of the things that the staff told me again yesterday

afternoon was that they had heard from the owner and operator of the institute,

and they wanted to contact the individual students to find out if they had come

to some resolution or if they still had outstanding grievances, and that report

will be given to me today. That report will be provided to me today, and the air

will be cleared with respect to this particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal. Minister, the federal Department of Human Resource Development

presently limit TAGS clients to $26,000 in total income for a year. All income

above the $26,000 is clawed back dollar for dollar. Minister, this is a

disincentive for TAGS clients to work and it is particularly unfair to fishermen

who are vessel-owners because HRD does not adequately take into account the

expenses incurred by those particular fisher people. I ask the minister, if his

government supports this decision? If not, what has he done to have Minister

Pettigrew revisit this offensive regulation?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman,

it is interesting to note that first of all he believes that Newfoundlanders

will not go to work without an incentive to go to work, that they have to be

somehow driven to work or that they are afraid to work for their living. Let me

say that that is what underlies his question. Now, let me also say to the hon.

gentleman that we have made representation to Mr. Pettigrew on a number of

issues, on the issue, for example, of whether indeed the extension of attachment

to the labour force would be extended - it is now due to expire January 1 -

whether that would be extended, at least until this program ends. Let me also

say to him that we have pointed out the problems that are inherent in all parts

of that program to him and we hope to get a response from him shortly.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a situation whereby Newfoundlanders do not want to

go to work, I say to the minister, but they are losing money by going to work,

that is the situation.

HRD attempted to have the TAGS program fashioned after the EI

regulations, when it decided to cut the fisheries compensation package. This

would allow TAGS recipients to earn $39,000 annually and have a 30 per cent

claw-back from that base up.

Can the minister inform the House if this particular change

is being considered?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, - he has his signs down this

morning.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, as I have just

said to him, we have made a number of representations to the federal minister on

this whole issue of TAGS, EI, what is going to happen in the next year and so

on, and we would expect, as I have said to him, a response shortly on what is

going to happen.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question, the minister answered in his answer to the

first one, whereby a lot of people out there today are wondering if the TAGS

labour force attachment is going to be extended. It was originally brought into

effect from July 6 to January 3.

I wonder if the minister would table his requests to Minister

Pettigrew to have those particular regulations changed and have the TAGS program

considered as labour force attachment until the end of this particular program?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman,

I am not exactly sure whether it is in written correspondence or not, but

certainly let me just say to him that I raised it in a meeting with him.

The first issue, as a matter of fact, the first meeting that

I had with -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is only a couple of weeks away.

MR. TULK: I understand that.

The first meeting that I had with the hon. gentleman, Mr.

Pettigrew in Ottawa - and I forget the exact date of that, too; it was about

some three or four weeks ago - was actually before I even got into discussing

with him the new TAGS, the post-TAGS response that we expected to see put

forward, I asked him to pay particular attention to this labour attachment issue

because, as I pointed out to him, as the hon. gentleman has pointed out, come

January 1, the labour attachment is no longer in effect, the regulation that was

put in is no longer in effect, and therefore people who come off TAGS would be

required to get 920 hours to qualify for UI.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I never say anything

for sure until I see it written in black and white, but let me say to him that I

am 95 per cent sure that change is going to take place.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the members on the other side not to panic

this morning. I do not have a question for the Minister of Government Services

and Lands, so you do not need to protect him, but I do have a question for the

Minister of Justice who is recently affectionately referred to as `Dusty

Decker'.

Early in 1996, the Provincial Offenses Act was passed which

gave authority to municipalities in the Province to issue tickets for violations

of the municipal bylaws and regulations. I have been informed that the

implementation process has been stalled. Could the minister inform the House as

to why the process has been stalled?

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

MR. DECKER: The regulations have not been put in place

yet, Mr. Speaker. We have had several meetings with various municipalities

around the Province. We want to make sure that when we do implement these

regulations that they will be fair and equitable to all of the communities and

the population. There is no great reason. It is just a matter of making sure

that we do it right. But we are in consultation with the municipalities from

time to time.

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

supplementary.

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

I have had recent meetings with people in the Airport Heights

area where they have had some problems with certain individuals moving into

houses and what have you. I know that the City of St. John's had a meeting on

November 26 with the department to try and get permission to implement these

regulations. Will the minister confirm that the City of St. John's will be

permitted to implement these regulations and, if so, when will they be permitted

to do so?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the intent was that they will be

implemented, yes. As for when it will be done, as I explained, we have to make

sure that it is implemented at the right time, under the right conditions, and

that involves negotiations and discussions and consultations with the City of

St. John's and others, but it will be done in due course, I tell the hon.

member.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the minister, there have been some problems with

respect to these regulations being implemented because of their link to the

Motor Registration Division and vehicle registration. Is the minister

considering just implementing this for the cities - like the Cities of St.

John's, Mount Pearl, Corner Brook, and what have you - and basically taking it

away from the rest of the municipalities in the Province? Will there be

amendments coming forward to permit that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if there is a requirement for

amendments they will come forward. If there is not, they will not. This is not

something about which we can speculate because if we had these decisions made as

to what we were going to do then there would not be any need to consult; there

would not be any need to have these discussions.

After the discussions and consultations have taken place,

then we will make a decision. It might indeed involve amendments, or it might

not involve amendments. It depends on which way the process goes.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, while Inco are experiencing some difficulties

with stock value and the price of nickel worldwide, we still hope that Voisey's

Bay will go ahead and that the nickel smelter will be constructed and the people

employed in our Province. There is still the important issue of air emissions.

The terms of reference on the Voisey's Bay project - the

smelter project - are somewhat less stringent then the people of the Province

would like to see. Mr. Speaker, with Environment Canada saying that the

prevailing winds blow across some sensitive ecological areas - caribou herds and

so on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again, will he guarantee that

legislation will be put in place to ensure that the highest level of technology

available in the world today will be used at the Voisey's Bay nickel smelter?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member

for the question, in fact, if my memory serves me right, I believe, that that

particular question was asked previously and it has been the commitment of the

company, Inco and the government, who would build the smelter refinery at Come

By Chance, that it would indeed be the latest technology available in the world

and it would be first class and would protect the environment. So, basically it

would be a model, not only for this Province and Canada, but for the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

MR. SMITH: I rise today to present a petition on behalf

of some 630 constituents who reside in the area of Cape St. George on the Port

au Port Peninsula.

The prayer of the petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of

the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled the petition of the

undersigned residents of Cape St. George humbly sweareth:

whereas this area of

the Province has always had a resident doctor to serve the needs of the people

of the area; and

whereas the position of District Medical Health Officer for the

area has now been vacant for a number of months; wherefore we the undersigned

residents of Cape St. George respectfully request that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador call upon the Western Region Health Board to step up

its efforts to find a doctor to fill this vacant position in the Community, as

in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to meet with the town council and

residents of the community of Cape St. George a few days ago to discuss this

very important issue. Traditionally this area of the Province has been served -

the Peninsula has been served by two doctors, one resident at Cape St. George

and one at Lourdes. The doctor who was stationed at Cape St. George is presently

on a leave of absence. I have been in contact with the Western Health Care

Corporation which have advised me that this doctor is expected to return early

in the new year, and hopefully will be back in his position February or March.

What this does underline I guess is what we are all very much

aware of in this Province, and that is the difficulty we are having in

recruiting and retaining physicians to live and work in rural areas of the

Province. Certainly my district is no different from the other rural areas of

the Province.

One of the interesting things that came out of the meeting

with the council and the citizens of the community of Cape St. George is that

there was extreme interest and support for the idea of the nurse practitioner,

which I think is very encouraging. Because what the people were saying to me,

they felt this was a move in the right direction. They felt that if such an

individual were available they would be quite pleased to have a nurse

practitioner come and fill that vacant position to serve the needs of the people

of that area.

It appears that this situation will resolve itself shortly,

but in the meantime the concern is there. I think we have to commit ourselves to

try to maintain the high level of care which the people of that part of the

Province have been accustomed to. I have given my constituents the undertaking

that I will certainly press to see that their concerns are uppermost in the

minds of the Western Health Care Corporation, and to work closely with the

minister and with the Western Health Care Corporation to ensure that we do in

fact find someone to fill that vacant position in that community. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly

like to support the petition of my colleague opposite. Indeed, rural doctors for

Newfoundland and Labrador have been difficult at best sometimes to recruit. I

don't think we should lose sight of the fact that even with the changes in the

legislation that are proposed of nurse practitioners that they can certainly

fill the shoes of a physician, because that just won't happen. As a matter of

fact, I've had some correspondence from the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical

Association where it certainly has some concerns. When we get into that bill I'm

certainly going to be addressing them.

I would like to say to my colleague opposite that from time

to time we receive calls from people in our own University here who are studying

to be doctors in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. What is alarming to

me, or what some of these people are saying to us on this side of the House, is

that some of them have never been approached to practice in rural Newfoundland;

have never been asked. They are now on the mainland furthering their studies and

(inaudible), but they have never been asked to stay in their own Province. I

think that is wrong.

We have a commitment, as far as I'm concerned, to these

people. I'm sure we have a lot of money, a lot of time, invested in these

students, and I think it is incumbent on us and on this government, to make sure

that every student who graduates from Memorial University School of Medicine is

certainly approached to go to rural Newfoundland and that is not happening and

that is wrong. That is not happening when they can leave here and go off to the

mainland or go off to somewhere else.

Some times people tend to say: well, that's all because of

money but I am not so sure of that, Mr. Speaker, and I think that, we as a

Province and as a government should be committed to these people in our

Province. We should be committed to make sure that we at least offer them the

opportunity to stay and practice in their own Province. Now if they choose to go

elsewhere, then I guess, you know, we have no other recourse, we cannot stop it,

but until we make that initial approach, until we say to whomever, you know:

Will you stay in Newfoundland and Labrador? Here is what is available to you; we

would like you to go into rural Newfoundland. Until we do that, then I think it

is a shame and again, I repeat myself but I think it is incumbent on all of us

in this House to make sure that every doctor who graduates from Memorial

University in this Province, is at least, Mr. Speaker, approached, at least

given the opportunity to say: Yes, I will stay in our own Province; no, I will

not, but I think we should give them the opportunity.

So I certainly support the petition. I can only imagine what

it is like to be in an area where you have a doctor on leave and one doctor

trying to service a particular area; it must be for that individual, very, very,

very difficult. I know when I was in Port aux Basques earlier this year, a

doctor was going away on leave and the shortages that were there, I mean, you

know, from talking to the people, I mean it had a tremendous impact and people

who suffered from various diseases whose files were in a certain office and the

access was not readily available to them. There were a lot of concerns expressed

to me so I certainly support the petition of my colleague opposite, and I hope

that he can relay and through this House we can relay that we should ensure that

all our own medical students in this Province are being approached.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I want to support the petition, Mr.

Speaker, of the hon. Member for Port au Port. It is an area that I know quite

well over a number of years that we have grown up in the region and the member

has been working hard with the Health Care Corporation to attract a physician to

help the health care board and to emphasize to them that every effort should be

made.

Mr. Speaker, it is a challenge today as the member opposite

indicated to attract physicians to rural areas not only in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but also other rural parts of Canada. Recently I met with the

Newfoundland Hospital Association to talk to them about their efforts to recruit

general practitioners in our area in Bay St. George in the Codroy Valley. Mr.

Speaker, we are also seeking a physician and it is very challenging; there is

every effort being made now. The Minister of Health has made some very positive

changes and the government has in the last number of months, to try to get more

of a package that can be attractive for rural physicians; the quality of life

that is available is something that we have to emphasize.

Mr. Speaker, in the Codroy Valley, we are putting on a Web

Site to look at and to try to attract people to show the quality of life - the

Nurse-Practitioner Program which is a very positive development, Mr. Speaker, is

going to help I think, and so is this government to help attract physicians if

we can get them some support in the rural areas. A nurse-practitioner can really

help I think relieve some of the stresses on medical practitioners for rural

practice.

So I support the member's petition. We are, all of us,

working collectively to try to improve our health care system, we are increasing

the funding to that health care system and it is a very important issue for all

of us, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to emphasize that this morning.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been asked once again to bring a petition on an issue

that we have not heard a lot about lately, or certainly in the recent session,

it was an issue that was front and centre by way of petition. I will just read

it;

To the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We the undersigned residents do hereby

petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Education to

legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for all school buses in the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. We find that students are presently being

unsupervised and are at risk in their safety going to and from schools on school

buses. The safety of our children is being compromised. We ask the hon. minister

and his government to show compassion, leadership and understanding to ensure

the safe transportation of our children.

I guess the reason why this issue has come up once again, Mr.

Speaker, is perhaps due directly to the time of year. We have many children,

thousands of school children in our Province travelling on our highways and they

are travelling aboard buses which are not equipped with seat belts. It has been

raised primarily by parents and students themselves that this is an issue that

ought to be addressed by the minister. It is an issue of importance. It is an

issue of student safety and it is an issue which, for some reason or other,

seems to get no attention whatsoever and in fact, most often gets no response.

Many petitions have been brought forward in this House on this issue. We have

seen Mr. Speaker, circumstances in the past, very tragic circumstances, where

accidents have occurred. However, it is an issue which seems to go on deaf ears

and in fact very often when the petition is being presented the minister sees

fit not to even deal with the matter directly.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is being presented by students and

parents from the communities of Chanceport, Pikes Arm and Bridgeport. It is

being submitted on their behalf in a genuine effort to attempt to have this

government take a serious look at the need in this Province, in view of the fact

that many thousands of our students are travelling upon highways in very

difficult situations during the winter months. It is a situation, Mr. Speaker,

which ought to be given attention by the minister.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last year we presented a great number of

petitions on this particular matter and we had thought that by this time we

would have seen some initiatives by the Minister of Education and by the

government in general, to address this very serious issue. Instead, Mr. Speaker,

a couple of days ago I was watching CBC television in the evening and saw the

story being displayed of a young girl in Pasadena who finds herself being the

only child and yet being required to walk 1,000 yards because someone said that

this child cannot be picked up because some bureaucrat in some office somewhere

said that: no, no, no we can't change this, you're the only child. But the

regulations say or someone in some office said, you have to walk 1,000 feet down

the road, along the Trans-Canada Highway.

Now we pretend to be concerned about safety and children and

yet we know that we have this child and there probably are many, many other

children in this Province who are required to do such silly things. For example,

in my district there is a street right off Topsail Road called Forsey Place. The

school buses that are going to Mary Queen of the World drive along by Forsey

Place and they have the capacity, they could pick up those children but they are

not allowed because Forsey Place is within the minimum distance from Mary Queen

of the World. So therefore we require those young children on Forsey Place to

walk across Topsail Road, four lanes of highway, there is no sidewalk on that

side of Topsail Road. They have to walk across Topsail Road, get across a four

lane highway and a very busy highway in the morning, and then they have to walk

down Topsail Road to get to Mary Queen of the World when we have a bus driving

along by that street that could pick them up.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we pretend to be concerned about child

safety and yet we see the incident in Pasadena. I just mentioned the incident in

my own district, and we know as well that the discarded buses from Quebec are

still being brought to Newfoundland. There are dumping grounds for buses from

Quebec - they are the Honduras, Nicaragua and Newfoundland; because in Quebec

when the buses are no longer eligible to be used, they ask: Where can we get rid

of them? In fact, the present Minister of Justice, several years ago, was going

to take over all the school busing in the whole Province, one September when the

bus contractors would not sign their contracts. What he was going to do - and I

know he made the contacts because I got my information from good sources - he

was going to go into Quebec, buy up those buses at an average cost of $2,000 and

bring them in here, and he was going to have our children be bused on those

buses which are deemed to be unsafe in Quebec, but it is okay for the children

of Comfort Cove, Bonavista, those on the Burin Peninsula or up on the Great

Northern Peninsula, but not okay in Chicoutimi or in some other part of the

Province of Quebec.

That is the kind of stuff we are talking about. We are

talking about a government that knows these things exist, but they still do not

do anything about it. So, I say to the government, it is ridiculous when we see

incidents like that, and see the government doing nothing about it. It is not

going to cost the government one nickel to change the regulations for bus safety

in Newfoundland to be like those in Quebec.

Also, when we talk about the life span of a bus going to

fourteen years, I should point out to all hon. members, that only applies to

regular school transportation, taking children to and from school. If the buses

are used for groups travel, like sport teams or field trips, there are no

maximum number of years. In fact, the irony of it is, our bus regulations are a

lot different from Quebec, but then if you are taking them on field trips, then

they can be as old as you want, a twenty-five year old bus can be used to take

children to a hockey game or to a field trip or something like that. Then, this

government pretends to be concerned about children's safety. It is an absolute

fallacy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: - it is a miscarriage of justice, and

this government should be doing something about it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - and putting action where they should be

concerned about children's safety.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition to the House of Assembly of the

Province of Newfoundland in Parliament assembled which states as follows:

WHEREAS poverty and its effects are serious problems for so

many in this Province and things are getting worse; now more then one-third of

Newfoundland and Labrador children live in families on social assistance; and

WHEREAS child poverty and child hunger are a sad reality

which hurts children today and their chances for future in education and in

life. Hungry children cannot learn; and

WHEREAS a universal School Lunch Program would provide a

stigma-free way of ensuring every school child a good nutritional meal every day

and that school reform in the Province will result in a very significant savings

in education costs, thereby making funds available to improve the quality of

education and quality of student lives;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct

the government to establish a universal comprehensive School Lunch Program for

every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and give our

children a better chance to learn and participate fully in the benefits of

education.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of a series of petitions. It is

signed by a number of individuals from Avondale; I see St. John's, Waterford

Bridge Road - Waterford Bridge Road, I don't know if it is the Premier or not.

No, is it not the Premier. Somebody on Waterford Bridge Road - no, it is not the

Premier, though, I don't think.

MR. J. BYRNE: Is it his neighbour?

MR. HARRIS: It certainly looks like a close neighbour of

the Premier on Waterford Bridge Road, supporting this petition. I know hon.

members opposite have supported it from time to time. The member for Windsor -

Springdale supported it on occasion. The Minster of Fisheries and Aquaculture

has been moved to speak on this matter on occasion. Members on this side of the

House have supported the petition.

It is one of the most significant issues in our Province

today, Mr. Speaker, although it does not get the attention it deserves from

government - the issue of poor people, poor children, hungry children, children

who lack proper nutrition.

Mr. Speaker, we had a Ministerial Statement in the House

yesterday about the School Lunch Program. It was not a statement about anything

new or different; it was just saying that the government will continue to

support it.

We, on this side of the House, including this hon. member,

support the School Lunch Program and support the efforts of the individuals

involved in it, the dairies who subsidize the School Lunch Program to the tune

of half-a-million dollars, Brookfield Dairies and the Central Dairies Group. The

dairy farmers in the Province of Newfoundland have supported the School Milk

Foundation which organizes it. We believe very much in it, and I was delighted

to learn that 97 per cent of the students are reached by this program. I am not

sure exactly what that means, but it certainly is available to all of the

students, or perhaps it is available to 97 per cent of the students.

What I am concerned about here is the fact that the

government is really unable to say that government programs ensure that children

have a healthy diet and are able to properly learn in school.

I notice, as part of the government's efforts to alleviate

the serious problems in Black Tickle, was the provision of a School Breakfast

and Lunch Program. It is very interesting that government recognized in that one

place that as part of an effort to fight poverty - and this is poverty for

people who are living on social assistance. They are living on social

assistance, but obviously, are not in a position to properly feed themselves and

their children on social assistance, and government has recognized that by

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Topsail is not in his place.

If he wants to make a speech, he can support the petition from his place, and I

would like to see him do it for once. I would like to see him support the

petition. The people in Black Tickle who are living on social assistance

obviously cannot afford to eat, and the government has recognized that by

providing, as part of the relief program, a School Breakfast and Lunch Program.

I commend them for doing that, but in doing so, clearly they recognize - the

Minister of Social Services, or Human Resources and Employment, it is now called

- that the amount of money provided to people on social assistance is not

adequate to provide a proper diet for children, and that something must be done

about it.

We have proposed, and the petitioners have proposed, and it

has been raised in this House thirty, forty or fifty times, the desire for

people to have a universal, comprehensive, School Lunch Program.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask hon. members to support it, and perhaps

the Member for Topsail will go to his place and support this petition.

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

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

Again, I say, as I said to the last petition, this matter has

been raised numerous times. The theme of what the member is presenting is

contained in numerous documents that have been prepared by the government, and

the government, of course, either fail to read their own documents or when they

read them, simply choose to do nothing about them.

I just wanted to quote from a couple of paragraphs of the

Williams Royal Commission report, Our Children, Our Future . It is very

timely that we would talk about Our Children, Our Future , in terms of the

child poverty issue.

Let me just quote from page 337 of the Williams Royal

Commission report. It talks about child hunger, and I will read a paragraph. It

says: One of the chief and most devastating consequences of poverty is hunger,

and the Commission was told repeatedly that many children in this Province go to

school hungry. When children are not adequately fed, they miss valuable

instructional time, fail to keep up with school work, and are very likely to

drop out of school early. Whatever the cause of the hunger, it will affect

children's health and educational achievement in the short term, and their

economic security for a lifetime. While hunger is a concomitant of many social

problems, the school's concern must be the relation of hunger to educational

achievement.

Mr. Speaker, further on in that same section, which talks

about barriers to educational achievement, it makes several points. It says that

hunger is not the fault of the child. Children are dependent on parents and

guardians, they are dependent on government. Every child has a right to love and

respect and food because they are - and for no other reason - because they are

children. They have the right to expect that. Hunger is not the fault of the

child. Hungry children may come from a family in which the parents try their

best to provide for them, but very often the child is a victim of hunger. The

child is not to blame.

Child hunger, it points out, is a hidden problem. Very young

children will tell the teachers they are hungry, but when a child gets older, in

junior and senior high school, they walk the corridors at lunch time. They will

not tell their teachers they are hungry. They walk around. They go for a walk

down the street. Children at the junior and senior high school will not tell

anybody they did not have a lunch, but when they come back to class you can see

the effects.

These are the children who are overtired; these are the

children who complain of stomach problems. They are children who are very

lethargic in school. The point made, the third point here, is that dealing with

child hunger is not the sole responsibility of educators, but it is teachers who

must deal with the effects of hunger. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here is

that child hunger has been talked about in many reports. It is time that we

began to act upon it.

I note, as well, that the Federal Government is now talking

about doing a national comprehensive school lunch program. My greatest fear is

that if there is more money put into social policy, the current Minister of

Justice, by his actions here, is more concerned about putting more money into

judges' salaries than he is about putting money into the school lunch programs.

I am afraid that if we get more money by way of transfer

payments, it is going to end up helping the very rich and wealthy judges of this

Province rather than being put on the kitchen tables to help children, or put

into school lunch programs. That is a real concern, that we not address the real

issues, but they allocate money where it probably has a lesser need of

allocation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: I have another petition today, Mr.

Speaker, again from students who are suffering unnecessarily because of the

shelter component claw-back. I will not read all of the petition because I have

done so earlier this week, but the prayer of our petition is that the Department

of Human Resources and Employment change its policy regarding this area and

allow the student-parents involved to be able to pay back this money over a more

reasonable period of time.

As I said earlier in the week, these students are in this

position because of bungling by the Department of Human Resources and

Employment. I cited one very classic example where a young girl went down and

tried to pay back all of her shelter component and it was refused by an employee

of the Department of Human Resources and Employment. She said: I need to pay

back for the ten weeks and I need to pay back for the six weeks. No, no, you

only need to pay back for the ten weeks, $880. The student said: No, take this

$550. No, you do not owe it. After a lot of arguing, the student was perplexed

but she left. Because the department had told her you don't owe this money, she

spent it. She got a call two days ago: Bring in the $550 or your social

assistance is cut off. Now, she does not have it. She was told she did not need

to give it. Now she is cut off social assistance at this time.

Earlier in the week, the minister said that if any members

knew of any cases where there was hardship, or where there were extenuating

circumstances, bring it to the attention of the department. My office has

continued to do this since October. Some of the people have been assisted, but

just barely, and in kind of token ways. They are still suffering because they

are not getting enough money to live on.

As I said earlier, I have visited these homes. I have seen

the poverty. I have seen the empty cupboards. If the department were to go in

under ordinary circumstances and see empty cupboards, they would probably remove

children from these homes, but here we have people forced into this situation by

this very department. If the minister thinks that these people are not in dire

hardship, then I suggest that she do as I did. I can give her the names of the

homes that I visited and she can visit them herself, and then she will know what

I am talking about. These people are not really being assisted. There are people

there in extenuating circumstances, and the prayer of this petition today is

that the department will have another look at their cases.

Thank you.

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

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

Again, I repeat my introductory comments to the last two

petitions, that this is the umpteenth time that we have made those presentations

to this House on behalf of the student-parents. Mr. Speaker, last spring we had

petitions presented here on behalf of the Student-Parents For a Better Tomorrow.

In one Question Period we had these parents in the galleries. These parents are

saying: We want a better deal.

Now, just a few moments ago, I spoke about the issue of a

school lunch program. This is a theme of the petitions that we have heard this

morning. We are talking about children who are marginalized in society. We are

talking about parents who are marginalized in society. Mr. Speaker, since I have

arrived in this House, I have been a pretty consistent voice for children and

for the people who are disadvantaged, and I shall continue to be that voice

while I have the opportunity to have a position here in this Legislature because

we have no better responsibility than to give children an opportunity to break

that cycle. One of the ways of doing that is to let those children's parents

have a better chance to get a better education. We know that we pay lip service

to that. We have to stop putting up barriers to parents. We have to stop the

claw-backs. We have to ask: What can we do to make things better? This idea of

clawing back is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that by this time we would have

more aggressive action by the minister. In the last March Budget we heard the

Minister -

MR. HARRIS: He is the minister responsible for lip

service.

MR. H. HODDER: We heard the Minister of Finance last

year, in the Budget, saying: We have to take bold measures. Well, I do not see

the bold measures. If there are bold measures, they must be things that are

affecting people at the Board of Trade, or it must be affecting the judges of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It was bold yesterday to have us learn that we are

going to give judges a $20,000 increase in pay per year. That was a bold

measure. Is that the kind of stuff that the Minister of Finance really meant

least year when he talked about bold measures? What we could do, if we could

take all that money and channel it into student-parents and really be able to

make some difference. Now I understand the legalities of it, but legalities do

not let me understand the injustice of this.

I want to say to the minister, maybe we should be going back

to address again the bold measures that were talked about by the Minister of

Finance in the Budget Speech, because, when it comes to student-parents, we know

that they are disadvantaged. There are more barriers put in front of them than

there are opportunities and we should be doing more to break down the barriers

so that we can at least give those student-parents a fair chance to provide a

learning environment for their children, so that we can break the cycle.

As one mother from Port au Port told me when she was back to

school herself, and so was her daughter, and in the same school there was the

grandchild. So you had the grandchild, you had the daughter, and you had the

grandmother all going to school. It was a wonderful experience. One of the most

memorable meetings I had was to go to a school where a grandson and the mother

and the grandmother were all in the same school. That was at Bishop O'Reilly in

Port au Port. The grandmother said to me: I want to make sure I can help the

process of achieving a learning environment in my family.

Therefore, what we should be doing is making sure we have

more opportunities for people like that to make a difference in their own

family, so that we can break the cycle of dependency. I say to the minister -

and I know she is committed to breaking the cycle of dependency, but I am afraid

she is having great difficulty -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - persuading her Cabinet colleagues to

listen to her advice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I rise in my place today to present yet another petition on

behalf of a number of constituents in the Province - many of them are from Mount

Pearl: Tweedsmuir Place, Ruth Avenue, and areas like that, some of the people

are from St. Phillips - regarding the proposed sales tax on used vehicles.

I have spoken on this topic many times. I have brought it up

in the media; I have been on the Open Line shows about it. My problem with it,

of course, is that I believe it is morally wrong to tax people on money they

have not spent - not only morally wrong, it is unjust and unfair. The Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board has stated he believes it should be brought in

because of the fact that people are being dishonest with the bills of sale. Some

people are selling cars and/or purchasing vehicles, and they are saying the

bills of sale being submitted to the Motor Registration Division are inaccurate

or false or wrong. They are saying people are selling cars for much more than

what the bills of sales are saying for the Motor Registration Division. Thereby

the government, of course, is losing money.

That could very well be the case, that government is losing

money, but you do not punish the innocent for the guilty. We have said on a

number of occasions that it is a wrong approach to this problem. I have said

that the minister should be proactive and deal with the problem itself, not with

innocent people, honest individuals out there who do get a deal sometimes. That

is the problem I have with it.

I think the government should have another look at it. I have

made recommendations to the Administration, to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board, that they could possibly look at an affidavit system, a double

affidavit system, if necessary, where both the purchaser and the seller sign the

affidavit. The minister could basically look at this system, and if something

was really out of whack they could approach the individuals and see if there

indeed was something wrong. I still have a problem with that, but from my

perspective, it is the lesser of two evils. I think people in the Province would

rather sign an affidavit than pay taxes on money they have not spent.

The minister tries to rationalize it with a report he

submitted to this House after I had asked him to submit and table a report he

referred to. January 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997. The only thing that report

looked at, of course, was the assessed value. It did not look at the condition

of the vehicle; it did not look at the mileage of the vehicle. Many other

things, too, affect the sale value of a vehicle in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The weather conditions, the salt and sand on the roads, have impact on the

condition of vehicles. To tar everybody with the same brush is wrong.

Again, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

that in due course, I hope he will make an announcement that he will back off on

this proposed tax. I think it is morally wrong, I think it is unjust, it is

unfair. I have said it many times and I will continue to say it. I know

government are desperate to get revenues in. A lot of people are leaving this

Province daily, of course, so their revenues from those people paying taxes are

down.

Mr. Speaker, it is still morally wrong to tax people for

money they have not spent. So I suggest to the minister, to the Premier of the

Province and the Cabinet, the people who make the decisions on the other side of

the House, that they look at this, review it and maybe give the people of the

Province a Christmas gift or surprise and tell them that this will not be

forthcoming and that they will look at some other system, maybe the affidavit

system that I have suggested.

MR. SPEAKER (M. Penney): The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak on the

petition with respect to the retail sales tax changes proposed by the government

to capture increased taxes from people who are buying and selling cars in the

private market.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a shocking burden to be placed on

the people of this Province by the government for no other reason than the fact

that the government is not satisfied that the system they have in place is

capturing enough taxes. That is not the reason, Mr. Speaker, to change the tax

system and impose a burden on people. What they are suggesting is that people

are not reporting properly the sales transactions for their vehicles but, Mr.

Speaker, there is no real evidence to that. There is no real evidence that the

reporting of the price on the sale of vehicles is inaccurate.

Obviously, there are probably some people not reporting it

properly, just as I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there are probably a lot of

people who do not report their income tax properly, do not report all of their

income. And I do not see the minister introducing deeming provisions, to deem

income from people who may or may not have it. I do not see him doing that, is

that his next plan? Is that the next plan of the Minister of Finance who will

increase our tax revenues by deeming income on people just as they are here

going to be deeming a sale price for something that may or may not have any real

relation to the actual price of the vehicle.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that this Red Book or Blue

Book, or whatever it is called, has prices that are based on the Canadian

average price of a vehicle, based on the average condition of the vehicle et

cetera, et cetera. So, it is an arbitrary figure, it does not take into account

the difficulties we have in this Province with weather conditions, salt, rust

other things that happen to vehicles. And, in this Province, people tend to keep

vehicles a little bit longer. People, because of financial reasons do not

necessarily have the money to keep them in tip-top shape with a fine, brand-new

paint job and all of the things that go into the value of a vehicle in the

resale market.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is grossly unfair for the government to

impose this arbitrary tax on the people who can least afford to have an

additional tax burden.

You know, sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes, Mr.

Speaker, it is a regressive tax because no matter how much income you have, the

millionaire pays 15 per cent and the person who is on a pension, Mr. Speaker, or

a fixed income, a senior citizen on a pension pays exactly the same amount of

tax, 15 per cent on a sale so it is a regressive tax. It is not based on your

ability to pay, Mr. Speaker, so when the Province starts manipulating these

taxes increasing the burden on people, it is acting very unfairly with people

who can least afford to pay.

Mr. Speaker, the private used car market is a market which is

substantially populated by people who are in the lower income brackets, not that

anybody cannot sell a vehicle privately and I guess lots of people do, in the

papers and whatnot, but it is not a dealer market, it is not a new car market,

it is a used car market where people feel that they can trade their car or get

another vehicle or buy a vehicle second-hand and should not have to pay this

burden.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a simple method of dealing with

it. It has been suggested, for example, that you could have some standards. You

could take a percentage of the book value for example, to recognize Newfoundland

conditions and suggest that if the sale price as declared goes lower then that

people be required to sign an affidavit. An affidavit is a serious matter. To

sign or swear a false oath is a criminal offence, Mr. Speaker, and people have

been charged with forgery and perjury for swearing false oaths in this Province

and it is a serious criminal offence and that can certainly be pointed out to

anybody who may be tempted to save a few dollars by swearing a false oath. That

system relies on the honesty and integrity and the law abiding citizens of this

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the proper solution to the problem,

if there is really a problem perceived, that is the proper solution, not

imposing an unfair tax, an arbitrary, unfair, regressive tax on the people who

can least afford to pay it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

standing on a new petition?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I have been asked once again to present

a petition on an issue that was presented earlier this morning by way of another

petition and it has to do with the issue once again of the paid adult bus

monitor program and I would like to read into the record the wording of the

petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly in parliament assembled: the

petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following petition.

We the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador do hereby petition the House to direct the Department of Education

to legislate a paid adult bus monitor program for all school buses in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We find that students are presently being unsupervised and

they are at risk in their safety going to and from schools on school buses, the

safety of our children is being compromised. We ask the hon. Minister of

Education and his government to show compassion, leadership and understanding to

ensure the safe transportation of our children. This is a petition signed by

residents of Roaches Line, Marysvale, Colliers and the community of Brigus.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated this morning this is an issue which

is most important and was seen by many residents of the Province to be a

priority issue a number of months ago, but it has again resurfaced, Mr. Speaker.

It has resurfaced an as issue because the parents of this Province and the

students of this Province, particularly this time of year, see it as an issue of

priority. The concept of paid school bus monitors are simply those individuals

who are entrusted with the security and the protection of young people while

they are being transported on our school buses throughout very difficult winter

conditions on our highways and roads in the Province.

So, the question that has to be asked, Mr. Speaker. Does the

minister take such a petition seriously? It has been presented on many occasions

in the past, it has been presented now twice this morning and the minister is

yet to respond on an issue which is obviously important to the public at large.

We have seen incidents in the past of where tragedies have occurred and the

question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker: Would tragedies, incident and accidents

have been prevented if in fact there was a paid school bus monitor program in

effect? It is an issue which comes up from time to time, it is an issue which is

accelerated, I would say, during difficult highway conditions in the middle of

winter in our Province.

So, once again, Mr. Speaker, the people of our Province are

asking the minister to review the existing policy and in fact, upon review, upon

completion of such a review to implement a policy of school bus monitors so that

the people of our Province, in particular the parents of our Province, can feel

rest assured that when their children are travelling on schools buses and in

some cases thirty, forty-five and almost sixty minutes from their community to

the school to which they attend, that at least they can feel some consultation

and some comfort in knowing that their children are being protected and guided

by adult supervision.

This I would suggest, in addition to the parents and

students, this would also be of great comfort to the school bus drivers

themselves who have had much responsibility now as can be handled by any

individual. They have to drive these buses over difficult circumstances and

there would be great consolation not only to the parents, but to the drivers

themselves to know that there are individuals aboard a bus who are there and who

are charged with the responsibility and the duty to ensure that these children

will be kept under control, will be monitored, will be supervised, to ensure the

safety and protection and guidance for all concerned.

So I ask the minister to once again look upon this issue as

one of seriousness, as one of priority, and to give some attention to what the

parents and the children of Newfoundland and Labrador are seeking by way of this

petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition presented so ably by the

Member for St. John's East, and a very sincere presentation on behalf of parents

who have grave concerns about the issue of school bus safety. This issue has

arisen in this Province on a number of occasions, most recently as a result of

the tragic death of a young student on the St. Thomas Line. When that death

occurred, attention was focused on the issue and the facts came forward about

the number of accidents that had happened in the Province in school buses, the

number of school bus accidents that we had, and there was a serious number of

accidents, a large number of school bus accidents. I cannot remember the exact

figure now, but it was a figure that shocked me that we had that number of

school bus accidents involving children, some involving injuries, and I think

six or -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The accident statistics that were made

available at that time disclosed 591 bus accidents between 1985 and 1995; 591

accidents. There were 155 injuries and five fatalities in a ten-year period, and

591 accidents. Mr. Speaker, statistics like that deserve to be taken terribly

seriously by this government.

One might look at it at first glance and say: Well, why

should we pay people, pay adults, to sit on a bus with students and keep an eye

on them when there is a bus driver there? Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about

full-time employees here. We are talking about people who would ride on the bus,

just as we have people who are working crosswalks during the school... We have

people on crosswalks who ensure that kids are able to safely cross school

crosswalks at certain hours of the day, morning and afternoon. There are peak

periods for this. The school buses do not operate eight or ten hours a day. We

are talking about having someone on the bus when the bus is operating.

Why should we have this? Well, obviously it is clearly a

serious problem we have with our school buses if, in a ten-year period, there

are 591 accidents, where we have had 155 injuries and five fatalities. The

safety record of school buses in this Province is nothing to be proud of and I,

for one, have terrible concerns about what, in fact, is going on in the school

bus situation.

We have had the recent incident brought to our attention

publicly through the television media of a young student in St. Judes. The only

student being picked up by the bus in the community of St. Judes is required to

walk 1,000 feet to the bus stop.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1,000 yards, 3,000 feet.

MR. HARRIS: 1,000 yards. That is almost a quarter of a

mile, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is over half a mile.

MR. HARRIS: Half a mile.

MR. J. BYRNE: Over half a mile.

MR. HARRIS: Over half a mile, okay. My math is a bit off.

I got confused. We have the metric system, we have feet and we have yards. There

are 5,280 feet in a mile, and I thought it was 1,000 feet. That is why I was

thinking a quarter of a mile. I am off.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is 62 per cent of a mile.

MR. HARRIS: It is 62 per cent of a mile. Imagine having

to walk that far to get a school bus because a school bus will not stop where

you are. It doesn't make sense. What is going on in the administration of the

school bus system in the Province?

We had the Minister of Education, and the former Minister of

Education, and everybody complaining about school buses travelling all over the

Province crossing each other's paths and one crossing a path with another school

bus going in one direction, and the other - they are all concerned about that.

How come they can't figure out how to allow a school bus to stop where the

student is?

On the Trans-Canada Highway, going to the community of St.

Jude's, where traffic is supposed to be going at a slow rate because of the

community, but I don't know if it always does, that is a very unsafe situation.

Why somebody's arbitrary dictate of where a school bus stop should be, bearing

no relation to the student (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - I don't understand, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a moment, Mr. Speaker. Thirty

seconds.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has not been given leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 2, Bill 53.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 53)

On motion, Bill No. 53 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 3, Bill 56.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Environment Act," carried. (Bill No. 56)

On motion, Bill No. 56 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 4, Bill 57.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal Act," carried.

(Bill No. 57)

On motion, Bill No. 57 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 5, Bill 58.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act," carried.

(Bill No. 58)

On motion, Bill No. 58 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Motion No. 7, Bill 61.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational

Certification," carried. (Bill No. 61)

On motion, Bill No. 61 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: The hon. gentlemen on the other side were

asking yesterday how many bills we got passed. They have been terribly

co-operative, I must say to them. It must be the season. Even Harvey is wearing

a red tie.

Motion No. 8, Bill No. 62, first reading.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act No. 2",

carried. (Bill No. 62)

On motion, Bill No. 62 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 27, Bill No. 48, "An Act

To Amend The Shops' Closing Act No. 2".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops'

Closing Act No. 2". (Bill No. 48)

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess in the process of introducing the bill I want to

dispel the attitude that there is no Sunday shopping. If you were to travel this

city, and many of the other communities and larger centres around this Province,

you would certainly see that people do that. I want to set the record straight

on that.

One of the things that we find in the Shops' Closing Act is

the fact that the act itself, which was written a long time ago, is antiquated

and does not, in a sense, fit today's changing patterns that we find in society.

I want to start by saying that basically the society finds

itself with changing work patterns, and statistics will show us that 66.23 per

cent of the people do really work out of the regular pattern, and we find that

in many, many instances in this city, for example, that people work in

convenience stores, they work in drugstores, they work in cinemas, they work in

boutiques, they work in specialty stores, and in the major convenience stores

around the Province - around the city, too.

Basically what we are doing here, as I said, is levelling out

the playing field for people to work. The part of the retail

section of trade

that is not really open on Sundays are the larger malls and some of the

supermarkets.

In many of the outlying areas, for example, you have the

Foodland Stores. The Foodland Stores are regulated supermarkets, and you find

them whether you live in Torbay or whether you live out in Ferryland or Port aux

Basques, or whatever, or in Bay d'Espoir, and as the regulations now exist it is

illegal for these people to open, and there have been a number of charges

against them; however, if you move up the road a few feet from any of those

Foodland Stores, you can come to many of the convenience stores, and in these

convenience stores you have all of the amenities that you would find in the

regular store.

Mr. Speaker, basically it is not fair to these people and

therefore we want to, as I said, not regulate that part of the retail trade but

leave it up to the business for them to regulate themselves.

I guess what we are really saying here today is that we are

not asking the major stores to open. We are not asking all of the major

supermarkets to open. What we are saying to them is that if you do open then the

government, through the Department of Environment and Labour, will not enforce

the regulations and prosecute these people.

In fact, over at the department right now there are over 100

different charges that have been laid against businesses. Only recently we took

one of these speciality stores to court and the judge ruled against us in the

department and basically says these stores do have the right to open, and

basically precluded that. Therefore, this particular guy who sells Christmas

decorations and garlands, what have you, can open whenever he sees fit, from

Monday even to Sunday. I think the judge also went farther in that he broadened

the definition of what the speciality stores are.

Basically what we will have, Mr. Speaker, come January 1 is

that we will no longer be enforcing the Shops' Closing Act on Sunday. Basically

also, I guess, from a business point of view as well, that business is saying to

us and to government that there are too many regulations, and basically it wants

to have government I guess out of its face to be able to do the thing for

itself.

We only regulate a small

section of the retail trade. We

don't, for example, tell Abitibi-Price or Abitibi Consolidated or Kruger or Iron

Ore Company of Canada or Wabush Mines or the glove factory in Point Leamington

to close on Sunday. We don't do that. It is industry that regulates it.

Therefore, what we are saying, the small

section left of the retail stores, we

are saying to the industry: Then you regulate that and set the hours as you

would for any other day of the week.

Also, if one were to visit the Avalon Mall parking lot on a

Sunday afternoon you would find it very difficult in a sense to find a parking

spot to be able to park your vehicle. It is just the same as it would be on any

other day of the week. What is even more interesting, if you go inside you will

find that some of the businesses, rather than opening up their stores, have

taken their wares and put it on tables outside so that they would be able to

sell and not be charged under the Shops' Closing Act.

Also to realize that in the tourist trade we have Marble

Mountain, for example, that we showcase to the rest of the world as a tourist

attraction, especially in the wintertime, and we want to attract people from all

over the world to that particular facility. However, if the person who owns a

ski shop at the bottom of the mountain were to open and to sell his wares on

Sunday, then that would not be permitted under the law and we would charge that

particular individual for doing so.

We have also seen the cruise ships that come to our cities,

in St. John's and Corner Brook, and the people who are there want to be able to

avail of shopping. That isn't possible for them to do under the present act.

Basically we are saying to the businesses: We want you to regulate that

particular part of the retail trade.

In addition, to say that Sunday - now it says as a day of

rest, as a family day, is not in itself correct as well. Because we have people

who are working in nursing homes, as I said, as nurses, as assistant nurses, we

have people in the housekeeping units who work, people who are on maintenance.

Then we come to the cinemas. People work there. People work in the convenience

stores. People work in the fast-food outlets. Basically home care workers, they

are all working on weekends. As I said, there is only a small part of the

working force that is tied to the traditional work week.

What we are also doing is giving in a sense the businesses

and the employees a lead. Because we didn't want to interrupt their schedules

and the work schedules that have been there for the workers now over the

Christmas season. We want to give them a head start for them to decide if they

want to open their stores. Give them lead time so that it can be done on January

With that particular introduction I want to give the people

in the Opposition a chance to react to it and to express their views. Basically

what we are saying here is that there is Sunday shopping, and that we are not

asking the businesses to open. We are just saying to them: If you do, then we

are not going to take you to court and prosecute you. We want, in a sense, for

the consumer to be able to avail if the need exists. And if, for example, the

retail trade is not there and the people do not patronize the stores on Sundays,

then I am sure the people who own the businesses will not want them open. But

basically, we are asking them, in a sense, to regulate their times, to regulate

their hours. I am sure that can be done in an expeditious way, and I am sure it

can be done also in consultation with the people who have to work in these

stores.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

It is not hard to tell that we are getting down to the final

days of the House of Assembly. All the controversial pieces of legislation that

may invoke some public debate or opposition are being tabled now.

Now, the government cannot say that this is a new piece of

legislation. In fact, this is the third minister who is introducing this piece

of legislation, the third minister, Mr. Speaker. The first one -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was it?

MR. E. BYRNE: The first one? I think it was the hon. Tom

Murphy, the Member for St. John's South introduced it; the same reasoning, the

exact same reasoning. We are not saying stores have to open, Mr. Speaker, we are

just saying that if you do, we will not prosecute you. Now, what is the

difference? Minister, really, what is the difference in saying that? There is no

difference. A rose by any other name is still a rose, no difference. If it

smells like it, if it tastes like it, if it feels like it, then, Minister, it

probably is; that is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is not a rose; this is a

(inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is right. What happened before? I

mean, this is exactly what has happened before.

Now, I think there is something - you know, the more you sit

in here, the more you get to know what is going on, I think, or at least you

should; if you do not, there is something wrong with you, but at least you

should.

The reality is, it always seems that around this time of

year, whether it is in the latter part of the Spring session - if there is other

legislation that government is trying to bring in quietly... maybe next Monday

night, I can see it now, next Monday night we are going to be here until eleven

or twelve o'clock, guaranteed. I can see it now, it is coming, that you will

float up the balloon, fly it up, get the crowd outside, get the masses all

excited about something, focus their direction right on a particular issue,

Sunday shopping, we are going to do it this time.

I believe the former minister, the Minister now for Forest

Resources and Agrifoods, when we brought it in before, the opposition was so

intense to it, not only here in this Chamber but outside, that he took a little

bit of a back step. Do you know what he said? He said: Now, what we are going to

do, he said, government has consulted, we have listened to the people, so what

we are going to do is, bring out the little trial event on this - and what was

it?

MR. HARRIS: The tourist season.

MR. E. BYRNE: Right, that was it. We are going to

introduce Sunday shopping for the tourist season

MR. HARRIS: through to December.

MR. E. BYRNE: - through to December, that is right. The

Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi is right, through to December for the

tourist season. Now, where is that? Not only where is that initiative, but where

is that minister? He is not in that portfolio.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and he did not do it on Sunday, did

he? I say to the Member for Waterford Valley. He did not do it on Sunday. So

that, was that minister, another trial balloon, and that was last Spring, I

believe, if I am not mistaken, last Spring this whole issue came up again,

representatives from the Federation of Labour, up in arms, retailers, business

owners, up in arms.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh yes, definitely, Sir, and I will tell

you why, because it will be increased costs with no increased revenue. That is

exactly what will happen; heating costs, employment costs -

AN HON. MEMBER: They do not have to do it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, listen to this: the minister says you

do not have to do it. I mean, what a lackadaisical - they do not have to do it.

What a cop-out! You cannot wash your hands of this stuff, Minister. You sat in

the House before as a private member when a former minister from a former

administration brought it in, and you sat there as the parliamentary secretary

to the Premier when the former minister brought it in. Now you have the face to

stand up yourself and bring it in - the same useless, old, tired arguments, Mr.

Speaker.

What is the point? What is the purpose of this piece of

legislation? He cannot say, in all honesty, that businesses and retailers are

supporting this piece of legislation, because they are not. There are some good

points as to why they are not, because they feel, clearly - Minister, you should

heed what I am telling you, because they clearly feel that the extra day of

business will force them to open on Sundays, that is what they feel. The

argument that `maybe, they do not have to if they don't want to, we are just

opening up the process, Mr. Speaker', does not hold water, it just does not.

They feel that to retain their customers they will be compelled to open up on

Sundays - just to compete, to retain their customer base - because if they do

not, then the fellow next-door or the shop next-door will, and their customer

base will be gone. That is what is going to happen.

The extra cost of operating an additional day is onerous, and

do not think it is not. You multiply that out over the year, when Sunday

shopping is over, it is onerous. Employees, heat, light, etc. and it is not

cheap to operate these places, many of the larger retail outlets. However,

because of that extra day it will not - and this is what retailers are saying,

this is not the Member for Kilbride's words, this is not the Opposition words,

this is what retailers who have spoken to us, not only in the first initiative

in government on Sunday shopping, I say to the Member for Cape St. Francis, when

it first came in, they said it to us them, they spoke to us last Spring - that

was just prior to the Liberal nomination of St. John's West - and they are

saying it again this time. And here is what they are saying, that the extra day

does not mean that the weekly revenue to business will increase.

MR. J. BYRNE: Extra expense, that is all.

MR. E. BYRNE: It does not.

MR. J. BYRNE: People only have so much money to spend.

MR. E. BYRNE: Where is the minister? The minister did his

job, he introduced the piece of legislation; now when it is up for debate, he is

gone.

MR. H. HODDER: He has chickened out already.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, by logic, the reality is

that while the costs will increase by a seventh, over a week, the revenues will

not, and it will not equal more business to Sunday shoppers.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, you

should know. Yes, you are a constituent of mine, and even if I have to stand up

on this issue and protect you from yourself, I will do it for you as a

constituent, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I do it for all of my constituents,

including you, the Government House Leader, Sir.

MR. TULK: Thank you.

MR. E. BYRNE: And at some point when that member sees the

light, he will thank me, I know he will. He will deem, at some point in the

future, that my comments were not only appropriate, but were dead on, Mr.

Speaker, guaranteed.

MR. TULK: My member can bring up anything he wishes, but

once he mentions that word `deem', I am reminded of the Workers' Compensation

Board and I go right off the deep end. So, refrain from using that.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. H. HODDER: Was that a good point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: I tell you, the Government House Leader is

not doing well, he is not doing too well on points of order, but I am not going

to get into that. I am going to stay about fifteen to twenty miles away from

that today.

MR. TULK: It would be wise to stay clear of that.

MR. J. BYRNE: Guaranteed. I saw the smoke rising on the

other side, the other day, so I said I had better back-off. If the Government

House Leader is as upset by the word `deem' as I am, I tell him, use his

influence at the Cabinet table to get it changed, because that can be done now,

that can be done today. It takes a little time, but the process can be changed.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the Sunday shopping issue,

really, what is the purpose of this piece of legislation? It offers nothing in

terms of adding to the type of life or the quality of life that we have in this

Province: it is onerous on employees. And let us talk about the employees for a

few minutes. What will it do to employees - make them work an extra day? The

types of employees we are talking about are people who are not making $40,000

and $50,000 a year. We are talking about people who are at minimum wage, in many

respects, who have worked six days a week, anyway.

Some people have said that it will introduce more part-timers

into the system, that are being introduced into the labour market, anyway, with

respect to retail outlets, and that as a result of the seventh day, many people

may not get to work at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that the beer store?

AN HON. MEMBER: Lumberyard.

MR. E. BYRNE: Lumberyard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I asked two questions. I asked that `Reid'

a question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that if you

talk to retailers, talk to people, Minister, who work in the retail stores, the

day off on Sunday guarantees them - basically, at least they feel that the

prohibition on Sunday shopping gives most of them a guaranteed day off with

family. Now, that is what it comes down to, a guaranteed day off with family by

most of the retailers. Of course, in many occupations, working on Sundays, I say

to the minister, is relatively an accepted practice - in some occupations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and those are more essential services,

RNC - some of my colleagues have pointed out - the nursing profession, the

medical profession, those who are on call for emergencies. So in some sectors of

our society, the practice of working on Sundays is already an acceptable

standard. There is no doubt about that. There is some merit to the argument, but

when you talk to people who are in retail, who work in retail, who earn a living

from the retail sector, they do not support the notion of Sunday shopping. So

the universal, guaranteed day off for people in society, while it is a myth in

some sectors, it should remain a reality with respect to retailers.

Now, the minister said in his opening comments that most of

the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Actually, what is going on is that the

members on this side of the House know I am going to be up until at least - I am

going to adjourn the House today myself, and they have gone up to clear off

constituency messages - that is what is going on here. That is exactly what is

going on here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the other thing we have to be

concerned about, the last two times that this debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And the Minister of Tourism is gone, I

notice that. She is not here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: She is gone down for lunch, is she, down at

Hotel Newfoundland, today, I hear. That is what I understand.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. The last time this

piece of legislation was brought into effect, we heard from flea markets.

Obviously, they will be affected by this change, including the Avalon Mall flea

market, which probably will not be able to function in the corridors of the

mall. That is done, an opportunity for people to sell their wares that way.

Since the flea market donates part of its take to charity, charities may in fact

lose as a result of Sunday shopping. The craft industry, which is so important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) business.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is. It is a huge business. Compared to

ten years ago, the growth that has taken as a result of being able to have an

outlet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sunday was their day.

MR. E. BYRNE: It was. It is their day. It is their only

day, I say to the Member for St. John's East. Not only is it their day, it is

their only day. The growth of the craft industry, the relationship to which it

has grown, and how much it has grown over the past, say, five to seven years,

can be directly related to the opportunities that have been provided to sellers

of crafts who have the opportunity to sell their wares at flea markets.

Any more muffins out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Any more muffins or toast out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). Want some?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, boy, I would love to have a slice of

toast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Let it be known, one of my most belligerent

constituents is trying to look after me again this morning. I get so many calls

from that constituent over there - I cannot talk about too many of them; I

cannot talk about them all. I get some good information sometimes - wanted to

know if I wanted to have a slice of toast and a cup of tea, and went ahead and

asked the Speaker if I could have one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There is a flood, I say to the member. It

is not a leak, it is a flood.

Really, with respect to the flea markets and the impact on

flea markets, it will effectively destroy them; that is the bottom line, no

doubt about it. When the minister says that we are talking about the larger

malls and supermarkets, and in the outlying areas, the Foodlands, but in the

more urban centres, what we are really doing is opening up the opportunity for

the larger chains,