December

10, 1996

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 50

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceeding of the day the Chair

would like to welcome to the House today, sitting in the Speaker's gallery, the

President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Fire Chiefs and Fire

Fighters, Mr. Wilson Wiseman; Wayne Power, Director of Region 1; Jim Anderson,

Director of Region 5; and Dave Masse, Director of Region 6.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to speak

momentarily about an incident that has taken place which I believe is of

significant importance to the Province in a matter that took place in Ottawa in

the last twenty-four hours.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Conception

Bay East and Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to offer

congratulations to a colleague who sits in the Federal House of Commons, and in

particular I am referring to Member Gerry Byrne for Humber St. Barbe - Baie

Verte.

Mr. Speaker, for some twenty years, on a personal basis

myself, having been a founding member of Hospitality Newfoundland, a Past

President of that organization, and indeed having served as the Minister of

Tourism of the Province for some two years, he has accomplished in nine short

months something that I and a large group of people have not been able to do for

twenty years. Indeed, no Minister of Tourism for the Province has been able to

accomplish it, no Premier since 1949 has been able to accomplish it, and indeed

no Member of Parliament has been able to accomplish it.

Last fall this House adopted unanimously a resolution that

called upon Marine Atlantic to recognize the service between Port aux Basques

and North Sydney as an essential service. Last night history was set in the

House of Commons when M.P. Gerry Byrne convinced the HRD committee, concerning

Bill C-66,

An Act To Amend The Canada Labour Code, when he was able to

accomplish having an amendment approved at Committee level to declare the

service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney an essential service for

Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to speak to Gerry

a little earlier. I asked Gerry how old he was, and he said, thirty. I said:

Gerry, you were ten years old, and I remember the fight that myself and a number

of other people in the industry started out to accomplish. No one has been able

to accomplish that. I ask all members of the House of Assembly now to join with

me in offering support to Gerry, but indeed to make sure that Minister Gagliano

is reminded of that need to keep that in the main body of the legislation that

will come back to the House very soon.

Mr. Speaker, Gerry is to be congratulated for his efforts in

accomplishing something that we have been trying to get since 1949, and he has

been able to do that after sitting in the House of Commons for nine short

months. I want to go on record as congratulating him and ask all members to

support me in that effort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say it is fantastic news. I thought he was going to

indicate a fixed-link to Nova Scotia. It was fantastic news and something Mr.

Burn's predecessor could not accomplish. That must be quite an accomplishment, I

say to the minister.

My colleague for St. John's South asked the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation just recently about that. We have asked the

question numerous times. I called for it in Corner Brook when I spoke to the

Chamber of Commerce, that we want to see an essential service from Port aux

Basque to North Sydney, and certainly, I think, the minister would like to see

it. It is a step in the right direction and I certainly pass on, I say to the

member, my congratulations for getting this step, and when we get the final step

that is an essential service here, then I will give him a letter of

congratulations I say to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with leave I simply wanted to

say that there is no question that when it comes to this matter the West Coast

of Newfoundland and Northern Newfoundland is now better served in the House of

Commons than ever before, and let me go on record as saying that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Leader of the Opposition

in saying that just like the Leader of the Opposition I called for it, the

Leader of the Opposition called for it, the former minister called for it, the

current minister called for it, 575,000 souls called for it, but Gerry Byrne

delivered it. Congratulations Gerry Byrne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Minister of Environment and Labour speaking to

the member's statement? Well, now that we have disposed of member's statements,

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

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

It gives me great pleasure to stand in the House of Assembly

today to recognize an important event in the history of human rights. Today,

December 10, marks forty-eight years since the first signing of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. In 1948, the United Nations

unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common

standard of achievement for all peoples and for all nations.

Mr. Speaker, in honour of this universal declaration, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador proclaimed the Human Rights Code along

with other jurisdictions in Canada and other nations who have proclaimed human

rights legislation. The provincial Human Rights Code, which is enforced by the

Human Rights Commission, prohibits discrimination in the areas of employment,

services, publications and accommodations on the basis of race, religion,

religious creed, political opinion, colour or ethnic, national or social origin,

sex, marital status, physical disability or mental disability. Age is protected

in employment. Harassment on the above-noted grounds and sexual solicitation is

also prohibited under the Code. Also, Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Code

requires employers to pay equal wages to males and females who perform the same

or similar work.

Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Commission was established to

administer and enforce the Human Rights Code. In doing so, complaints are

investigated and attempts are made to bring about settlements. To date this

year, the Commission has accepted fifty-two complaints for investigation. As

well, the Commission is currently undertaking a review of the Human Rights Code

to ascertain whether it adequately addresses the needs of the people of the

Province. The last amendment to the Code was in 1988. I have also asked the

Commission, Mr. Speaker, to consider in this review the Recommendation of the

Human Rights Association, recommendations which were submitted to me in

September of this year.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I announced government's

intention to introduce at the appropriate time, legislation to address the issue

of "sexual orientation" as prohibited grounds for discrimination into the Human

Rights Code. This matter is currently under very active analysis and

consideration. I hope to be in a position soon to make a more definitive

statement with regard to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of the House of Assembly

and the citizens of our Province to actively promote the observance of Human

Rights as a shared responsibility and to re-affirm our commitment to eliminate

discrimination in all of its forms. I am pleased to bring to the attention of

hon. members that today is the forty-eighth anniversary of the signing of the

Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representing members on this side of the House, we join with

the government in the celebration, Mr. Speaker, of forty-eight years since the

first signing of the universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United

Nations. I would like to point out that Canada is also an important signatory

with respect to the United Nations convention on refugees. Canada is one of the

leading Western countries, Mr. Speaker, in accepting refugees worldwide who face

persecution on the basis of race, or religious beliefs, nationality, political

opinion, and I believe the fifth category is membership in a particular social

group. So Canada has played a leading role, I would say, with respect to

movements concerning the protection of human rights and the protection of rights

dealing with both persecution and discrimination.

The Ministerial Statement makes an important comment, I would

think, Mr. Speaker, when it states that "the observance of human rights as a

shared responsibility" is being reaffirmed by "our commitment to eliminate

discrimination in all its forms." We support that statement, and I stand to join

with government in the celebration of this important date.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to join with the minister and the Member for St.

John's East in acknowledging the anniversary of the fist signing of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In doing so, I obviously have to

underline the importance of human rights in all of our activities, particularly

that of government. In particular, our own Human Rights Code has been in effect

for some time, amended most recently in 1992 with a minor amendment, and

previously in 1988.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this government has been dragging

its heels, as had the previous government, on amending the Human Rights Code to

include prohibition for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It is

the third time now the minister has made this announcement, and we have yet to

see the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask him to bring it forward immediately, as

he had indicated earlier this year it was already in draft form.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to question the Minister of Mines and Energy,

certainly, a follow-up on yesterday. Yesterday the minister claimed he did not

interfere in problems between Come by Chance and Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. Will the minister admit that asking Hydro to hold off on collections is

interference?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, we did not interfere. We

have worked with Hydro and N.A.R.L., Come by Chance refinery relative to their

problems in a meeting that we had, but we did not interfere.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Was he involved in asking Hydro to hold

off on collections during an interim period?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the company asked to have a

meeting with us, and I asked Hydro in the interim, until the meeting with us was

completed, that they not take any further action until that meeting was held.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister now admits he did ask them to hold off for a

period of time.

Many companies in this Province need reliable energy.

However, there is no guarantee of twenty-four hour power. Now, I have spoken

with people out in the manufacturing industry, I have spoken with people in the

broadcasting industry and people in numerous other businesses, and those

businesses that experience tremendous losses when there is a power outage -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, in light of the fact that numerous

businesses have spent thousands, in fact hundreds of thousands of dollars for

back-up generation, I ask the minister, what type of precedent is he setting by

installing equipment to guarantee that only Come By Chance has uninterrupted

electricity?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the equipment that hydro has

agreed to install in its automatic system over at the headquarters to redirect

power to the west will not only be to the benefit of Come By Chance, I would

think that such an investment will also be to the benefit of others that are to

the west of Holyrood. If power is redirected in that direction after the lines

to the west coming from Bay d'Espoir towards the Avalon go down for any

particular reason, whether it is lightening or a sleet storm or for any other

reason, by having this automated system, which is targeted at Come By Chance, to

ensure that they do not have more than a two-minute break if there is a

lightening strike on these two lines from Bay d'Espoir, there is a lot more

flexibility in the line by being able to move power around on that system.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, backup equipment is not going to be able to supply

all areas. It is not going to be sufficient. If that is the case, is there going

to be a certain selection process in who gets the rationed power in case of a

backup?

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

DR. GIBBONS: We are not talking about new power here. We

are talking about the redirection of power and there are certain priorities that

the Hydro Corporation has in a direction of power to those who have the greatest

need. For example, hospitals are at the top of the list. Very frequently, when

we have an outage in the city, you will find that the area around a hospital has

electricity because it gets targeted to the hospital sector, it has the greatest

need. Also there are others that are going to have some priority above some that

have a lower priority. In this particular case, as an industrial operator, Come

By Chance will have the top priority as an industrial operator.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is what I

asked the minister, in the rationing will there be a certain selective process

of which businesses will have priority over others? I think the minister has

answered that and said that Come By Chance would have a top priority basically,

I understand, if the minister said that correctly.

With reference to a statement that North Atlantic Refinery

made recently that they could be paying their bill by a future shipment of oil,

I ask the minister if he supports bartering as a method of payment for any

negligent accounts? And would Hydro need Public Utilities Board approval in

order to enter into that type of agreement?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the corporation has

acknowledged, the hon. member has said - he has read it in the paper as well -

that they will be paying their bill. The representative of the refinery said

that one possibility might be, instead of dollars, they would provide oil.

Well, Hydro normally goes to public tender for its oil, and

it picks the winner of a public tender process. So I am sure that Hydro is going

to ensure that it gets the best deal possible for the oil that is provided to

it. If Come By Chance wins such a tender, well and good for them; let them win

such a tender.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister confirm, then, that if a printing company

like Robinson-Blackmore wins a tender for printing that they can apply that to

their bill? Or that broadcasting media, on advertising, can apply that to their

bill? Or a local manufacturer of furniture can then apply that to their bill? Is

that what the minister is saying?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that. I am

saying: Let the Hydro Corporation and the Come By Chance refinery deal in a

normal business manner to satisfy the outstanding bills between them. If there

is some other way that they wish to make a business arrangement that is going to

be in the interest of both, and satisfies all the laws of this Province, that

may be well and good too.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will only indicate that the same opportunities for other

businesses to make payment in similar manners is what I am indicating should be

an equal opportunity, and the minister has not confirmed that.

I ask the Premier if he would investigate the dealings

between the minister, Hydro, and Come By Chance, with an eye to conflict and

possible court repercussions in the future as other provincial companies require

their fair or known share.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to begin with, in

response to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, that I have, and I

think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have, the greatest of confidence

in the Minister of Mines and Energy and the job he has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Let me say secondly to the Leader of the

Opposition, it is quite normal, and indeed appropriate, for the Leader of the

Opposition to be asking questions about the matter that has been raised, the

question of whether or not bills have been paid. There is nothing wrong with

that. What is a little bit puzzling is the nature of the questions that are

being asked by the Leader of the Opposition, which somehow suggest that if there

is a dispute between the refinery and Hydro - and there has been a dispute -

that the government should cause an action to occur that would cause the

refinery to shut down and lay all the workers off. The Leader of the Opposition

is really saying that should be our first course of action.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, with respect, looking

at the number of jobs involved, the appropriate course of action for government,

to the extent we become involved at all in a dispute between Hydro and one of

Hydro's customers, is to ascertain the nature of the dispute, to encourage the

party, in this case Come by Chance, to pay its bills as soon as possible. The

Minister of Mines and Energy, by the way, did that. I should tell the Leader of

the Opposition, so did I when I met the principals of the refinery and told them

to pay their bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions

this afternoon are for the hon. Minister of Education. Will the Minister of

Education please explain what happened to the referendum promise of redirecting

monies from efficiencies attained in the education reform back into the

classrooms?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question, and I'm glad that the hon. member listened to the radio this morning

so he would have something to bring up in the Legislature this afternoon.

However, we shouldn't try to get confused or distracted, or

to mix two completely separate issues. What we are dealing with in the

Legislature, dealt with yesterday and we have been dealing with for some time,

is a very important and necessary reform process, supported by the two bills

that received second reading yesterday. We did appreciate the commentary and

input of the Opposition members in the debate. It was very useful, and it has

been a very good debate through the whole process.

There is another process that everybody understands is going

on in all of government dealing with the fiscal realities of the Province. In

the Budget last year this particular government, under the leadership and

direction of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier,

produced a budget that indicated we were only in a position to have one

departmental budget in all of government free from any cuts. That was health

care. After all the examination and all the efforts with all of us trying our

best to rationalize and make sure we are making the best use of the people's

money, there had to be some reductions in education and in all of the other

departments except health care.

The program review process, the budget process, is

continuing. It is separate and removed from anything to do with reform. At this

point in time the statements linking monies to a reform process were of a

general nature, saying: The wish and the intent, not only of the government but

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, is that to the maximum extent

possible, savings and efficiencies in education be retained in education if at

all possible for the better educational opportunity of the students. That was

the commentary during the referendum debate. That has been the commentary during

the whole of the reform process. That is still the agenda and the hope and wish

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - for the government on behalf of the people

of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to finish his answer.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the

minister, and confirm for him that in a government paper, which was a part of a

government package which was distributed to Senators and Members of Parliament

in Ottawa, it states clearly, and I quote: The proposed reforms will provide the

opportunity to redirect these savings to the classroom level for the benefit of

our students. This is a government document, I say to the minister. Where is the

commitment?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can only

provide the same information. The whole debate during that period of time

certainly contained an element of that. It was raised again in all nineteen of

our public consultation meetings. People in the general public came forward

indicating that through the whole of the referendum debate, and so on, they had

understood that one of the goals - and note, very important now - and in the

meetings, in the very sensible, well run and well organized, because the people

themselves conducted themselves so well in the meetings, in those nineteen

meetings, when we engaged in that dialogue, the people who came forward said

they understood that it was a goal and an objective of the government. They

never ever portrayed it as a promise. Because we used to say: We don't want this

to become a political debate. We don't want to be standing out here Mr.

Minister, saying you as the government promised this and now you are breaking

your promise. Those people at the nineteen public meetings refused, Mr. Speaker,

to use that kind of language. The only place it has been used to date is by the

media on one local source in some programming this morning where they used the

language that the government broke a promise and used an introduction saying the

minister admitted that the government broke a promise. No such language was

used. We talked again yesterday, Mr. Speaker, about the issues of a general

policy objective -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: - of trying to commit to a better educational

opportunity for students. That is still the objective of the government, but

whether money is spent in any one year, in any department of government, is

always subject to the whole of the budgetary review process.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to state, for the benefit of the minister, it

is quite clear, it is in black and white what this government had said and the

commitment that this government made to the children of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in view of this commitment,

I ask the minister, on behalf of his government, will he commit to taking

royalties from Voisey's Bay and directing a portion of those royalties into

education and unfunded pension liabilities to truly ensure a quality education

which is affordable, sustainable and progressive?

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

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

I think the real crux of the matter is that in the reform

process so far, some of it done by agreement with the denominational partners in

education, some now being done as a result of the two bills that received second

reading yesterday, we have made some great progress. We have created some real

efficiencies in the education system. A prime example going from twenty-seven

school boards to ten. I believe everybody in the Province, Mr. Speaker,

including everybody in this Legislature, would agree that that is worth doing,

it is the right thing to do, it should be done, it is better for the education

system. Whether it saves five cents or not, it is the right thing to do.

The same issue, Mr. Speaker, with respect to establishing a

single construction board so that capital construction, maintenance and so on,

buildings in the Province for school facilities, can be done on the basis of

need instead of prorated on the basis of per capita population by denomination.

Everybody believes that the major portions of education reform should be done

regardless of whether we saved a penney or created an efficiency or not. So, at

the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the budget process, separate or removed, which

is what we discussed yesterday at the press briefing, will determine and decide

in any one of the government's expenditure areas, whether or not we can maintain

a budget at a previous year's level or not, we will enter into that debate very

soon. All we did yesterday is honestly answer two questions; Did we maintain the

full budget for education in this fiscal year? Everybody in the Province knows

we did not. Are we going to be able to do it next year? I answered yesterday and

answer today, I don't know. That is part of the budgetary process that we will

go through. The answers will be clear when we come to the latter part of

February or early part of March when we introduce a budget again in this

Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Will the minister inform the House what he will be suggesting to Ottawa as a

harvesting quota for both harp and hood seals for this hunting season?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: What the market demands, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, existing sealing and hunting

regulations prevent the sale on marketing of young hood seals, known as blue

backs, until they shed their first coat which takes, sometimes in excess of

fourteen months. When this seal is in the water it is impossible to distinguish

between a blue back and an adult hood. Will the minister inform the House if he

is presently consulting with the Federal Government to change these regulations

so that the blue back might be allowed to be harvested and marketed after the

normal whelping period?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had extensive talks

with the minister and we will continue until we get the regulation changed.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the minister is concerned about conservation and

making sure that a revitalized seal hunt is carried out in a humane and

professional manner, as we do here on this side. The current regulations do not

prohibit the killing of blue back seals, Mr. Speaker, but prohibit the sale of

this particular seal. I would like to ask the minister: Does he think it is in

the best interest of conservation to allow those seals to be left in the water

or to be marketed and provide employment to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today, Mr. Speaker, are for the Minister of

Health. In recent times we have heard that the Health Care Corporation have been

charged with the saving of money and are doing everything in their power to see

that money is saved. Can the minister confirm whether or not the kitchen at the

Miller Centre is now closed and that employees are now going to be forced to buy

their lunch, I guess, from a sandwich machine? Will he also confirm that they

did not have any problem finding the extra money to bring in an extra cook when

the Health Care Corporation decided to hold their salmon dinner?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The running of the kitchen and all the facilities under the

Health Care Corporation comes under the jurisdiction and the capable management

of the corporate team over there. I will check to see if the kitchen is open and

let him know.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister aware that the food that is going to be

served to the staff in the area hospitals for their Christmas dinner this year

will be imported from outside this Province, and that it certainly will not be

turkey this Christmas, not by a long shot?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure, but I certainly hope not, because they have

invited me to their Christmas dinner on the 19th and I want a Newfoundland

cooked meal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you are not going to get it.

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

on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Might I say to the minister that if he is

eating with the Health Care Corporation alone he may get that, but if he is

going to eat with the employees he certainly will not be getting that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Is the minister aware of a plan to now have

meals prepared at a site, maybe at Donovan's Industrial Park, and shipped to the

hospitals around this city, and does he agree with this particular plan?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: The Health Care Corporation made it quite

clear a couple of months ago, when they were announcing some staff adjustments,

that one of the areas where they would be moving in terms of food preparations

in the future, would be in the area of consolidating dietary operations within

their jurisdiction. It is a move that is not uncommon to occur in terms of

health preparation in other areas where food has to be prepared in large

quantities. Simply put, with today's technology, Mr. Speaker, and with the close

proximity of all of the facilities in the St. John's area, it is deemed to be

entirely doable and appropriate to consolidate food preparation into as small a

configuration as you can, and if it means putting it on one site as opposed to

seven or eight sites and still delivering a quality product, then we will

absolutely be moving in that direction.

Clearly, the direction he alludes to is the one that the

Health Care Corporation has embarked upon, and surely to goodness, when we talk

about food preparations, if airlines can prepare food in Toronto and take it to

London, and serve it to you on the way back in reasonably good shape, then

certainly we should be able to get it from Donovan's Industrial Park out to the

Miller Centre and to all of our other facilities, and provide a quality product.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.

MR. MATTHEWS: At the end of the day we will be providing

good food to the people who work in, and who are patients in our hospitals.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services who tabled

in the House on November 28 answers to my questions on the Order Paper in which

she acknowledged that there were in excess of fifteen separate changes to the

Social Services programs and regulations resulting in reductions, one of which

was the reduction in the home support program to a limit of $3000 for all new

approvals.

Will the minister acknowledge that this policy, in addition

to providing great hardships on individuals in their own homes, is also costing

the government extra money? Will she acknowledge that this policy is applied to

an individual who may have been on home support, went to the hospital, and then,

when declared to go home is treated as a new applicant, and instead of being

able to go home and be supported in their own home, are forced to stay in

hospital at the cost of an incredible amount of money to another department, not

her own, but at a great cost to the public purse, Mr. Speaker?

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

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

In response to your first question, the $3000 service limit

was put in place as part of a procedure to allow a lot more people to enter into

the program to allow them to avail of home support services. All monies that

have been realized from that program have been put back in to allow new people

to enter into the program. It does not affect any existing clients, it only

affects new clients, we work in consultation with those clients and through

consultation we try to set them up in alternate styles of living with their

consultation and to date we believe it is working very well.

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

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister, and

perhaps she could tell us whether she is aware that, an individual receiving

home care was hospitalized for a brief period, was treated as a new applicant

when he was required to go home, and social services paid for the apartment for

the six months while the individual was supposed to go home, medically

discharged and at a cost of $500 to $700 a month from the health care budget was

kept in hospital from the middle of September and is there to this day at an

incredible cost instead of receiving home care and being able to live in his own

home. Is the minister aware of that and will she acknowledge that that is a

travesty not only to the individual but to the public finance?

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

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

I have to be honest, I am not intimately familiar with the

790 cases that are currently receiving benefits from the home support program,

but I will certainly check if you would like to give the name of the person to

whom you refer to me, I will follow up with my department. I know that with the

3,000 service limit, we have been able to accommodate new clients into the

program with their support. Perhaps they are not living in individualized living

arrangements, some to the cost of $10,000 to $11,000 a month, but we are

accommodating new people. We have admitted new people into the program and we

believe as do many of the people who are working with us that this is a program

that is working and is needed to present more options to people and allowed more

to enter into the program.

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

Vidi, a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister's department

allowing people to stay in hospital at a cost to government between $15,000 and

$20,000 a month to enforce a policy that imposes hardship on individuals who are

trying to live in their own homes?

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

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

Our department is not responsible for discharged planning for

people who leave the hospital to go into the home.

When a person is discharged from a hospital or an institution

to go into a home, there is a procedure that is set in place with the

appropriate social workers and other support workers to allow an appropriate

living environment to occur. That is the process that we have in place; that is

the process we have put in place so that it can work and we will continue to use

that process.

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

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

My question is also for the Minister of Social Services and

the follow-up on a series of questions I was asking a few days ago relative to

adoption procedures in the Province.

The minister knows the family medical history and other

information about birth parents are often very difficult to access by adoptees,

and I want to ask the minister, why does it take so long for adoptees to be able

to access post-adoption services and what she proposes to do about the backlog

that is now in place in her department?

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

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

As I mentioned to a very similar question one day last week

concerning adoption, we have a number of priorities in the child welfare

department, post-adoption services is certainly a very important area but in

terms of providing child protection, that has been prioritized over

post-adoption services.

As I said perviously, and I will say again today, we are

concerned about the backlog. We were concerned to the point that we did put

people there in a temporary position over the summer to try to help address the

backlog, and as we go through our program review and look at adoption and how we

deliver the services of adoption, we will be looking more closely in trying to

meet the needs of people who have extended periods of waiting time to try to

find their birth parents.

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

supplementary.

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

I have in my hand a letter from the lady who was born in

1969. She had her non-identifying information from the department in 1989 after

waiting for some time. She has been told recently that it would be another five

years before she can access post-adoption services. This lady is now

twenty-seven years old, wants to begin her family and needs medical and other

information. Why Madam Minister -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. H. HODDER: - does it take twelve years for this young

lady to be able to access the services that she needs to be able to make

decisions about her family and her personal life?

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

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

We have almost 2,000 registered adoptees who are waiting to

find their birth parents. As I have said previously, we have made a decision

based on the needs of our department to try to deal with active child welfare

cases in the short term, and I will say to my hon. colleague that through the

process of program review, and through the ongoing processes where we are

looking at how we structure our department, we are looking very clearly at

trying to find a more appropriate and reasonable and more efficient way of

dealing with those needs that you have identified through post-adoption search.

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

supplementary.

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

Madam Minister admits that the laws governing adoption are

archaic and out of touch with societal values in the nineties. I asked her last

week if she would do something to make sure that the bureaucracies and legal

systems kind of catch up to modern and more recent thinking. I asked her at that

time if she would give some consideration to a White Paper on the whole adoption

procedure so that people like the lady I mentioned here can have some input into

the changes that are necessary. Will Madam Minister commit to two things: (

a) a

White Paper on adoption legislation; and, (

b) will she commit herself to

bringing in that legislation to make those changes in the spring session?

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

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

I will commit to bringing in the legislation when it is

ready. We are in the process of going through a review of our child welfare

legislation and our adoption legislation, as I have mentioned. When it is ready,

when we have consulted with the necessary groups and people, as we are in the

process of doing, we will bring forward a piece of legislation in a normal

course.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy if he

could tell the House how long the negotiations have been going on with a Chilean

company with respect to a copper smelter in this Province; and can he update us

on the status of those talks?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations going

on with a Chilean company, as far as I know, but if there is a Chilean company

that wants to come to Newfoundland and Labrador and consider putting a smelter

in this Province, come on over and we will talk.

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

supplementary.

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

Well, I suggest that the minister talk to the Premier. One of

them should know if they have been talking to a Chilean company or not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: - as the Premier has reported it some two

weeks ago, and he said it again in the House while he stood next to the minister

yesterday. Now, would you call them negotiations or talks? Can the minister then

confirm if there are talks going on with a Chilean company with respect to a

copper refinery?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology was recently in South America. He visited

Chile and talked with some people who have an interest in copper. They may or

may not have an interest in building a smelter in this Province; I do not know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table six copies of an Order in Council to meet the

requirements of

section 26(4) of the Financial Administration Act. Each of these

pertain to authorizations for the Department of Education to purchase or to

enter into agreement to purchase and develop publications for senior high math

textbooks and resource materials. Those represent amounts of $393,000 in the

1998-1999 fiscal year, a further $393,000 in the 1999-2000 fiscal year for grade

XI, and $487,000 in the 2000-2001 fiscal year for grade XII implementation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

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

About ten days ago in the House, I asked a question of the

Minister of Development and Rural Renewal dealing with what we felt and what

people in the industry feel is discrimination against local construction workers

in this Province. The minister at that time committed to referring the matter to

the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, but we have not heard back

from government on that issue yet.

I stand today to present a petition from yet more people.

Last week there was a 5,500-name petition. There are more coming in daily over

the faxes dealing with this specific issue. Essentially what is happening is

that, because of loopholes within the agreement between the Hibernia management

employers association and the oil development council and the labour regime that

effectively and essentially governs the Hibernia work site, in particular, the

employment aspect of it, we have allowed contractors to come into this Province,

bringing workers from outside the Province while local qualified tradespeople

exist here. That is not supposed to happen with this development or any other

development, I say, and I submit that to government.

The petition today acknowledges first and foremost the

quality of the workforce dealing at the Hibernia site and the quality of the

tradespeople who are there, both men and women. It has asked government to

investigate what is happening now, which the minister committed to and she said

that she was. It calls upon government to insist that development companies

coming here to assist or exploit resources for the benefit of everybody, it asks

this government to demand of development companies to submit a much more

detailed and transparent employment training plan for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to reduce the need for so-called specialists, and where specialists

are needed, that appropriate technology and employment transfer takes place that

at some point in the future we will not need those so-called specialists, and we

ourselves can become those specialists and export our expertise and our know-how

to the rest of the world.

Most importantly, it calls for what does not exist today. It

calls for a true and enforceable regulation, it calls for enforceable

regulations that are needed to protect our construction workers from being

treated as second-class citizens in our own Province. It calls also for an

effective mechanism I guess for dispute resolution, that where a dispute exists,

that where there is disagreement in the labour regime that governs that site, or

any other potential offshore development site, or on-site, specifically dealing

with Voisey's Bay, that there is an effective mechanism in place that will see

disputes solved immediately and quickly to the benefit of both the employer and

the employee associations. So that Newfoundlanders who are qualified, both men

and women who have the skills, who can move forward, who can demand and earn a

living in this Province, can do so without fear that companies from outside of

this Province can come here, bring workers with no more skills than what exist

in this Province, and essentially put people out of work who should have the

right, and the first right, to work in this Province when it comes to our

resources. This petition I present on behalf of - and I add, I guess, about 150

people, Mr. Speaker, and add that to the petition I presented in the House last

week, of some 5,500. And I ask the minister today: If she has met with the

Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, have they reported back yet? What

is taking so long to resolve this matter? People right now are waiting for work

and we have an opportunity, I say to the minister and I say to government, that

we have an opportunity today to put at least sixty-five local qualified trades

people back to work if we can move and if government will move on this very

important issue, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the petition as put forward by my

friend and colleague, the Member for Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, this is nothing new in this Legislature. In

fact, this same issue was brought forward to the former Minister of Employment

and Labour and it was concerning the very same company. The company that the

member was referring to is Kenonic Controls. Kenonic Controls, an Alberta-based

company working out at the Hibernia site. I understand, at this particular site

today, there is something like 145 tradesmen from the Province of Alberta while

nine Newfoundlanders are employed at this particular job site performing this

particular occupation in mating the topsides with the gravity based structure.

Mr. Speaker, in the very beginning I think there was a

general agreement between Hibernia management and the unions at this particular

site that people from outside the Province, contractors, would be allowed to

bring in their supervisory personnel and Newfoundlanders would fill all other

jobs, qualified well-trained Newfoundlanders. Mr. Speaker, this seems to be gone

by the wayside. Our own local people today are being issued lay-off notices and

on their way out through the gate they meet people from Alberta coming in to

take their jobs. Members opposite shout and say what are you complaining about?

There were 5,000 Newfoundlanders employed out on that particular job site. Mr.

Speaker, there may have been 5,000 Newfoundlanders employed there but that is no

consolation to the other 30,000 who are unemployed. That is no consolation, Mr.

Speaker, to the union halls down on Duckworth Street and down on Water Street

filled with qualified Newfoundlanders who should be out there doing this work

today. It would not happen anywhere else, in any other jurisdiction across this

country, and I know, because I have worked in many of them.

Mr. Speaker, if you go away and go to work on a job site, the

first people to get laid off are the people from outside that particular

province. You do not see Newfoundlanders working up at the Tar Sands, Mr.

Speaker, or working on the CN Tower in Toronto when it was under construction

and see people from Ontario laid off. It did not happen. But we, here in

Newfoundland, seem to have very little faith in our own people, Mr. Speaker. We

look at them as second class citizens obviously if we are not going to allow

them to go out and do hands-on work. Mr. Speaker, nobody has a qualm with a

contractor bringing in supervisory personnel, that is needed. It is needed in

order for the job to be a success, Mr. Speaker, but what we are talking about

here is skilled labour that is available in our union halls right across this

Province and our own native Newfoundlanders are going to the unemployment

insurance office while those people are working right here on a construction

site in this Province and it is shameful.

I call on the minister not to wait any longer, to react to

this particular situation and allow our Newfoundlanders, our qualified

Newfoundlanders to be able to go back to work and put bread and butter on the

table, because that is what this is, a bread and butter issue, Mr. Speaker. The

most honest thing a person can do today is to look for a job. I think it is

incumbent upon this government and upon this minister to make sure that those

well-trained Newfoundlanders are given an opportunity to be able to work at a

trade and put the skills forward for which they have been trained and made quite

capable of doing the work.

Mr. Speaker, I referred the other day to the fixed link

between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. There is a gentleman from my

district who is one of the chief engineers there. I would suggest, if that same

fixed link were between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that he probably would not

be deemed qualified for the job, because we have no faith in our own people. So

I call on the minister to listen to the pleas from the people who are signing

these petitions and to react immediately and allow them to go back to work at

this site and continue to provide for their families and do what they were

trained for in the education system in this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the

members opposite for bringing the petition to the floor of the House. Clearly,

just as they recognize the value of ensuring that we provide employment

opportunities for the people in our Province, this government also recognizes

the importance of doing that.

It is because of that, in fact, that I have asked the C-NOPB

to look into this issue that has been raised particularly by the IBEW of the

ODC. We wanted to make sure, first of all, that there was a thorough

investigation done of the complaints that have been raised. I had hoped to have

had that report the middle of last week. In fact, it was brought to my office on

Friday. I have had a cursory look at it, but before discussing the content of

the report, I want to share the content with the IBEW, because I think there are

a number of issues that have been raised there to which I want to get their

reaction.

I have to say at the outset that HMDC has been forthcoming.

They have certainly been co-operative in this undertaking, which I am really

pleased to report. They have provided their employment records to the C-NOPB as

they did their investigation, so there was no way that there was any kind of

hinderance at all in terms of the C-NOPB doing what they were asked to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: No, no, of course not. I just wanted to put

that on the record, that the company has certainly been forthcoming.

Having said that, we do have a report back now that we will

be discussing with the IBEW, and my office staff is attempting to set up a

meeting with the IBEW to have a look at that and to present the findings of the

report before we discuss anything further on that in the public venue, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling Orders of the Day,

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

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, that the House not adjourn at 5:00

p.m.

All those in favour, please say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `Nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 21, second reading of a

bill, "An Act To Provide Fire-Fighters With Protection From Personal Liability",

(Bill No. 43).

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide

Fire-Fighters With Protection From Personal Liability". (Bill No. 43)

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I will be honest and say quite

readily here, even though my friends are in the Speaker's Gallery, I think most

of us on both sides of the House realize that this piece of legislation is

probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come to the

House, as it relates to public health and safety, for a number of years. I am

honoured to be the minister at the time, to be able to say finally, after ten

years or so of trying to get something done with this particular question, that

I am able to stand in the House today with the Association of Fire Chiefs and

Fire-Fighters representatives sitting in the gallery. It makes me feel good to

be able to do it.

If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I have some written notes

here. I am going to use the written notes to help me through. I want to do a

brief explanation of what exactly is in this particular bill, and in using my

notes, I think it will make things a lot clearer.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation provides that no action

for damages shall be instituted against a fire-fighter for

an act done in good

faith in the execution of a fire-fighter's duty or for any neglect or default in

the execution in good faith of his or her duty.

Now, this legislation - I suppose two years ago when the

question of liability arose with an incident in Wabana, or on Bell Island, a lot

of fire departments, volunteer as well as paid fire departments around this

Province, and councils, all of a sudden stood up and said: Now, what is going to

happen here, and what will be the repercussions if a magistrate or a judge in

the Province finds this case against the fire-fighter and the municipality?

I suppose justice, at the end of the day, won out in the fact

that it was dismissed and the judge ultimately said that there was no liability,

but at that particular point in time, we all realized that even though that one

case on Bell Island was heard and dismissed, there could be others. That is why,

today, we are introducing this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides that fire-fighters will

be indemnified or paid for reasonable legal cost by their respective

municipality or local service district committee, and that basically means that

the responsibility for fire-fighters, their actions and their liabilities rest

now with the town council or the local service district or council that they

come from, and this provides direct indemnity for defence against the civil

action if a fire-fighter is not liable, defence of a criminal action if a

fire-fighter is found not guilty and, of course, any other proceeding in which

the fire-fighter's execution of his or her duties is an issue if the

fire-fighter acted, and it is proved that he or she has acted, in good faith.

Mr. Speaker, this puts a serious onus on municipalities in

the Province, and the onus, of course, is for municipalities to make sure that

they have good, trained, able fire-fighters. And without good, trained, able

fire-fighters, then municipalities may find themselves in situations where they

could become liable for damages incurred. Now, when I say municipalities could

be become liable, that is exactly what I mean. It is very important, when this

piece of legislation goes through, and I have no doubt that it will,

municipalities then will be forced into making sure that their fire-fighters are

properly trained, because the onus rests on the municipality. So it will be very

important to municipalities to make sure that they are properly trained, and not

only properly trained, as we were talking about this morning, also properly

equipped. And equipment, of course, in the case of equipment for fire-fighters,

I mean coats and jackets and boots and shields and any other equipment that they

need to use to fight a fire and also, Mr. Speaker, to answer to a second

response or second-level call for any other emergency.

Now, what is another emergency? If we remember, some two

years ago we had a gentleman who, from what I could gather from the media, had a

heart attack in the west end of St. John's, in the Goulds area, and the

ambulance was a little delayed in picking up the gentleman. At the time, there

were fire-fighters in the area who could have at least administered CPR to the

gentleman but, of course, there was no legislation and no protection to assist

the fire-fighters at that particular point in time, so they were not called. The

911 service did not call them because legally they did not have the liability

insurance or the legal right to go and answer a call for somebody in a medical

situation.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will allow trained

fire-fighters and when I say `trained', I mean they will have to be trained in

proper courses outlined and approved by the government, both the Departments of

Health and Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Their training will consist of a

number of courses, and when that training is completed and the government is

satisfied that these individuals have the training, then the fire department in

which those people will operate will be certified to respond to other than fire

calls.

I think, to be quite honest about it, Mr. Speaker, that it is

a good idea, especially in a lot of the rural areas of the Province. We are not

all gifted, I suppose, in rural Newfoundland to have the services that are

provided to the St. John's and Mount Pearl areas or the Corner Brook and Gander

areas. A lot of us live in small, rural communities and the nearest ambulance is

often quite far away from some of our homes. If there is a volunteer fireman

living next door to me or living in my community and I know that that person is

trained in certain medical procedures, I know that everyone including myself

will be only too glad for someone like that to come in and assist my father or

mother or child or whomever, even myself, while I am waiting for an ambulance to

come or a doctor to come and attend to me. So that makes it that much greater, I

suppose, for rural Newfoundland than it does for the urban parts of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, in seeking out

legislation, we went to Ontario. The Ontario model was the best model - that

suited us the best, at least, and that is the one we have gone under. l am very

pleased to be able to say that this legislation will bring forward something

that the Fire-Fighters Association and a number of people in the Province have

been asking for for a long time.

In addition to this legislation, amendments have already been

tabled in the House under the Municipalities Act, The City of St. John's Act and

The City of Corner Brook Act, to authorize municipalities and local service

district fire departments to respond to medical and other emergencies. These are

also being considered during the current session. Those bills are already on the

Order Paper and up for third reading, I think, when we are ready to do third

reading. That will basically allow all the other agencies, the City of St.

John's, Mount Pearl, and so on, to adopt the same legislation, if and when we

get this piece of legislation through the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that in consultation

with the Opposition House Leader - and I do not think I can say that his side of

the House supports this wholeheartedly, but from his personal point of view,

this is something that he and I, and I say that quite honestly, have been

working as members of the Federation of Municipalities for some time to get, and

quite honestly it is an honour for me to move second reading today on this piece

of very important legislation.

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

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

I am also very pleased to stand in my place today and say a

few words on this Bill 43, referred to as the Fire-fighters Protection Act, and

I want to compliment the minister on bringing Bill 43 before the House. I agree,

and I think almost everybody on this side of the House will agree that it is

probably one of the most important pieces of legislation with respect to health

and safety that has been brought forth in this House, certainly since I have

been here.

It is good to see the Fire Chiefs here, and, I believe, the

Fire Commissioner is up in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, to see what happens with

respect to this piece of legislation. Basically, as the minister stated, this

Act provides fire-fighters with protection for personal liability for their

actions, or alleged neglect in carrying out their duties.

Our caucus called for this back in April 1995 when we saw it

was becoming a very important issue to the people in municipalities in this

Province. The minister mentioned a situation on Bell Island where a fire-fighter

was sued and there was great concern in the municipalities across this Province

with respect, in particular, to the volunteer fire-department, where there was

fear that they might lose volunteers, or some members of the department. But in

fact, this bill deals with paid fire-fighters, so it is all-inclusive and

certainly, from my perspective, a good piece of legislation.

I would say to the minister that

section 4 may have to be

amended to clarify the indemnity for reasonable legal costs. It says it will

apply only to those legal proceedings "in which the fire-fighter's execution of

his or her duties is an issue..." It is not quite clear. Maybe it should be

worded as it does not state clearly that only those civil actions and criminal

prosecutions related to the execution of fire-fighting duties are covered by an

indemnity clause. I do not know if it is quite clear there but I am sure that is

what is meant in the intent. Maybe that is something the minister might like to

look at.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there has been some concern expressed that

the Province may wish fire-fighters to assume responsibilities that are now

taken by ambulance operators, namely, emergency response and paramedic duties.

This legislation certainly, once it is decided upon that the fire-fighters are

properly trained, as the minister stated earlier, and they do become certified,

that this Act will cover them for those actions also.

The bill itself, as I said earlier, is long overdue and it is

certainly welcome on this side of the House. Really, the thing you have to look

at, I suppose, is - I do not want to set aside the situation with respect to the

paid fire-fighters in the Province because they have their insurances, their

health insurances and that type of thing. But I think the real concern out there

is with respect to the volunteer fire departments in not getting volunteers to

come forward if the fear was there that they could be sued. This takes away that

concern, Mr. Speaker, especially if they were going to be sued in doing

something in

an act of good faith. It is something that really did need to be

dealt with.

The concern, too, now I suppose - I don't know if it a

concern. I don't know what impact it would have on the municipalities

themselves. They were always open, I would say to the minister, to be sued

anyway if their fire department responded, or if there were some act of neglect,

or they did not respond properly to a given situation. Now it really puts the

responsibility itself on the municipalities or the local service districts to

see that their fire-fighters are properly trained, as the minister stated, to

see that the fire departments do have the proper equipment. It doesn't alter the

fact, I suppose, that a person can still be sued. But if he or she is sued and

they are found not guilty, well, then, of course, they do not have to pay the

legal cost. The municipality would be responsible for the legal cost in that

given situation.

As I know it, as I understand, once a person decides to take

legal action, they would name anybody associated with a given situation, which

in this case would be the fire-fighter and the municipality, it could be a

council, a councillor, or what have you. This now really would put it upon the

shoulders of the municipality to foot the bill, I suppose, in particular when

the person is found innocent of any charge that may be laid against him. Of

course, only rightly so, if a person is found guilty of a criminal action, there

is no reason why a municipality should have to pay the legal cost for that.

All in all - I am not going to take up a lot of time - I have

to say that I am pleased to see the bill. Again, I compliment the minister.

Hopefully, it will put a lot of fire-fighters in this Province at ease as soon

as this legislation gets the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor, Mr. Speaker.

With that I think I will just pass it on. Maybe someone else might like to say a

few words.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support Bill 43 at this stage in second reading. In

doing so, I cannot do much more in terms of the principle than support what has

been said by the minister and the Member for Cape St. Francis, in that it is

important, particularly when it comes to the volunteer fire forces throughout

the Province, that this bill be passed. Those in the full-time fire-fighting

forces, in addition to other aspects of their job, and (inaudible) been pointed

out, also have collective agreements, and the collective agreements provide for

indemnification for things arising out of their activities. So it is not as

important a provision for them, although it certainly clarifies that if someone

wants to take an action for neglect or for something that has taken place in the

course of a fire-fighter undertaking his duties, that the action should be

against the employer or the municipal corporation, or in this case, the local

service district, each of which is ordinarily required and, by prudent good

business sense, will have insurance to cover that type of activity.

I think we do have that for - the emergency medical aid Act

provides for doctors and for other medical professionals to give them a certain

amount of protection when responding to emergencies. It is only fair and just

that the same kind of protection should be provided to fire-fighters when they

are fighting a fire or responding to an emergency in addition to a fire, and

that this Act is appropriate for those purposes.

I will say to the minister, and I hope he is listening, that

there are a number of problems with the way the Act is worded. It is open to all

kinds of contradictory

interpretation, and I would suspect, would not stand up

to a very rigorous analysis. I would urge the minister, rather than us trying to

amend this on the floor of the House at third reading that the minister seek the

assistance of the law clerks or the Department of Justice or the Clerk's Office

to see to the rewording of the bill, particularly

article 4 which seems to

provide an indemnity for any criminal prosecution that might be taken against a

fire-fighter, presumably in any capacity, although I am sure that is not the

intent.

The wording is very ambiguous and unclear. I think the

intention is, obviously, that where a fire-fighter is the subject of a legal

proceeding whether civil or criminal arising out of the execution of his or her

duties, when the fire-fighter is acting in good faith then the indemnity

applies. If one looks at

section 4, in particular

article 1 of it, that is not

at all clear that that particular qualification applies to all of those

circumstances set out in

article 1: that is, (a), (

b) and (c). So it is rather

unclear.

It is also, I suppose, a bit unclear as to why there needs to

be an indemnity for defending a civil action if a proceeding instituted against

a fire-fighter for

an act done in good faith is not even permitted to be

instituted - why there is a need for an indemnity for reasonable expenses

incurred under that. I suppose if someone were to make a civil suit against a

fire-fighter and allege that the fire-fighter were acting in bad faith, then the

action would have to be defended. If it turns out that the fire-fighter is not

liable for bad faith and is found to be acting in good faith, then he is

entitled to an indemnity. If in fact they are found to be acting in bad faith,

then I presume the indemnity does not apply.

With respect to criminal prosecutions, I suspect that the

kind of criminal prosecutions they are talking about might be a case of criminal

negligence or some other activity that might be related to a prosecution against

a fire-fighter. Who knows, it might be a charge of impaired driving if the

volunteer fire-fighter responds to a call and drives a vehicle in a condition

that he or she shouldn't be operating in. I am assuming that the only kind of

criminal prosecutions for which an indemnity might be available is one that

arises out of the execution of their duty. I don't know whether the good faith

issue is one that applies in a case of negligence or in a case of impaired

driving or something like that.

As I said, I raise this because it appears to be a very

confusing

section of the Act and open to all sorts of

interpretation. I would

urge the minister in having the approval in principle of, I suspect, all members

of the House for this legislation, that he have the law clerks look at

section 4

and see whether the drafting in fact does accomplish what the minister is trying

to accomplish. Because it is not clear that (

a) and (

b) only apply to actions

that are involved where the execution of the duties of a fire-fighter is an

issue. I think that needs to be looked at to see whether in fact it does what

the minister intends to have happen. I've already advised the Legislative

Council and the Clerk of the problems with it, and I think it does need to be

looked at to see whether or not it is appropriate to clarify the wording so that

it is not open to misinterpretation, and in fact will accomplish the objects

that the minister is attempting here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes, and the reason I am suggesting it, Mr.

Speaker, is that rather than us trying to amend it on the floor and maybe making

it worse, the Legislative Council could probably come up with a proper wording

and

interpretation and so that will be here accomplishing the object that the

minister set out.

The object itself, the principle of the bill, is one that I

support. It is certainly appropriate that we do everything that we can to

encourage people to participate in volunteer fire brigades across the Province

where it is impossible for a municipality to afford a professional, full-time,

paid, fire-fighting service, and this is one area where I think we have run into

problems in the past.

I do not have any problem with a municipality taking legal

responsibility through their insurers for individual property damage if that

results from the inappropriate proper legal case against the municipality, but

to hold fire-fighters individually liable and expect them to pay for their own

defence without any indemnification would be a rather harsh thing. It would

certainly discourage people from participating in volunteer fire-fighting

activities and, perhaps more importantly in some cases, particularly in

responding to emergencies, would discourage people from responding to calls, or

prevent them from responding to calls, because they do not have the kind of

protection that other professionals have in responding to emergencies, such as

doctors and nurses, under the Emergency Medical Aid Act, which provides for

special relief from ordinary negligence, I guess lawyers would call it, for

people engaged in responding to an emergency who have specialized medical

training.

I agree with the principle of the bill and, in doing so,

thank hon. members for their time in listening to my remarks.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a couple of minutes this afternoon

to say a few words in support of this particular piece of legislation. I guess

if the minister said one thing right it was certainly that this particular bill

is long overdue. It is certainly of benefit to fire-fighters throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, especially those who are of a volunteer nature.

In my particular district, the District of Conception Bay

South, I have two volunteer fire departments: one in Holyrood and the other one

in Conception Bay South, which is partially paid and then at night time and on

weekends, of course, it is the same as the one in Holyrood; it is strictly done

on a volunteer basis.

I would like to applaud the minister for this particular bill

today. I am sure it gives some relief to fire-fighters throughout this Province,

and people who give freely of their time, night and day, to tend to the needs of

citizens throughout this Province. I think it is a great piece of legislation.

It should certainly easy their mind as it comes to lawsuits, and things of that

nature. We have seen what happened on Bell Island.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I certainly support this

bill. It has certainly been long overdue, and I am sure the fire-fighters of

this Province will certainly appreciate it.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on Bill 43, "An Act To

Provide Fire-Fighters With Protection From Personal Liability". I can go on, I

suppose, and take up the time of the House and tell about the eleven years that

I spent as a fire department member back in my own home town. I am not going to

do that, although I can fully understand why this piece of legislation was

brought about, especially in areas where fire departments were formed being a

new organization, I suppose, if you would, in that particular community. No

matter what you brought in, in some rural areas, it was not always agreed to by

everybody in the community, and when volunteer firemen went out to respond to a

fire it was always a situation where somebody would say: You destroyed too much

of my house; or, you used too much water; or, You should have had the fire out

quicker; or, You were driving too fast going through the community. Those are

all common complaints that you have to live with, especially in rural areas

where somehow we still do not accept that our volunteer firemen, because they

work as volunteers, are as well trained or as knowledgable about their equipment

as probably somebody in St. John's or Corner Brook.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. Many

people, in fact 99.9 per cent of the people out in rural Newfoundland who are

volunteer firemen, are well trained, and they are very familiar with their water

pumps, and how to hook up a y valve, and how to get a mist on your nozzle, and

what pressures to use, and how you should (inaudible) a pump, and all these

kinds of things. They are very, very knowledgable about that, but the one thing

they were lacking was protection, and this bill provides that.

I would like to call the minister to this particular

section

of the bill, because I need clarification on it myself. I always go back to one

fire department in my particular constituency, Mr. Speaker, which had the

initiative to see a need and even though there was no town council or no other

form of local government, went out - and through the sale of cold plates,

through putting off concerts and selling tickets, taking

part in raffles - went

out and purchased not one fire truck, Mr. Speaker, but two fire trucks.

Purchased their equipment and paid for it completely themselves and I am talking

about the fire department in Lethbridge, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stood here the other day and said that there was

going to be a piece of legislation that was going to be brought forward that

would provide those fire-fighters with a degree of protection as well. I would

imagine that what he was talking about was workmen's compensation. I would

imagine or I would hope because those particular firemen, those particular

groups of volunteers, Mr. Speaker, don't have the protection of workmen's

compensation. The reason they don't have it is for the simple fact that they

don't belong to a municipality and to me that is wrong. If you are going out and

exposing yourself to the same risk that people in other areas are exposing

themselves to, Mr. Speaker, then the government should respond to the action of

volunteers and provide them with protection. Now if the minister would, maybe he

can address this now or he can respond to it when he gets up to close debate.

In the third paragraph, Mr. Speaker,

Section 2(a), it says,

"In this Act "fire department" means a fire department organized under the

Municipalities Act , the City of St. John's Act or the City of

Corner Brook Act and includes a fire department established in an

unincorporated area of the province." It is very clear. Turn the page, Mr.

Speaker, and go on over to

Section 4(2), it talks about indemnification. It

says, "Indemnification under subsection (1) shall be made, in the case of a

fire-fighter in a municipal fire department or local service district fire

department, by that municipal corporation or local service district committee."

So I say to the minister, who is going to be responsible for paying

indemnification to a fire-fighter if he is liable in an unincorporated

community?

MR. A. REID: Other than a local service district. A local

service district is not incorporated.

MR. FITZGERALD: Other than a local service district - is

not incorporated. So in this particular area that I am referring to, in the one

area you talk about unincorporated communities so I guess you include local

service districts there. You go on to mention that as well but in this

particular instance I am talking about the Lethbridge fire department in

particular, what and who is going to be responsible for the indemnification if

one of those twenty-eight volunteer firemen, should they be proved or should

they be taken to court and have to prove that they are not liable for - yes, I

say to the hon. member I still can.

So I ask the minister if he would provide me with some

clarification on that particular item because that is of great concern to me.

When I go out and speak to local volunteer firemen - and those people are your

true volunteers in the community, as important as church organizations, Mr.

Speaker, as important as Lions Clubs, Kinsmen Clubs and Knights of Columbus.

Those people all go out and get involved in an association or an organization

and it is all done on a schedule. They plan their nights, the nights that they

meet. They plan when they are going to have their socials and everything is done

towards planning. Mr. Speaker, a volunteer firemen does not have that luxury. In

fact, it is not uncommon to see a volunteer firemen sitting beside you in church

on Sunday morning or to be out to another function in the community and all of a

sudden you hear a beeper going off and the gentleman runs and exits through the

door. He does not go home to change, I suggest to the members opposite and take

off his white shirt or his new suit. He goes, Mr. Speaker, and responds to an

emergency. If there is anybody in this Province - and the minister, the Premier

spoke about bringing in a volunteer medal that would look at and recognize the

services of volunteers across this Province, and if there is anybody in this

Province today who would be deserving of recognition for such a medal as a

volunteer service medal, then I would suggest you will find them in the

fire-fighting services, and those are the people who should be recognized and I

commend the minister for bringing forward this piece of legislation. It is

certainly, badly needed.

We have seen a couple of incidents already where, firemen

have had to go to court. It is not enough for them to go out and risk their

lives for other people, strangers in most cases, Mr. Speaker, other people to

protect lives or to protect property. Mr. Speaker, it is about time that we

started putting something back and protecting firemen themselves. This is a step

towards that, but I say to the minister that I look forward with anticipation

when he introduces the other piece of legislation here that would deal with

workmen's compensation as it relates to volunteer firemen who are enlisted in

the service in unincorporated communities, not only local service districts but

other communities out there today, who saw need, responded to it and provide a

human service in this Province.

So I ask the minister, when he stands in his place, if he

would address my concern with this piece of legislation here because it is

something that I want to take back to my constituents and say: Here is a piece

of legislation that was passed in the House and I would like to be able to get

up and say what it entails, what protection it is going to give them rather than

just guess at it and say that should have been brought up in the House. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think another colleague on this side may want to address this piece

of legislation, not belabour it but congratulate the minister for bringing

forward a piece of legislation that is going to affect volunteers out there

today who need to be recognized and need to be protected.

Thank you.

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

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

I just wanted to rise to say to the minister that this is a

piece of legislation that we have been looking forward to for some time. He had

talked about it last session and it is rare that, all of us on this side of the

House can get up and congratulate any member of the government, but today we

have, each in our own turn, been able to stand and say that this is a great

piece of legislation. We almost did it yesterday until we read the fine print,

when the Minister of Education was tabling Bills 48 and 27, but today, on

tabling this particular piece of legislation, we do not believe that the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has any hidden agenda here, that he

has analyzed the language with the exceptions that have been noted by my hon.

colleagues here.

I am not going to give the minister my long involvement in a

volunteer fire department. I had some involvement in a volunteer fire department

but then the powers that be of the time that we were involved in that particular

exercise decided that that would cease to be an operation and they took away the

Mount Pearl Fire Department and said that we should be part of the regional

system. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, that his actions today give great comfort to volunteer

firemen throughout this entire Province and my colleagues have all noted the

incident and in particular the incident dealing with Bell Island a couple of

years ago and what happened over there and the kind of trauma that brought to

the fire-fighter involved.

So, Mr. Speaker. with these few comments I do believe that

maybe one more of my colleagues might want to have a few words on this

particular bill, but if not, then we will await the minister's concluding

comments.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. colleague from Bonavista - look at

Section 3. Now, I

am going to have to do this. Quite honestly, I am going to have to look over

your shoulder every now and then to make sure what I am saying is correct

because I am not 100 per cent sure. John Moore is in the gallery and I am going

to look at him every now and then, and if he is continually doing that I am

okay, I will keep talking.

You asked about a community that is a non-incorporated

community and not a local service district.

Section 3 will protect those

fire-fighters. The action or other proceedings for damage shall not be

instituted against a fire-fighter for

an act done in good faith - and those are

the main words there, in the execution or intended execution of his or her duty,

or for any neglect, or for any alleged neglect or default in the execution of

good faith in his or her duty, so they are protected. They cannot be charged for

anything they are doing in the act of good faith.

Now, if they go out and catch a place on fire and burn it to

the ground, anybody is going to be found negligent in that particular case, but

if they are going in response to a call from a resident who is saying their

house is on fire and they want the fire department to come, they are protected.

The only problem with it is this, there is nobody to pay the bill, so, I

suppose, ultimately the fire departments themselves will have to come together

and pay the bill as a joint group, or the person who is charged. If he is found

not guilty and the magistrate does not award charges to somebody else, and I do

not know who somebody will, unless it is the person who complained, then the

person himself would have to pay the legal charges.

MR. FITZGERALD: Then the protection is still not there

for this group of volunteer firemen.

MR. A. REID: Oh, no, it only goes half way.

MR. FITZGERALD: (inaudible) the liability but still there

is a cost incurred and the fire department has to be willing to (inaudible)

MR. A. REID: That's right, to pay for it, but we have

been talking to some of them and even half-way to them means a lot, because

right now they are protected anyway. They are not protected financially but they

are protected from any court action whereby one of them is going to end up going

through the embarrassing situation that buddy on Bell Island went through, so a

lot of them are satisfied with that. Someday down the road maybe we will find

some way to bring in legislation, I suppose, and maybe government will pay for

it, or something like that, but I will address that.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe the Department of Municipal Affairs

(inaudible) responsible for any indemnity-

MR. A. REID: I will address that question. That is an

interesting question and maybe we should look at it based on the number of fire

departments we have in the Province like that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would not say there is a lot, Mr.

Minister.

MR. A. REID: There is only one in the whole Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I pay particular attention to the comment my

hon. friend for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi made in regards to the wording in

Section 4. We are going to ask the table to look at that again, and if we need

to make any changes then we can do that in committee or third reading.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, to the House, to my hon.

colleagues across the way, and to my own supporters on this side. This was a big

day. They were in today to make their annual presentation to me, anyway. I asked

the hon. House Leader, and he had to ask your House Leader over there, if I

could do this today with them present, and I appreciate the fact that all those

people who are out there, 6500 volunteers in the Province, 300 fire departments,

we all know what they are doing. We know what they are doing in the coves and

inlets, in the bays and towns, especially in rural Newfoundland. We know what

they are doing. They are doing a darn good job, and thank you very much for the

opportunity. I thank my colleagues in the House and I now move second reading.

MR. FITZGERALD: If you were to bring that in and make the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs responsible for the indemnity

(inaudible) or could it be done under regulations?

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your answer from the gallery.

MR. A. REID: I do not know and he does not know either.

Leave it alone and I will find out what the pros and cons of it are. You will

still have a chance to do it if you need to. If you want to move an amendment in

committee, do it in committee. Let second reading go through and I will get the

information for you, okay? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide Fire-fighters With

Protection From Personal Liability," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 43)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 24, second reading of a

bill,

An Act Respecting A Provincial College, Bill No. 47.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting A

Provincial College". (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few brief

comments by way of introduction for Bill No. 47,

An Act Respecting A Provincial

College. There are a couple of things I want to point out and bring to the

attention of hon. members that are contained in the bill that may not be overly

obvious or may not be seen to be overly significant from a first reading.

We have had the bill in the Legislature now for some time,

since almost the opening of this session. There is a little bit of a history to

the development of the college system in the Province. We sort of have gone

almost completely round the circle over a period of time from having a

provincial college system to having some regional colleges, to going back to

five colleges. A few years ago there was a white paper established. It is

probably fair to say there has been as much change in the college system in the

Province in the last decade as there has been in anything, as we have tried

several models.

In the budgetary process last spring we made the

announcement, made the provisions for and provided the money for a single

college system. Because we had debated for some time, while there was merit and

worth to having local concerns, local priorities addressed through what is still

the current legal structure of a Labrador college, a West Viking college, a

Central Newfoundland regional college, an Eastern College and Cabot College, and

while they had different priorities for programming and so on, they have been

saying repeatedly for several years that there were a number of administrative

tasks that they could perform together. That they might not necessarily need

five separate payroll divisions, they might not necessarily need five separate

human resource divisions, they might not necessarily need five different

computer systems to serve their needs.

At the end of the piece, because that whole process had

stalled over the last two or three years, I guess with a little push from the

government in the Budget process we put enough money into the Budget for one

administrative structure instead of five. In short order after that budgetary

decision

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: - when we were in a position to create a

single college board where there used to be five - the phrase we used I think

most repeatedly was a gentle nudge. We gave the system a gentle nudge through

the budgetary process.

As a result we do have currently today a single college board

that has been in place since early in the summer. It has been working well, it

has a lot of work done. However, technically and by law in the Province we still

have acts that provide for separate colleges. This piece of legislation, Bill

No. 47, gives legislative effect to the single board that has actually been in

place. We found a technical legal manoeuvre to put a single board in place. What

it amounts to is that the current chairman of the college board, to serve the

purposes of present day legislation, has been appointed to chair the Labrador

board, the West Viking board, the Central Newfoundland board, the Eastern board

and the Cabot board. So technically he is chairing five boards, but they are

running them all as if they are one, because they were taking government

direction from the Budget process of last spring.

So now to give legal status to the single board which is in

practice now working, this changes the language. The language before in the

separate college acts said there will be a president for each of the colleges.

This says there will be a president for the college. So we have now gone from

five presidents to one president. They are organizing their staff. Everything is

in place and working well.

What I wanted to point out, the two things I would draw to

members' attention, is that there is one policy shift in Bill No. 47. What it

does, consistent with the schools legislation from yesterday, it does provide

for an increased level of autonomy for the board itself, and less direct

decision making through the minister's office and the Department of Education.

That is a policy shift. We discussed it with the new board. It asked to be given

the opportunity to make more of the decisions relating to programming, campus

openings and closings and those types of issues, than it previously had. There

were a number of references in the previous legislation that gave the college

the right to make recommendations to the minister on issues like that. This

piece of legislation now says that it can make the decision. It doesn't have to

refer to the minister. It is actually empowered to make the decisions, and the

government reserves the right, if we think they have gone astray in terms of

abandoning a public policy issue with respect to the provision of post-secondary

education through the college system, there is a reservation right in one of the

clauses for the minister to meet with the board and intervene and suggest a

different direction if he thinks they have gone completely off the track with

respect to public policy.

That issue is there and we are very proud, on page 6,

section

10.(5) that we found an opportunity in this piece of legislation - and I point

it out so that members might look for it in other pieces of legislation - we

tried to give a signal in this bill that we are taking very seriously the matter

of gender equity with respect to appointed boards. We did not have a very good

gender balance on the interim boards for the K-XII system. We have gender

balance with respect to the college board because we appointed five males and

five females to the ten board position. There is a male Chair, so it is six to

five in reality.

When we had those appointments totally at the discretion of

the government we achieved gender balance, but there are provisions for the

faculty and for the student council to appoint representatives and, as was the

case with this board, they had the right of appointment and they nominated

males. So again it started to throw out of balance what the government had

accomplished in the original ten. It ended up being dominated again by males.

The provision in

section 10.(5) shows that when others have

the right to name people to a board, as in this case - and there are several

examples of this all through government - that it asks those people to name and

put forward a male and a female so that the government, in making the final

selection, will be able to live true to our commitment of gender equity on the

boards to the greatest extent possible.

In many instances, organizations that have a right to appoint

by virtue of their position have sent in a list of names many times dominated by

males, and it often times throws out of kilter the efforts of the government to

try to have a gender balance on the board.

I wanted to point out those two issues that are not directly

related and not critically important to the functioning of the new single

college, but they are important signals in Bill 47, and I look forward to

commentary in the debate from members opposite with respect to their study of

the bill that they have looked at over the past couple of weeks in preparation

for this debate today.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the

comments that will be made. Again, as with all bills, if there are major areas

of concern we can look at them in committee stage clause-by-clause as to whether

or not there needs to be some adjustments to make the bill better meet the needs

that are designed to be accomplished and met in this piece of legislation.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, how smooth is this minister?

How smooth does he believe himself to be, when he stands up in this Legislature

and says that back in April when we completely restructured the community

college structure, we took a heavy-handed approach, we closed down campuses, we

did not consult, and say: What we did was that we gave a little nudge to the

process, a small nudge.

Members in this House who had community colleges restructured

- I attended meetings in Clarenville and Carbonear. People were very concerned.

They had no consultation. First-year university courses - Lewisporte -

MR. J. BYRNE: Bell Island.

MR. E. BYRNE: Bell Island.

First-year university courses completely eliminated in many

centres, and the minister stands up today and introduces a piece of legislation

which actually confirms what government has already done. The debate from that

point of view is over. It gives us, as an Opposition, and as members of the

House, to have another say, but says that after taking the high-handed,

uneven-handed, hobnailed boots sort of approach to post-secondary education in

this Province, that what government actually decided to do - a new government at

the time - was give the structure a little push, a little nudge, in a direction

that they thought would bring significant gains.

MR. J. BYRNE: A legal manoeuvre, he said.

MR. E. BYRNE: A legal manoeuvre? It was a manoeuvre, no

question about that but I could not help but make that comment after listening

to the minister's statements. I mean, it caused significant concern to many

people in many areas and legitimately.

We have spent the last twenty-five years in this Province

dealing with post-secondary education to ensure a number of things. One, that

equality of opportunity exists, that young people coming from the high school

systems had an opportunity to either attend Memorial University, to attend a

post-secondary institute such as Cabot, such as Eastern Community College,

Central Community College and, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that, that was a

foundation and a principle that each and every one of us in this Legislature now

and each and every former elected member wanted to go and where they wanted to

go, the community college structure was set up about fifteen years ago to do

exactly that, to provide opportunity to rural students in this Province so that

they would better be able to put themselves in a more employable situation to

access skills.

Now along the way, Mr. Speaker, what was decided not so long

ago by a Liberal Administration under the former Premier was that - along the

way, the Premier of the day made commitments that first year university courses

would be made accessible as well in these community colleges and for very good

reason, again based upon certain tenets that students who were coming out of the

high school system would have an opportunity in their first year to access first

year university programs to meet requirements by departments and faculties above

and beyond first year but more importantly, they would be able to do so as close

to their homes as possible. Now this was a philosophy that was paramount and was

evident in everything that government of the day did throughout the 80s and the

early 90s and, Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing now and what we saw back in

April, was a lack of consultation, very much a lack of consultation very similar

to the new HST piece of legislation that is before us.

I attended a press conference by the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board and he said: Consultation is absolutely open. People can comment

on this during our next budgetary review and budgetary consultations across the

Province. I said it then and I will say again now: When you make a decision, a

policy decision, a major policy initiative that locks the people of this

Province into a four-year commitment, and then purport that the people of the

Province can consult on it after, is too late. The horse and the animals have

left the barn, I say, Mr. Speaker, it is too late and that is what happened when

we talked about the community college, or the structure of the community

colleges.

But more, Mr. Speaker, to the point in terms of the bill

before us. Outside of government's approach and outside of what they have done,

this bill in many ways shapes and forms, as I have indicated, essentially

proclaims and makes legal what government has already done. Now there are parts

of this piece of legislation that I support wholeheartedly.

For example, one of the inherent problems that became evident

in the old college system was that the Central Community College may be

producing a number of graduates in certain areas. The Eastern Community College

started to produce graduates in certain areas, the Western Community College,

West Viking, began to produce graduates in certain training areas but what

happened along the way was that a competitive process began to be initiated.

Community colleges got into accessing HRD funding, they became corporations unto

themselves and what we began doing, and what we lacked and I think what this

will correct is that, we began producing graduates say, in a particular area, it

could be mechanics.

We began producing more graduates than what the employment

opportunities existed for. There were actual cases where we produced 1,100,

1,200 and 1,300 graduates for what the market said and what all market surveys

and employment surveys said that what existed next year was possibly jobs for

200 people. So it came off the rails and it came off the rails for a number of

reasons, not the least of which it was not under one central administration. I

support that. I think that is a solid move and I think it is a good move. In the

legislation it clearly says that one of the responsibilities by law - not by

regulation, not by a minute of the new board but by law, that this new college

structure must identify the education and training requirements of the labour

market in the Province and provide courses or programs itself or in cooperation

with other educational institutions operating under

an act to the Province and

other provinces of Canada to meet those requirements.

Essentially what that

section says, Mr. Speaker, is that we

can no longer justify producing 1200, 1400 and 1600 graduates in a particular

area when the labour market does not demand them. On the other side of the coin,

with the opportunities that exist in terms of a very strong - what seems to be

and what all indications are, are going to be a very strong offshore development

industry over the next twenty-five to thirty years, then our task relating to

this piece of legislation, our task is to identify those opportunities that will

exist, to identify those new skills that will exist, to put courses and

instructions of courses and degree programs, technology programs, diploma

programs that do not yet exist but will so that we can train Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, men and women coming up through the system, so that they will be

able to meet those job opportunities.

It never should have happened, Mr. Speaker, in an industry

like the offshore oil and gas industry which is at its - what most would agree -

embryonic stage, it is just beginning. The Hibernia site was but a first baby

step, a huge one but yet a baby step. It should never happen, ten years from now

we should not be in a position where qualified Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,

number one, are not getting jobs where jobs exist for them because people from

outside the Province are coming in. Number two, where we see opportunities in

the future for employment and where those skills do not exist in the Province

today than we have to act with more foresight. We have to ensure that those

programs are available throughout our post-secondary division. We have to train

people right now so our reliance as a society and our reliance on an industry

will not depend on specialists from outside this Province.

Now there will always be a need to some extent, I suppose,

Mr. Speaker, for specialist, for people to come in and assist us with industry

developments or our social initiatives. Specialists that by their own renown and

background academic and life experience where we can learn from them but we

should try to limit that to the greatest extent possible. Limit it so that

people in this Province can become a specialist; people in this Province can

travel to Norwegian countries and talk about offshore oil development; that

people in this Province can go to the Gulf of Mexico and talk about how to build

the best gravity based platforms; how to build the best floating based

platforms; how to build those sorts of developments with the greatest

technology, with the most experience but that begins here, Mr. Speaker. It does

not begin with our reliance on somebody else, from another part of the world,

coming in and showing us how to do it. If we do not prepare ourselves who will

prepare us for those advantages? Nobody.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not going to belabour the point

because for the most part single administration - which is the greatest

initiative here - a single administration allows for single control, which is

important. It allows for one administration to make decisions on where best to

offer programs, at what time and when. It may very well be that in Lewisporte

for example, the opportunities that exist in that region, it may be that in

terms of marine and our marine initiatives in terms of our program, it may be

that the administration may say that is a better place to deliver our programs

than any other place. That may be, I am just using a hypothetical situation. If

a place exists where we see a program can be delivered and that right on our

doorstep there are industries that are operating, for example like Marystown in

terms of the Shipyard and shipbuilding industry there, then why shouldn't we

offer programs in that area? Because students can leave and go across the street

and access the tangible experience which more and more the labour market is

demanding. More than ever before.

I can't leave without saying to the minister again that I

look forward to more descriptions of government initiatives in terms of giving

certain initiatives a gentle nudge this way or a little push this way. Because

I'm sure many members in the House, including the Speaker who is now sitting in

the Chair, certainly considered it more than a gentle nudge. I'm convinced, and

I know, that many people in his area certainly, when he got called - I don't

know if he would describe the calls that he got or the meetings that he had that

people were nudging him in a gentle and very fond-like fashion. I sincerely

doubt it.

On the whole, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation which is

introduced as I see it is housekeeping. It incorporates much of what already

exists under other pieces of legislation. It really identifies and puts into

play legally what already exists, and I look forward to some comments in the

clause-by-clause debate, but I expect very few. With that I will sit down. Thank

you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After the

presentation given by my colleague the Member for Kilbride there is really very

little to add. He has essentially said it all with respect to this piece of

legislation which is before us now, Bill No. 47,

An Act Respecting A Provincial

College. He speaks of the development of this legislation. Having sat in the

former House of Assembly he is familiar with the development and discussions

which took place concerning the formation of a provincial college here in this

Province.

This is essentially what can be referred to as retroactive

legislation. There is really nothing new in Bill No. 47. What this bill does is

essentially incorporate the changes that have been taken thus far in the

reorganization and the unification of a provincial college system here in this

Province. Changes of significance with respect to the provincial colleges have

been taking place essentially since this government has taken office. We see it

with consolidation after consolidation, when and where possible, and we see it

in the naming of the provincial headquarters.

I had some difficulty with that choice, because obviously as

individual members of this House we each come to this House as representatives

of a particular constituency. Of course, each of us would like to see an

administrative facility such as the headquarters of this college within our own

constituency, or certainly within the region adjacent to the constituency that

we represent. Obviously, looking at it simply as a member of this House for a

St. John's riding, there was some disappointment that this particular locale was

not selected.

However, I guess at times, regardless of our constituency, we

sometimes have to look at the broad strokes, we have to look at the benefits

which may accrue to the Province generally. It seems to be that - and I can only

hope - the choice and the selection which was made was done for fiscal reasons,

and was done taking into account what was in the best interest of the people of

this Province generally.

We see in clause 3 that Cabinet will choose the headquarters

site, so it is quite an authority and power which is given to Cabinet. Obviously

this can change from year to year, or certainly perhaps from term to term.

However, I would think that once a site is chosen that again, from a fiscal

point of view, Cabinet will do the wise and appropriate thing and ensure that

for financial reasons there isn't a change made in the location of this site for

arbitrary reasons.

Also, in clause 7, it lets Cabinet appoint a president, as

was the case in the former

section 10, with some change. The board no longer

submits a list of potential candidates. So, again, the Cabinet is given

significant power and authority in the selection of a president of this new

college.

I would like to refer also briefly to clause 20, which

corresponds to the former clause 23 and which allows for borrowing. I can only

hope and advise that obviously this be done carefully and prudently to ensure

that yes, immediately, it is in the best interest of the college and its board

and staff and personnel and so on, but again indirectly, this will have benefits

for the people of this Province. So the exercise of authority and discretion in

its borrowing powers has to be carried out very, very carefully.

Clause 27 on regulations, being similar to the former clause

30, these are regulations which Cabinet are allowed to make, which is not

unusual, which would be similar to any power given pursuant to

an Act with

respect to subordinate legislation. These regulations, unlike those in 1991,

emphasize instructor certification and high standards, so there is some

recognition being given to the issue of standardization and to the increased

demand in our society in our post-secondary educational level that standards be

high, standards be accredited, and they be recognized as standards with

credibility in our provincial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I will now conclude. There is really very little

extra that I have to say in support of this legislation. It is essentially a

housekeeping bill. It is essentially retroactive. It simply formalizes decisions

that this government and its Cabinet have previously made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

debate. The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for being a little

tardy in rising.

I appreciate the comments made in the debate, recognizing

again, as the hon. member has pointed out, despite some language that was used

to try to suggest that things were done in a certain way, the reality is that we

are formalizing here something that is already in effect in the Province and

that I believe most people believe would be an improvement in the system in the

long haul.

Again I expect, as I said in the introductory comments, if

there are areas of major concern that remain, we will deal with them in

Committee stage and consider any amendments that are needed to make it a better

piece of legislation.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second

reading of Bill 47.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting A Provincial College",

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on

tomorrow. (Bill No. 47)

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to motion

25, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental Act". (Bill No. 31)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Dental

Act". (Bill No. 31)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments about the amendments to the Dental

Act, an introduction of some amendments here. None of the amendments are what I

would characterize as being substantive but are more of a housekeeping nature.

They are not really something to get your teeth into in a serious way, but they

need to be attended to by way of some legislative changes.

The first issue being addressed in the amendments to the

Dental Act is to recognize the new level of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members would be

quiet for a minute I have something they can get their teeth into, I tell them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: And two tongues hung in the middle.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Dental Act needs to be amended

to take care of a couple of issues. First of all, there has been the

introduction into the dental profession, as a paraprofessional, I guess, the

designation of a person known as a dental assistant; and in order to ensure that

the practice of being a dental assistant is recognized within their profession,

we need to amend the Act to do that. As a result of dental assistants becoming a

part of the operation of a dentist's office in the normal course of events,

there needs to be provision made in the Dental Act to ensure that they can sit

on the dental board, and in order to accomplish that we have to amend the Act to

make provision for it.

Thirdly, of course, as a result of adding dental assistants

to the dental board, we need to adjust the number of dentists who sit on the

board so that there is not a disproportionate number of others, I suppose, to

dentists, as professions on that board. Clause 3 of the bill is being amended to

ensure that dentists are required to undergo specific education training, or

retraining, as the board deems appropriate.

As well, hon. members would know that professionally

regulated bodies, or self-governing - in order to ensure that dentists, like all

other professionals, continue to be fully qualified to practice their trade,

ongoing educational training is required. This amendment to the Act under Clause

Section 26 (4) of the Act ensures that the board has the appropriate

authority to enforce educational enhancements for their members.

Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the act are being amended as well to

ensure that dentists, in cases where they have to go through disciplinary

hearings with members, can recover the costs that are incurred in those

disciplinary hearings. We need to ensure that they have the ability not only to

have the hearings and to enforce discipline, but that they also have the ability

to recover appropriate costs, which sometimes can be considerable when going

into those situations.

The last area that needs to be mentioned is subsection 9. It

is being added t