December 14, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 52

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome, on

behalf of all members today, the Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Municipalities, and they are seated in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am

delighted to rise in the House today to inform my hon. colleagues of this

government's continued commitment to post-secondary education and also to the

Arts in our Province with some new developments of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College

in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, this government will contribute $3 million towards the

construction of new student residences and $4 million to build an exhibition

centre at Memorial University's Sir Wilfred Grenfell College campus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The new student residences will cost $7.5 million to construct.

Memorial University will contribute the remainder through bank financing and

revenues it expects to derive from rental of the residence rooms.

Three clusters of four residence buildings will each be constructed for a

total of 300 beds. The design is intended to blend with the natural setting of

the campus and, as an alternative to the traditional dormitory arrangement,

apartment-style units will be built, with one-, two- and three-bedroom

arrangements per unit. This type of residence will appeal to the growing

population of mature students, as well as to students preferring non-dormitory

living arrangements and those with families. The anticipated completion date for

the project is winter 2001-2002.

Since Sir Wilfred Grenfell College was established in 1975, the focus of the

college has shifted and its academic facilities expanded so that it now offers

full four-year undergraduate degree programs in ten program areas and has a

student enrolment of 1,200.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The new residences

are essential to Grenfell's development as a residential liberal arts and

science institution. In the next two to three years, the college aims to expand

the student population to 1,500 and eventually to 1,800. Currently, Grenfell can

accommodate only half of the students who apply for its 188 residence rooms.

Mr. Speaker, the new residences will meet the demand from current students

and the anticipated demand from new students recruited by the college.

When the residences are not fully occupied, primarily during the summer

months, they will be available as visitor accommodations, enhancing the city's

ability to host large conventions, trade shows and other events.

The residences will almost double the number accommodations currently

available in the Corner Brook area in the peak summer tourism season, thus

contributing to the economic development of the city and region.

Speaking of tourism and the associated economic development, it is my

pleasure to tell hon. members about the new fine arts facility at the Sir

Wilfred Grenfell College which is supported wholeheartedly by my colleague, the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. It will be approximately 15,000

square feet and will include environmentally controlled exhibition and storage

space for visiting artists, a multimedia lecture theater, workshop space,

offices and more. The gallery will showcase works of art, and museum and achieve

exhibits. The exhibition center will be connected to the Grenfell campus by a

covered link.

The design of the new exhibition center will begin shortly. It is anticipated

that architectural design work will be completed by next fall, at which time

tenders will be called and site preparation work can begin. Construction is

expected to coincide with the new student residences and also to be completed by

the winter of 2001-2002.

As most of you know, yesterday government announced an investment of $40

million to begin construction of a new provincial gallery, museum and archives.

The Rooms, as the facility will be known, will be located in Fort Townshend in

the capital city - in the historic core of the oldest city in North America.

Mr. Speaker, this important step in the preservation of our cultural heritage

signals that we, as a Province, are taking full responsibility for ensuring that

our heritage is protected for the future. It also ensures that our historical

and cultural treasures will be accessible to everyone, residents and visitors

alike.

The new exhibition center at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College will complement The

Rooms. It will be a showplace for our cultural history on the West Coast of the

Province and will be an integral part of the operation of our other key cultural

institutions.

The facility will be owned and operated by Memorial University but will be

linked to the provincial gallery, museum and archives through a cooperative

arrangement that will see the Province's cultural, historic and artistic

treasures shared between institutions for all residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador to enjoy.

Exhibits will be shared between the provincial art gallery, museum and

archives in St. John's and the new facility in Corner Brook. As well, the

center will provide community programming in the arts for the whole region. I am

confident this showcase will become an integral part of the community and a

tremendous tourism draw for resident and non-resident visitors all year round.

Mr. Speaker, today's announcement connects exciting developments in

post-secondary education and the arts in our Province. I look forward to the

completion of both projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can see that there is a future career for the minister in reading the news

either as anchor on NTV or CBC.

Seriously, this is an important statement from this point of view. Across the

country there are very few post-secondary institutions that deal in the fine

arts. The view has long been held that in Corner Brook - like many other small

cities within Canada, such as where Mount St. Vincent is located, where Mount

Allision is located - we have an opportunity to build upon the direction where

this institution has been going for fine arts to develop a niche, so to speak.

The announcement today of expansion of rooms to meet a growing demand is good

news. I know the government wants to be seen, as well, on the West Coast in

terms of cultural heritage. The other announcement that was made could be see as

an anchor for artists, but that is not the real story, while we support that.

The real story is this. What is the state of the Province's finances,

truly? In the last couple of days we have seen significant announcements. We

have seen a budget where there was a forecasted small deficit. The question for

government is this. How much more money is government getting on equalization

this year than they did last year? Last year, government ran up about $160

million deficit. We broke the story. They received in addition to what was

already announced in the budget - because equ alization

payments were up - about $180 million. So government is in the position right

now where they have the knowledge, they have not shared it with anybody, in

terms of knowing how much more money is coming into the provincial coffers and

provincial revenues, which is fair enough.

Besides these announcements, which have been good onto themselves and good

public policy reasons to move in their direction, how much more money is coming

in equalization? What else can we expect government to do outside of what was

announced in the budget? Because these initiatives clearly were not. What more

can we expect and in what areas?

I say to the minister that as she sits down and tries to divvy up what to do

with extra funding coming into the Province, that while the initiative today on

the West Coast is very good, the parents in St. John's West, with respect to

school reform - another west end of this Province - deserve some consideration

when it comes to school reform and implementing the opportunities and the

commitments made by government.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me say that we welcome any effort to expand, develop and

improve the ability of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College to be a first rate fine arts

college and a liberal arts college as well. It is part of the largest university

in Atlantic Canada. We are very pleased that this development is taking place

both with respect to the residence and the ability to house full-time students,

and also the exhibition centre which will be an important part of our Province's

ability to display our arts an d artistic endeavors.

Let me say that this is money that is being spent on what is called bricks

and mortar. While this is necessary, it is also necessary to ensure that our

students have adequate access to post-secondary education in this Province. When

we have seen, under the Liberal government since 1989, a 250 per cent increase

in tuition in less than a decade, it is making it increasingly difficult -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - for students to go to this very fine institution, Mr.

Speaker, and something should be done about that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More good news.

I would like to advise members of the House of Assembly that the Province has

entered into an agreement with Unisys Canada and xwave solutions which creates

an electronic, personal property registry system for the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

This new service, which reforms outdated legislative and business practices

in our personal property registry, is now on line as of yesterday.

The formal announcement took place at a news conference held just prior to

the opening of the House.

At that time, I was joined by David Wagner, President and CEO of Unisys and

Peter Shea, Vice-President, Public Sector Practice with xwave. Also in

attendance at the conference were: Peter Ringrose, Executive Director of the Law

Society of Newfoundland; Sam Walters, Chair of the Canadian Bankers Association;

Ray Piercey, a member of the Board of the Directors of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Credit Union; and Miss Gerlinde Van Driel, President of the Canadian

Bar Association.

These representatives are also here in the House today. I would like them

recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Their presence, Mr. Speaker, is a strong indication of just

how welcome this new system is.

With Unisys and xwave, we now offer a service that is in line with services

provided throughout this country.

Using a personal computer with a modem or Internet access, clients of the

registry now give electronic notice of their security interest or encumbrance on

personal properties such as cars, boats and appliances. This registration

establishes their priority over other creditors with respect to these

properties.

The new system also enables new types of securities such as licences, leases

and stocks to be registered. The registration of these properties enables

individuals to use such assets as collateral when seeking financing.

Because information is now being transferred electronically, clients will no

longer have to visit a central registry located in St. John's to conduct their

business. They can access the service from any location in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Extended hours of operation are also in place. The new registry will

be available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

Registry clients also pay fees electronically as each transaction is

processed.

Because businesses can now conduct their operations in a more efficient

manner, this should also result in more timely service to the general public.

The new registry system will be made available through Atlantic Canada

On-Line, an electronic service providing access to information maintained by all

four provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. ACOL is managed by Unisys Canada

in partnership with the four provinces.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I would like to thank the minister for forwarding me a copy

of his statement before the House opened. Over the past couple of days I think I

am on the good news cruise here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that we are pleased with the

announcement today of the new personal property registration system. We are

pleased that our Province is keeping up with the technology from around the

country. Indeed, it gives opportunity for a concern that we certainly have

expressed on this side of the House as it relates to access to information by

rural Newfoundland.

I guess the fact that the registry now will be on-line and will be accessible

to, indeed, the whole Province and the opportunity with the new hours, that they

are going to be open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. now, Monday to Saturday, also

gives opportunity for people who find themselves at other things during the week

maybe having the whole day Saturday now to check in on things and to follow up

on details that they have.

I guess as part of that, government certainly should be talking to the

telephone companies, because I know in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's

we have a major problem with the telephone system. We can be on-line all we

like, but if we cannot get out after 6:00 p.m. in the evening it kind of

Hopefully by moving ahead with technology we will address the other concerns

that rural Newfoundland faces also.

Certainly, we welcome the news today, and as I say, anything that helps us

keep up with the rest of the world is good. Keeping up with technology is

important but there are always fears with the new technology, and my experience

a couple of weeks ago certainly bears out that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: You want to be careful when you are on-line with some

things. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we certainly welcome the news today also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important development because the more accessible and more

efficient use of a security registry system provides easier access to credit and

assists business activity to take place. We hope that this proves to be

successful and workable, and can be extended to other areas where government

keeps records of companies, deeds and things like that, that other provinces

have available through online systems as well. We look forward to further

developments in that area.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the individuals that form the Executive of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. Representing the

Federation and seated in the Speaker's gallery are:

President of the Federation Derm Flynn, Mayor of Appleton; Vice-President,

Councillor Carl Tessier of Gander; Southwest Director, Councillor Cynthia Downey

of Stephenville Crossing; and Dr. Patricia Hempstead, Executive Director of the

Federation.

Welcome to the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Federation made their annual

presentation to the Social Policy Committee of government. This meeting provided

an excellent opportunity for the Federation to engage in a meaningful dialogue

with ministers from the other social policy departments of government. As a

government, we are committed to listening to their ideas and suggestions and to

working co-operatively with them.

Collectively, this group of dedicated people represent the recently elected

Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. These

individuals, through their years of involvement in municipal politics, and to

their role in leading the Federation, demonstrate a true professionalism and

commitment to municipal governance and leadership in the Province. Government is

cognizant of the fine contribution that the Federation is making to local

government, and as Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I

commend them for that dedication and commitment.

As an organization, the Federation represents in excess of 90 per cent of the

municipal governments in the Province. Clearly, the Federation is a key

stakeholder for my department and I value their input on the key issues and

challenges in local governance. I believe there exists, today, a mutual

relationship of trust and respect between the municipalities and the provincial

government, and the Federation is to be commended for the vital role it has

played in fostering this environment.

In closing, I look forward to continuing to work with the newly elected

Executive of the Federation into the new millennium. By working together, we can

make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place in which to live.

May I offer my congratulations, again, to the newly elected president who

takes over from Sam Synard who has now gone on to the national body of

municipalities, and to wish them well in their deliberations and in their

working together with us over the next year for the betterment of local

government in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for telling me he had a statement this day

in the House of Assembly before the House sat. It was a relatively short

statement, so I think I can speak on that fairly easily.

I would like the welcome the members of the Executive of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Municipalities to the House today from this side. The

minister says that the Executive made the annual presentation to the Social

Policy Committee. It would do well for the government, and in particular the

minister, to listen to the Federation of Municipalities because in my

experience, and being a former mayor of a small town - I do not think the

present minister was a mayor of any municipality in the Province - I think it

would well for the minister to listen to the recommendations of the Federation

of Municipalities.

In particular, the rural municipalities in this Province have been hit very

hard by this Administration over the years. The municipal operating grants have

been cut almost 60 per cent over the past number of years. The infrastructure in

many municipalities in this Province is falling apart. We need to put some money

into the infrastructure in this Province.

So yes, the Federation of Municipalities and the people on that, and the

people who have been serving on it for years, and councillors in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

The councillors in this Province, some of them have served as many as twenty

and twenty-five years. There is real commitment out there and hopefully in the

near future this government will be able to give the same type of commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to welcome the Executive of the Federation of Municipalities

here today as well. I have known the President, Derm Flynn, for many years and I

can assure this House that under his direction the Federation will make many new

and progressive moves in the years to come.

I think it is also important, as well, for the minister to pay attention

because municipalities in this Province are the people who are the closest to

the population. They are the closest to the people of the Province and know the

wants and needs. I think it is important that when they meet with government

that government give them their ear, but even more important than that, to act

on the initiatives that the Federation wants to have carried out in the

communities across the Province.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. On Friday past,

the Premier speculated publicly that any notion of an in-feed or transmission

line with respect to the ongoing negotiations with the Lower Churchill would be

off because of the possibility - I emphasize that word - of natural gas.

Yesterday in the minister's statements it became evident as well.

My question is this. Last spring in the House of Assembly I asked the

minister directly - we were in possession of information that said the federal

government was not committed to working in good faith with this government and

the Province to ensure that an in-feed to the Island, and also ensuring that

power in Labrador, would be accessible to be used as a lynchpin and as a lever

to develop industry and economic potential for the Province.

Can the minister stand in the House today and tell us what is the federal

government's stance, and in telling us what the federal government's stance

is with respect to the transmission line and the in-feed, what has been the

Province's stance in response to that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide some information with respect to this

issue. The notion of a possibility of an in-feed from Labrador - particularly

associated with the development of the Lower Churchill project so that we could

have electrical energy from Labrador to supply the rest of Labrador and also to

the Island - is still a matter of joint working committees between the federal

and provincial governments. There have been no decisions taken. Officials from

the two governments are still trying to determine whether or not such a project

is feasible and economically viable. The expectation is that they will report

back, the latest that we heard, was by the spring, but in fact there has been no

decision taken.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition started his question by saying that

now the Premier said that the in-feed is off, that is it not a matter for

discussion any more. That is not the case. The issue that has been raised

publicly is that in the announcement of March 1998, the position put by the

government was that we would hope that at this point, if we did not get the

in-feed, we would not do any deal at all. What the Premier is saying publicly at

this point is that if the in-feed does not materialize because the federal

government does not contribute, it does not necessarily mean now that we will

not proceed with the rest of the project.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that last week we saw the Prime

Minister of the country talking about the necessity not necessarily for an

in-feed because of natural gas, the Premier saying exactly that on Friday, and

the minister standing today and saying that federal-provincial officials are

still negotiating.

How is it that any bona fide negotiations, good faith negotiations, can take

place when you have the leader of Newfoundland and Labrador, in terms of the

Premier of the Province, and the Prime Minister of the country, basically

scuttling it up front? How is it that such negotiations are meaningful, are

going to take place in good faith, when those two individuals, the Prime

Minister on the one hand, the Premier on the other hand, are speculating

publicly that there may not be a need for it?

Tell us exactly what the federal government's response is. My information

is that the federal government have said no. What I am looking for is what you,

on behalf of the people of this Province, have said back to the federal

government.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that his

information then is incorrect. The joint committees that are working -

representatives of the federal government and representatives of the provincial

government working together - have not yet concluded their studies. There is no

negotiation going on as such. There is a joint study being conducted to see

under which circumstance, if any, an in-feed to provide electrical energy from

Labrador developments to the Island could be economically feasible and

sustainable. That is the study that is occurring. It is not an negotiation. The

study is continuing.

What the Prime Minister of the country and the Premier have both said is that

there are other options available to Newfoundland and Labrador, so that if an

in-feed is not built it should not be the end of the world with respect to

meeting the electrical needs on the Island. It is a completely different and

unrelated issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is not unrelated. Minister, you know the

difference between natural gas. It is finite, it is non-renewable. The

difference in terms of renewable resource, hydro, as long as the water flows

into the Churchill River system, if we have the infrastructure in place and the

ability to provide energy, both in Labrador and in the Province, it will put

this Province in a position to offer industrial users or potential industrial

users low cost, continuous supply, uninterrupted supply of power.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question: You have

talked about, that there is a study being done. Studies have already been done.

The estimated cost associated with putting a transmission line or an in-feed to

the Island portion of the Province has been done for some time. Surely you can

provide us with more of an update than you already have on exactly what type of

real, legitimate, progress has been made on this very significant issue.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge that natural gas is finite in

quantity and hydro power, again, would be the ideal solution. That is why,

exactly why, the studies and the discussions between the two levels of

government are still proceeding and why we expect to get a report in the spring

certain set of assumptions, to make a significant contribution to an in-feed

which will cost slightly over $2 billion.

Obviously, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford to build

like for that still to be the long-term answer but there is no guarantee right

now.

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

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

My concern is that the leverage that we have as a Province, as we come close

to a Memorandum of Understanding, if one can exist and if the conditions are

right, that the leverage that we have in terms of a transmission line to ensure

that the real benefits - unlike the Upper Churchill system - for generations to

come, for people in this Province, lies in the fact that a transmission line

must be on and that power must be accessible both in Labrador and on the Island

for future economic development.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question I would like to ask the minister is this: Are

you concerned that you have given up that leverage? Are you concerned that, if

you do not use the leverage that you have to ensure that that transmission line

is a negotiating tool on the one hand but something that you are firmly

committed to, that you have given that up, and that the reality and possibility

of a transmission line becomes lessened every time you and your government talk

about other options?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I sense from the line of questioning that the

Leader of the Opposition sincerely and genuinely hopes that the government is

towards an in-feed, because that would be the long-term answer. However, if the

joint studies that are ongoing and expected to be concluded by the spring lead

to a conclusion that it is not economically feasible or viable at this point in

the amount of money that it would have to, to make the in-feed a reality at this

point in our history, then I am not sure that he would then suggest, though,

that we should abandon everything to do with the Labrador Hydro development if

we do not get the in-feed.

That is the question that has been raised publicly. Would we abandon any and

all of the rest of the discussions if we do not get the in-feed? The answer that

the Premier has been giving at this point is: No, we do not intend to abandon

the rest of the discussions; and we are still working with the Government of

Canada, hopeful that they will find a way to contribute significantly to the

in-feed because it is the best long-term answer for Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I know he is on top of his job, so therefore he must be

aware of a new glossy brochure called The Territory and a new map of Quebec,

produced by the Government of Quebec, which includes a large part of southern

Labrador in the Province of Quebec.

Has the government protested this claim on our territory directly to Quebec

protesting this act, along with the responses from both Quebec and Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) like to see your job description.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Come up to the office and I will discuss it with you any time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member well knows, the border between Quebec and Newfoundland is

recognized by both provinces. We are content with the level of recognition that

exits. Obviously from time to time some questions are raised by particular

individuals. I am not specifically aware of the one that the member raises

today. I will look into it and have a further answer for him in the near future.

MR. SPEAKER: A

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Following

Question Period, I will e pleased to show both a map and brochure, one dated

1998, one dated 1999, both official government documents which make quite

clearly the point that I raised earlier. It is a serious matter, I say, Mr.

Minister. Quebec is building a legal case by openly claiming ownership of our

territory. Every time our government fails to reject and protest Quebec's

claims, we build credibility for their case. Some court, somewhere, some time,

may be influenced by the history -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - of Quebec's

persistence in claiming our land and our failure to do anything about it.

I ask the minister: Why are you so silent, as Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs? Why are you and why is this government afraid to stand up to the

Province of Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, our Province has not been silent on this issue

when it has been necessary to be vocal, but we do not feel that it is necessary

to be very vocal at this particular time because we think that the border is

recognized by all Canadians, by the Government of Quebec. I think the Premier of

Quebec, just a few days ago, indicated that the border between his province and

our Province is not in question.

There is no serious disagreement about that border. From time to time the

question is raised by various interests. From time to time we see certain

publications that we would prefer would be printed other than they are; but, if

we at any time feel that there is a serious issue that has to be dealt with, it

will be dealt with. At the present moment we are quite content with the

recognition of the boundary that exists in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: A

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he should really treat this issue much more seriously.

Both of these official documents clearly speak for themselves. How can this

government keep on doing business with a province that claims our territory,

does not recognize our laws, has captured almost all of the benefits from our

resources in Labrador, and uses its overwhelming influence in Ottawa to deny

federal support for our rights and interests as a Province? How do you continue

to do business in this manner, Mr. Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I think that recent events will indicate that the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is doing excellent business with the

Province of Quebec. We do not feel that there is any credible question raised

about the border. I will look into the couple of specific instances that the

member has cited -

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to satisfy his mind.

MR. NOEL: - to satisfy his mind and to make sure that he has a peaceful

and happy Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.

There are between 1,100 and 1,200 subsidized beds in personal care homes across

the Province. The minister has repeatedly said that there should be no

subsidized beds, but rather subsidies should be provided to the individual

rather than the bed in the personal care home. I ask the minister: Is she

planning on changing this policy in the near future?

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

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

First, I would like to say that I was really glad to hear the member opposite

was looking for me and he missed me here. I am glad to be back, to be able to

answer the questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, we are in fact reviewing the whole policy as it

relates from home support to nursing homes, including personal care homes. We

have been very clear on our perspective over subsidized versus non-subsidized,

and moving in fact from subsidy of beds to subsidy of people.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to hear the minister is going to focus on people now. I am

very delighted to hear that.

There are many personal care owners who have invested hundred of thousands of

dollars in their homes and have borrowed heavily to do so. Banks have loaned the

money on a security that a subsidized bed carries a certain market value and it

gives them an ability to repay that debt. It provides similar security, I say to

the minister, as if you have a milk quota, an egg quota, a crab quota, or a cod

quota. It is similar security.

I ask the minister: If she removes the subsidies on beds, will she ensure

that personal care homeowners receive a fair market value for the loss of each

subsidized bed?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the member opposite

would compare our senior citizens to cod quotas, for starters. I would have to

say that in our review of the whole issue around personal care homes we are

looking at the subsidies, we are looking at the rates, we are looking at how we

actually pay the subsidies; whether again, as I said, we move totally from one

of a bed subsidy to a personal subsidy, or we do it over a period of time. All

of that will be factored in to the consideration. I have met with the personal

care home owners and they know we are looking at this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, who is

speaking as I am trying to answer the question, that I look forward to his

support when we do move from subsidies of beds, which are a majority in his

district, to subsidies for people throughout the rest of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he is constantly talking, but I would love

to hear him support this initiative when he has to go to his district and defend

moving of bed subsidies to client subsidies.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister, who has been a minister for almost four years, is now

starting to realize individuals are important, not beds. I am glad that the

minister is realizing that.

Minister, there are many personal care homes with subsidized beds that have

been in existence for years. Independent assessments have shown they are

equivalent in excess of $20,000 or more when they go to the bank and try to get

credit on borrowing, to do expansions or to purchase new homes that people have

done recently. These owners have made a considerable investment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: In spite of the fact that the minister has not provided any

compensation to these people to adequately run those homes, I ask her will she

now institute a fair pay raise for people that are providing a top quality

service to people here in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know it might seem like I have been here

for four years, but I have only been elected just over three years. I have not

been in this portfolio quite three years yet.

We will consider things as best we can. I know it is easy for the member

opposite. Every day he will stand and ask for more money for drugs, more money

for this, more money for that. it is easy, and I know that is his job, but we

have to look at our available resources and we will do whatever we possibly can

to assist in any level of health care, whether it is in long-term care or

whether it is in acute care.

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

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

Today I have a question for the President of Treasury Board, the minister

responsible for the love boat cruise. Recently, the public has seen the use of

our Coast Guard boats being abused by public officials and, indeed, by the

provincial Cabinet led by the Premier of the Province. In fact, the request for

the most recent misuse of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert

came from the Premier's office, who is a former federal Minister of Fisheries

and who should know the importance of these boats, which should not be used as

cruise ships for politicians. Do you, minister, approve of the Premier's

blatant abuse of his former position as Minister of DFO to gain perks and

favours for himself and his Cabinet, including you?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a minute to try to answer the

question, if I could. I would not want real information to get in the way of the

bit of fun that the hon. members want to try to have with this issue, because it

is a serious issue.

For starters, obviously it is very unfortunate that a writer, Mr. Cleary who

I spoke with yesterday, has obviously never been on a Coast Guard boat in the

north of Labrador, or off the North Coast of Newfoundland. Because nobody would

describe any trip that we took on a scheduled run of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert

as a cruise, for starters. There was no cruise. Now, people can try to use

language like that if they want, and there was certainly absolutely nothing

lavish about it. There was a normal request made, which happens from time to

time - and it happens a lot in the northern regions off the Coast of Labrador

and in northern Newfoundland, and on the northeast coast of Newfoundland - that

if a Coast Guard vessel is available and if it is not going to be taken out of

service, and still going to available for primary search and rescue duties, that

if it is available to serve the needs of the public for things other than its

primary Coast Guard duties, it has been done in the past.

There was no cruise. There was a trip in a ship that was taking fuel to

lighthouse stations that went from St. Anthony to Battle Harbour. As a matter of

fact, three days later when I was driving the coast I saw it going down the

Straits of Belle Isle. They did take the Cabinet and some executive council

members to Battle Harbour. They dropped us off and they continued on delivering

fuel to the lighthouse stations, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about delivering fuel. I

would like to know was the fuel for the ship or for the Cabinet ministers. How

can anyone on that side of the House condone the misuse of the Coast Guard

search and rescue vessels for the personal pleasure of the Premier and Cabinet?

Can you assure the fishermen and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the

Province that the Coast Guard vessels will be available at all times for search

and rescue in future and will not be accommodating the pleasures of the Premier

and the Cabinet ministers?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the facts or the information to

get in the way again of the particular slant that the hon. member tries to place

with this, but a spokeswoman for the Coast Guard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If hon. members wish to carry on a conversation I wish they would do it

outside the Chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the spokeswoman for the Coast Guard, when asked

about this issue, indicated that the Sir Humphrey Gilbert was not

reassigned specifically to transport Mr. Tobin and his Cabinet. Rather, she

said, the ship had been scheduled for other duties, namely transporting fuel to

lighthouse stations. There was another Coast Guard ship in the area that was

assigned to search and rescue duties for that week. This particular crew -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: This particular crew who were in their last week, because I

spoke with several of them personally, of a twenty-eight day shift at sea - they

were in their last few days - when they finished the fuel delivery they were

glad to be going home for twenty-eight days off. The first twenty-one days, the

crew of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert had been doing search and rescue duties

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The ships and the search and rescue duties were fully covered

at the time and are always fully covered, Mr. Speaker, by the Coast Guard, and

this government does not run the Coast Guard. It was decided by the Coast Guard

that it was proper in this instance to take the passengers on a regular run over

to the Coast of Labrador.

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

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, the Coast Guard vessels are always

on call. With respect to this situation here, I say to the minister, if that

ship had been called out in an emergency situation the ministers and the Premier

had no right being in the way of an emergency situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker,

if the provincial government, led by the Premier and senior Cabinet ministers,

are so ready, willing and able to abuse the federal system because of the

Premier's personal contacts, what are you really doing with the provincial

treasury, and do you have any shame whatsoever?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a pretty pathetic line

of questioning, but that is just my opinion.

The whole notion, again, to try to suggest that there was some Coast Guard

duties that may not have been done as a result of this, is wrong. It has been

testified and verified to be wrong by the Coast Guard representatives

themselves. In part of the same story, if he had finished his research and read

the whole story, the Coast Guard made it clear that the Premier and his party

would be stuck aboard the Sir Humphrey Gilbert if a distress call came in

because they would have to take priority.

As a matter of fact, as soon as we boarded the ship in St. Anthony we were

taken on a tour. We were shown the emergency measures on the ship, and we were

told that if there was a call we were to go to the quarters and stay out of the

way and not to interfere with the work of the crew if they were needed. They did

not expect to be needed because they were on a fuel delivery call and not on a

search and rescue mission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. We have

repeatedly asked government to release, directly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly asked government to

release, directly to the people, reports on THM levels in municipal water

supplies, along with public health information explaining directly to the people

what the numbers mean and what they should do about them.

I ask you again, before this Legislature closes for Christmas, in light of

government's serious bungling of this issue and the confusion and concern that

it has caused municipalities across the Province: Will you today agree to

release the reports and appropriate public health information directly to the

people of the municipalities that are involved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I made a commitment that when we got all of the details in from every one of

the municipalities we would indeed release all the information that was there to

the media and to the general public. As I speak, all of the information is not

in.

This morning, I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) answer.

MR. LANGDON: Let me finish, now.

In consultation this morning, when I met with the Federation of

Municipalities, who are not here now, I invited them to be a part of the

exercise when we would release it. In fact, I take the hon. member's advice

when he said also: What are you doing, sending out information that is not

explained to the public? Therefore, that is what we are doing. When we get it

all in, we will release everything to the public.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

I say to the minister, he made a commitment and in his letter to the

municipalities he gave them a time frame; that has already lapsed. Minister,

will you point out where in the Municipalities Act, in what health or in what

environment act government places the responsibility on municipalities to

release public health information to the public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I personally checked with the Department of

Justice and the minister at that particular time, and it was the advice of

Justice that we send out these letters to the municipalities. At such time as we

get all the information back in, we will release it and then everybody out in

the public will be able to see what the information is.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

I personally do not accept the reason that government must have permission

from all municipalities. You gave a time frame; that has already lapsed. Now,

let's live in your fantasy land for a minute. You have received some of the

information already. Why not at least release it on the municipalities that you

have already received permission from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, we will not release the information in

drib-drabs. When it is finished, we will release it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; time for one quick question.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I

would like to ask the minister: Has his department any plans to privatize the

Bill of Sales office?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No.

MR. SPEAKER: A

supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Has he any plans of privatizing any parts of the

department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the acting Minister of Finance, I have the honour of tabling the Public

Accounts of the Province for the financial year ended 31 March 1999, as required

by the Financial Administration Act.

I am sure that this will come as a great relief and probably as a welcomed

Christmas gift for the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley who has been

salvitating at the mouth over there in anticipation of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Salvitating?

MR. MATTHEWS: Salivating, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of greater clarity, he has

been drooling at the mouth for these reports.

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Income Support Program

report for the 1998-1999 fiscal year, as required of the Social Assistance Act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tender the Public Tender Act

exceptions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: - for April

through to November. I was going to put a bow on them but I didn't have time.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Province who

Assembly to revise the definition of spouse in the Province's legislation to

provide for the coverage of same sex couples, and the fact that government has

done nothing to fulfil the promise. This petition is accompanied by a letter -

not in the proper petition form - signed by 450 residents of the Province.

The petitioners reference some 359 references - or, sorry, sixty-nine pieces

of legislation which have

definitions of spouse, and thirty-one different

definitions of spouse in this legislation, causing a great deal of confusion and

uncertainty in terms of the application of the law.

The Supreme Court of Canada, last spring, in the case of M. versus H.,

ordered the Province of Ontario to treat same sex couples the same as opposite

sex couples in a landmark decision. At that time, the Minister of Justice

promised a review of the Province's legislation and it was expected that we

would have this legislation in place this fall.

Last night in the House of Assembly, in response to another question during

debate, the minister indicated that the Province was trying to come up with a

definition of spouse that was related to the common law spouse circumstances

where there is a requirement for a child of a relationship to be able to be

considered as common law spouses. Quite clearly that is not the only definition

of spouse in our legislation, and in order to accomplish the spirit of the

Supreme Court of Canada's decision it is pret ty clear

that the government is going to have to come up with a definition of spouse that

is inclusive and gender neutral, just as the Minister of Health and Community

Services has done in dealing with the new Adoption Act. It is legislation that

is gender non-specific, and that is the expectation and hope of the signatories

to this petition.

The petitioners also complain that government has failed to enter into a

discussion with members of the gay community to ascertain the range of issues

that the new definition must address; nor have they responded to inquiries on

behalf of the gay community. I hope that is not an indication of this government's

attitude towards its responsibilities to bring this Province's legislation in

line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. I call on government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call on government to enter into discussions with representatives of the

Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality and talk about these issues and find

out what the areas of concern are in particular to these citizens, and ensure

that our legislation complies both in spirit and in the letter of the Supreme

Court of Canada decision last spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The fight for equality for gays and lesbians has taken place

across the country through many, many court cases over the years, and they

should not have to go to court every time to get government to comply to the

Human Rights Code of its province, or the Charter of Rights and Freedom. There

should be an omnibus piece of legislation brought in by the Minister of Justice

to ensure that equality exists for all citizens of our Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to speak and second the petition that has been presented by the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is interesting to note that in addition to

the petition today there has been a significant amount of correspondence that

has been forwarded to the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Newfoundland Gays

and Lesbians for Equality, and this particular request is a result of a decision

of the Supreme Court of Canada which was rendered on May 20, 1999, which struck

down as unconstitutional Ontario's definition of spouse

as a member of the opposite sex.

The Supreme Court, in that particular decision, gave Ontario until November

20 of this year to act. Quebec and British Columbia, incidentally, have both

passed legislation reflecting the court's decision and it is important to note

that it was only some four or five days ago that we celebrated the fifty-first

anniversary of international human rights. Of course, in view of the fact that

we now have the law of the land quite clear in the May 20, 1999, decision

whereby the Supreme Court of Canada made i t clear exactly

how the laws of, in that case Ontario - by inference obviously all the provinces

of this country - basically a directives to the provinces in Canada to set down

clearly in its own provincial legislation exactly what is meant by spouse.

I understand from some correspondence that has been forwarded to both my

colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and myself as justice critic,

that there are some 359 references to spouse in sixty-nine pieces of

legislation, and includes sixteen different

definitions of spouse in fourteen

pieces of legislation. Therefore, this clarification is certainly important.

I guess I can say I am mildly encouraged by the language of the Minister of

Justice when he said in this Legislature just a couple of days ago that the

matter is being addressed; however, unfortunately, it is not being done with the

haste and with the sense of importance that it ought to be given in view of what

the Supreme Court of Canada had said in the spring of this year.

I support the presentation and petition as presented, and I thank the Speaker

for the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling the first order, I would like to

move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at

5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those

against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion carried.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I can't stand

the stuff. I believe the Leader of the Opposition knew what I said, actually.

Order 2, third reading of a bill,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting

Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification. (Bill 1)

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And

Occupational Certification, read a third time, ordered passed and its title

be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

3, third reading of a bill,

An Act To Provide For The Conservation,

Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province.

(Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31 be now read a third

time.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those

against, nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's South.

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

Obviously, this has passed Committee stage already. I spoke on it in great

length during Committee. I would like to make some closing remarks. I will only

be - what is my time limit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have called for a ban on the bulk export

of water for some three years, so we have no hesitation in giving consent to the

final reading, third reading of this bill.

I want to say again, for the record, that we put forward some very good

amendments on this bill, and I find it is very unfortunate that government did

not see fit to give due consideration to these amendments and accept the

amendments for the protection of the people of the Province, for the protection

of our resource. Having said that, I will say this: that it is more important to

protect our water resource than to vote against this bill for the sake of our

very fine and very important amendments. While I believe that those amendments

should have been accepted, and while I believe that it will shown some years

down the road that some of these amendments should have been given greater

consideration by government, we have to protect our water resource not only for

the sake of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but indeed for all Canadians.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give approval to third reading on

this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection,

Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province, read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

4,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9 be read a third time.

All those in favour, aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. EFFORD: Keep your credit card (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No problem, I

say to the Minister of Fisheries. I heard you have a new theme song now, I'm

Going To Hire A Wino.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few closing remarks on the amendment

to the Securities Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Nice tie? Thank

you, it is nice and blue. Don't be trying to throw me off, now, I am trying to

make a few comments.

I would like to make a few comments on

An Act To Amend The Securities Act. We

raised some concerns during second reading, and certainly concerns with the

security of people's files. It is very important that private information

belonging to individuals is secure. While we understand, as we listened to the

Minister of Government Services and Lands today talk about the new personal

property registry - while we support keeping up with today's technology, we

certainly have concerns as it relates to people's personal files, people's

personal information.

The purpose of this amendment, even in the Explanatory Note, basically says

it would ...permit documents to be filed electronically. We are very

concerned of security but at the same time we understand we have to keep up with

technology. There is much information outlined in these files and we certainly

feel it is important they are filed electronically. It is certainly important

that they are secure, and that is the main thing in bringing in the amendment to

the Securities Act. We certainly feel that we do not have

any major problem with it.

I would just like to make a few comments, if I could, in closing. If I could

ask the minister a question - and it has to do with exemptions - are there any

exemptions? I am just trying to find it here now. In clause 1,

section 144

(aa)(

i) reads: providing for exemptions, in addition to those set out in

subsections 94(1) and (3), or removing an exemption set out in those

subsections. I am just wondering if the minister could answer that. It is on

page 7, I say to the minister. Are there any exem ptions?

Why would there be exemptions? Could he explain maybe what would be left out,

what information that we would not be filing that we would have on an

individual? Would there be any exemptions to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: You don't

have it? It is hard to say I have it. I'm just wondering, are there any

exemptions to information we would be filing away? I am always concerned about

exemptions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Okay. On page

6, I say to the minister, under (s), it says: providing for exemptions from

the prospectus requirements under this Act... Again, we are talking about

exemptions. I certainly have concerns. Then in another section, (aa)(ii), it

reads: providing for exemptions from

section 95 or removing an exemption set

out in that section...

There are several instances here in the amendment that concern exemptions. I

am just wondering from what point the - again, on page 10 we have in (hh)(i):

providing exemptions from a requirement of this Act. In (jj), we are

talking about: prescribing requirements with respect to reverse take-overs...

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are concerned about any exemptions. We

just saw the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tabling exemptions.

I can remember when I was in the House before that the former Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, who is today the Minister of Fisheries, that we

were always concerned when he was presenting exemptions, I tell you. Certainly

any exemptions to any rules, regulations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Transportation too.

MR. MANNING: Yes, and he was the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation at the time. I can remember here in the House on a continuous

basis when the present Minister of Fisheries would present exemptions to the

House, and it certainly made for some good reading, Mr. Speaker, but it

certainly raised some concerns. We are concerned about exemptions, and in

regards to the bill they are certainly questions we would like to have answered,

but I will leave it at that for now.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Securities Act, read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, An

Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance, Bill 26, Order 5.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a couple of brief comments on this one. I guess the major concern

there is that we are moving the administration of what is now an MCP that has a

certain arm's-length, a certain moving from the department over it now, under

the wing of the department. The department now will have access to all of these

records. The department is run by a political individual. It is run by a

minister who sits on the side of government and who would have access to

records. The biggest concern there, I guess, is moving away from MCP, from an

arm's-length administered thing. There are lots of matters with

confidentiality, the proper use, and what is considered to cross the line in

terms of what should be released and what should not. The decision now gets put

into political hands as opposed to being put into the hands of an independent

arm's-length Medical Care Commission. That is a major concern, in particular

with reference to this particular act.

I do know that in the act also there are certain provisions for recovery and

so on that the minister says are already there now. Also, when you move it under

the department there may be greater opportunity that certain things could be

pursued. If they are justifiable, certainly, I do not have any problems with

that at all. Somebody has to be responsible, I guess, for their particular

actions, and if there is cost of recovery to the Province as a result of someone's

liability on their part they have every right to do that. The overall concern we

have here is taking it from an independent arm's-length run agency and putting

it under the umbrella of a minister, that it can be used for political purposes.

That is not the intent, it may never happen, but I'm just saying that it is

not the best method to follow. It is something that could certainly be done

better, to have some independent agency.

It does not have to move. Just because we moved the health care corporations

around the Province, the institution boards and the community health care

boards, just because we have formed them does not justify moving it from the

Medical Care Commission under the umbrella of the department. That alone does

not justify it. Because we all know that the health care boards in the Province

are appointed by the minister, selected by the minister. The minister has power

over that. If the minister wants you o n

that she puts you on that. If she does not want you on it the minister can take

you off those boards. Now we are putting more and more underneath that specific

umbrella, and a lot of information dealing with patients' records is of a very

highly confidential nature, and that is one of the major concerns.

If anybody thinks the boards are running independently in our Province, they

are wrong. They certainly are not, because anyone is there to run really to

serve a purpose. You cannot have functioning boards running completely

independently when the makeup of these boards is appointed by the minister. That

is not in the best interest of the public. It has the potential, certainly, not

to be in the best interest of the public. Whenever there is a potential not to

be in the best interest of the public sometimes the best public interest does

not get served in those regards.

That is a concern I have with that. It is not something that is necessary. It

is something that does not have to occur. It is existing without that right now.

Today, last week and last month it was operating without this legislation. There

is nothing to say it cannot continue to work efficiently without that

legislation in the future.

It is not a necessary piece of legislation, it is just to put more under the

control, more under the wing, of the department and that is not always a healthy

thing, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care

Insurance, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

6, Bill 27,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Registered Nurses Act is, I understand, more or less a nominal thing, a

name change. It is nothing of great consequence. It is something that has been

requested by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. Also, it has to do

with changing the financial year. There are things I feel that should come under

the control of the Nurses' Union. It should be there prerogative. If they

suggest such a change it is something I might add that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? Or the

association, sorry, ARNN. I think there is an l in that name now. It is

the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it is

now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this will

be added to that name. It has often been called ARNN. With the request of that,

of course, yes, that is the professional body that governs nurses as opposed to

the one that deals with the Nurses' Union. It is certainly important to make

that distinction here. We would certainly support this particular amendment here

to allow them to, I guess, have a say in what their financial year and name is.

We fully endorse that.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act, read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, Bill 29.

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

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

I just want to say another few words, closing remarks, on this piece of

legislation. When the minister introduced this he made the comment that this was

basically housekeeping and that the whole intent of this bill, of course, was to

take the responsibility out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

and put it into the hands of the minister with respect to any individual or

company or what have you wanting to use the Coat of Arms on any given product or

for any purpose.

At that time I asked him how often this had been requested in the past. He

told me: Very few times. My next question was: If that is the case, why are they

doing this? My concern, of course, and that of the members on this side, is are

there going to be a certain criteria put in place, regulations put in place? I

asked the minister that and to the day - and this has been ongoing now in this

House for a few weeks - have had no response from the minister.

Again, in third reading, all I wanted to do was stand in my place and bring

that point forward. Will there be certain criteria or regulations put in place

that will control the decisions of the minister, or this minister or any

minister in the future with respect to the use of the Coat of Arms for the

Province? Again, as I said a minute ago, the minister has not today or any other

day said there would be or there would not be. It would be at the complete

discretion of the minister.

Some members on the other side of the House do not think that this is very

important. You can see by the smiles on their faces when I stand and bring the

point up. I am becoming like the Minister of Mines and Energy when he said

yesterday that his throat was gone.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know why your voice sounds hoarse.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why is that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Do not say anything.

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation, Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The

Coat Of Arms Act. It is very serious, really, when you sit back and size it up.

If you look at our history in the Province, look at the traditions in the

Province, look at how the Coat of Arms has been used by the Province in the past

- Members in this House of Assembly have used it many times on various items.

Maybe their business cards, or with respect to making a note to someone and

having cards printed up with the Coat of Arms on that. A letterhead is another

one that they use. Who will get to use this Coat of Arms for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador is serious.

I see the Minister of Government Services and Lands looking over. He does not

seem to be taking it too seriously. I bet you he has the Coat of Arms on his

letterhead. I would say he has business cards with the Coat of Arms on it. Is

there anybody in any business in the Province who is going to be permitted, at

the minister's discretion, the use of the Coat of Arms? That is the concern I

have.

It looks like I am going to have to sit down because my throat is acting up

here. I just wanted to highlight that once again, to know that within the future

if the use of the Coat of Arms is abused, we will know that we had brought it

forward here in the House of Assembly, that we had our concerns. The government

has the majority, of course, and they are going to pass it through anyway,

obviously, or they would not have brought it to the House. After saying that,

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit in my place and if anybody else would like to

speak, so be it.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act, read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MR. TULK: Order 8, Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

This is third reading on this bill. It is an important piece of legislation.

I know the Member for St. John's East and the critic for Mines and Energy - it

is extremely important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Down with

Arafat. To the Member for Bonavista South, that is what happened one time, wasn't

it? Weren't you on a conference and someone said to the Member for Bellevue:

Down with Arafat. Is that true?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is it.

MR. E. BYRNE: That isn't

true, is it? A true story. Before the afternoon is out I will ask the Member for

Bonavista South. Will you be able to tell us?

MR. FITZGERALD: I cannot tell stories (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There was a conference, and someone had mistaken him for

somebody else, some other public official. The Member for Bellevue and another

public official within the globe got mistaken. Maybe the Member for Bonavista

South who was there, who saw it first-hand, will get up. It is a fairly humorous

story, from what I understand.

I will speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only if I'm

allowed to get up and speak too.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? We will give you leave, yes, absolutely. You

have leave from us. Whether you have it from the Government House Leader is

another story.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tell everybody what we were doing

(inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure they were involved in a very

informed public debate when someone mistook the comments by the Member for

Bellevue.

However, I know my colleagues from St. John's East and Baie Verte are going

to want to speak for a few minutes on Bill 28 before we pass final and third

reading, because they were part of a very lively discussion, with myself, that

we had with the mining industry one morning, debating this bill, a bill that is

supported by the mineral mining association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were two important points that were made with this piece of

legislation. The first point was that this time last year, when we made

amendments to the mineral mining act, those amendments that we made, while made

in the spirit to deal with Inco, had severe and adverse affects upon the mining

industry in terms of trying to attract capital investment from the capital

markets for exploration. That is very clear.

The second message that we got that morning from people who were there, the

people who are on the ground, who are doing the exploring, who are finding new

mines and new opportunities to create jobs and wealth in the Province, was

simply this: If government had not put $2 million last year into its mineral and

mining investment fund, where junior mining companies could take advantage of

the fact that if they raised $100,000 then they could get $100,000, then

exploration in the mining industry would have fallen flat on its face.

Their recommendation, and it is one that we make, because it is a good

program, is that wherever government can enhance the level of monies available

to the mining industry on a fifty-fifty basis, that it do so. Because in doing

that, it sends a signal to junior mining companies, to the mining and

exploration community, not only provincial but nationally, that this Province is

open for business from that point of view. It shows a sign, a directly tangible

sign, that government itself is going to be a partner, not just through its

public statements but legitimately.

From the point of view of the people we met with, I speak on their behalf

again in this Legislature encouraging government to the extent possible to live

within the recommendations that were made, but to enhance those opportunities as

has been described by that industry. It has proven that that investment fund had

significant benefit to the Province, that it created wealth, that it created

jobs, and that the more we can move in that direction, as a partner in this

industry, the better off this industry will be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just speak for a couple of minutes on this legislation, during third

reading. As my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, indicated, there was a

meeting that took place approximately a week or ten days ago and it was an

opportunity, I say, Mr. Speaker, for the mining council to meet with us, as an

Opposition, and to review Bill 28 as it relates to the operation of mines and

mills in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that was evident was the fact that the mining council

was an active participant in the preparation of this draft legislation, and it

is good to see that, from time to time, government is prepared to meet with

those parties and those interests that a have a direct interest in opposed

legislation. This was indicative of that, I say, Mr. Speaker, because the

individuals with whom we met appeared to be quite supportive and, as they

described it, it was progressive legislation that dealt with issues of

reclamation and rehabilitation of mine sites. It was obviously very clear that

this was legislation that was in the right direction and working in partnership

with the mining industry generally in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little more that we are going to add in third

reading, other than to say that this is perhaps one of the more important pieces

of legislation that is being passed at this time, unlike most of the legislation

which is nothing but triviality and just housekeeping, this particular act, An

Act Respecting The Operation of Mines And Mills In The Province, appears to be a

move in the right direction and a piece of legislation that has received the

support of the industry at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I

just want to make a few comments on Bill 28 ,

An Act Respecting The Operation Of

Mines And Mills In The Province. It is definitely an important piece of

legislation, and I would echo the comments of the Member for St. John's East

in saying that I believe it is one of most important pieces of legislation

before the House this session as it relates to a very important industry in our

Province, and indeed an industry that has provided much employment and had

provided much stability in many communities throughout the

Province, whether it is on the Northern Peninsula, down on the South Coast, down

on the Burin Peninsula, in Labrador itself. Mines and mills have provided, for

decades in this Province, great opportunities for employment and economic

development. Indeed, I guess, bringing in

an act to respect the operation of the

mines and mills is something that is important for the simple reason, not only

for any future of the developments but indeed for the ones that are existing or

planning on expanding.

The concerns that people have raised over the years are certainly addressed

in the act. It is interesting to see that in order for a lease to operate a mine

in the Province now, the entrepreneur, the mining company, will have to present

in a plan to the minister and indeed follow up with an annual plan which will be

filed with the minister. It is certainly something that needs to be done. A lot

of these companies come in with the promise of major economic development, with

the promise of providing the much needed jobs that many people in the Province

are looking for. Indeed, the fact that they have some type of plan in place that

will ensure that the things that are needed - jobs are not the only things in

the picture, but indeed the other concerns that people have, especially in

mining towns throughout the Province, and that is one of environmental problems.

Most of the mines that we have, and certainly have had in the past, have left

behind, when they were finished, when the mining life, whether it was a

twenty-five year mining life, or more or less, when the mines closed up and they

leave these communities, they leave not only an eyesore in many cases but a

major environmental hazard. Hopefully through this piece of legislation now, any

company that wishes to operate a mine in the Province, indeed any company that

is operating today, at the time of the completion of the mining activity, will

be forced to rehabilitate the site, will be forced to put the site back to as

much of its natural beginning as it was. Indeed, that certainly is a concern

that has been raised time and time again by many people throughout the Province

when almost every mine that we have had - we look around our Province today at

some of the mines that have been used, and certainly the ones that are closed

up.

I happen to have visited down on the Baie Verte Peninsula a few years ago

with the Member for Cape St. Francis and the Member for Baie Verte, and visited

a couple of mines down there. It was incredible, the silt, the garbage, the pure

garbage that was left around. The water tables themselves were full of God knows

what; there were so many chemicals and different things that were left in the

water. It certainly is a concern for everybody in the Province. Indeed concerns

that have been raised by the Opposition and by people throughout the Province

over the years hopefully are being addressed to some extent in this piece of

legislation.

Any mine that operates in this Province from now on, whether it is a large or

small mine, whether it is a short-term mine or whether it is there for the

long-term, that especially the environmental concerns would be addressed and

that the rehabilitation of those mining sites will be something that will

certainly be done and that it will be restored to a condition that is acceptable

to the minister.

My only concern, I guess, with the piece of legislation is that it goes back

to, as I just said, being restored to a condition that is acceptable to the

minister. The problem I have here is with the minister, whoever he or she may

be. Whatever political stripe he or she may be really does not matter. I really

don't think that the rehabilitation of a mine, or the condition that it is

left in, should be the sole responsibility of the minister. We all know that we

all have friends and associates in the se major companies.

We have people who donate to political campaigns. We have people who partake in

the political process, and it is always a concern whether one person would have

the final okay on something of such major importance.

Along with that, it says, is made suitable for a use that the minister

considers appropriate. Once again, we are concerned about the fact that a

minister would have total responsibility for this on his or her shoulders. I

think there certainly should be some level of government, whether it is a

department committee or a committee of the Department of Mines and Energy or a

committee of the House, or some type of committee, be in place that would have a

look at and investigate when a mine would be clo sing and

indeed to address the concerns that would be raised due to the environmentalists

that are out there; and not only environmentalists but everybody in the

community concerned about what the future holds, especially after the mine

closes up.

We have mines in the Province that have gone bankrupt and have been forced to

move on very quickly, and usually the people of the day, the government of the

day, certainly the people of the Province, are left with a major, major mess -

certainly environmental disasters in some cases - that cost millions and

millions of dollars to clean up, and in a lot of cases never get cleaned up. It

is certainly a concern that is going to be addressed, or hopefully going to be

addressed, through this piece of legislation.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, having

an act in place where the company will have to

file annual reports to the minister is something that at least gives the

minister an opportunity - I should not say the minister himself or herself, but

- gives the Department of Mines and Energy the opportunity to keep an eye on

things, that somebody is not out in some part of our Province operating without

any rules, regulations or control. I guess, with the development that is

ongoing, with the development that is hopefully in

the future of this Province, whether it is Voisey's Bay development or any

other mining development, that we have a piece of legislation that will

continue, I guess, the concerns that have been raised and address the concerns

that have been raised by people throughout the Province as it relates to

environmental concerns.

Apart from that, the piece of legislation addresses most of the concerns that

the people have expressed. Hopefully that will put some teeth in the legislation

and will be backed up by some progressive action from the Minister of Mines and

Energy, and certainly have concerns raised.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the piece of legislation because

I believe that we have to have rules and regulations in place that address the

concerns of the people of the Province.

On motion, a bill,

An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In

The Province, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

9,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No. 2). (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We on this side of the House have already said that we agree with the general

thrust of Bill 32. For the purpose of the third reading we just want to restate,

in brief, some of the concerns that we have.

We note in the public forums that the Premier is making quite a bit of a

statement in the national press about how he has been reducing taxes in

Newfoundland. In fact, it appears that this particular bill and the reduction of

Newfoundland's share of the income tax is part of a national agenda for the

Premier. I note that in the public press he has already said that this is the

first time since Confederation we have had an income tax reduction. What the

Premier did not say was that in 1989, when the Liberals took office, our

provincial share of the income tax was at 60 per cent and that the Wells'

government, in a grab for money, pushed it up to 69 per cent. What this

government has done is brought the tax rate back from 69 per cent to 62 per cent

but they are still 2 per cent higher in the income tax rates than they were when

they took office in 1989.

Also, for a matter of convenience, I wonder if members have often noted that

when this government talks about Liberal administrations they only refer back to

the time when the current Premier took office. They would like to forget the

times when they were in office from 1989 to 1996, under the now Chief Justice

Clyde Wells.

There are a couple of other things we want to note in the legislation. There

was much ado in the press conferences that were called about this being a

three-year commitment, but this piece of legislation does not give anything of a

guarantee in the legislation for the second and third years. What we have is a

statement, in law. When this bill is passed in third reading and signed by His

Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, we will have a law that will say that we are

going to reduce our income taxes for the year 2000. There is a political promise

made for 2001 and 2002, so the legislative changes apply only to the 2000

taxation year. As much as the government wants to take credit for commitments

that are made beyond the year 2000, there is nothing in this bill that makes a

legal commitment by government beyond the next taxation year.

What is done here is purely for, in large part, political reasons, because

the other side of this is that we have to take note as well of the surtaxes. On

the one hand, the government is reducing our income tax from 69 per cent to 62

per cent; then, on the other hand, they are saying to us: Now we are going to

apply a surtax to almost anybody who pays any income tax whatsoever.

The current surtax is for people who make over $60,100. In future, the surtax

will apply to just about everybody, so we are not reducing the net taxes paid

from 69 per cent to 62 per cent. The net savings is really about a little less

than 4 per cent, because we have to factor in the surtaxes. On this side, we

have said that we will support the bill; however, we have to state exactly what

the bill is doing: (

a) There is no commitment beyond the year 2000 and will have

to come back the Legislature again next year; and (

b) The surtaxes are now going

to be applied to practically everybody who pays income tax in the Province; (

c) We want to note that we will still be a long way from being competitive with

other provinces in this country.

We have a long way to go, even if there is a willingness to implement phases

two and three. We still have to keep in mind that, when we move to tax an income

system, we have to compete with Alberta, Ontario, and other provinces in this

country.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, we on this side will give support. We

just wish they had really gone the whole distance and had fully adopted our

income tax reduction plan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No.2), read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

10,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law. (Bill 24)

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute

Law, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 24)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

11,

An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25 be read a third time.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is very little to add, I think, from comments that were made in the

debate during second reading and again during Committee stage, only to reiterate

the fact that this is an opportunity for government to really remove itself from

these designations and these appointments to members of the legal profession and

to give serious consideration to the recommendation to the Law Society to

establish a sub-committee whose sole purpose would be to make recommendations

and to make selections of the designati on

of Queen's Counsel on its own.

If it is done that way, it would then be based on merit and it would be a

situation that I think would have some recognition and some value; because what

we see now are simply situations where these appointments are made arbitrarily

by government of individuals who perhaps are friends of campaigns and friends of

various ministers and so on. If the designation is to mean anything, if it is to

mean a designation of some value, at least it should be done in a committee

which is arm's length from government, without any political interference. If

that is done, and if it is done in that manner, we would restore the designation

of Queen's Counsel to mean something of significance and of some worth.

Those are my few words, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the third reading of the

Queen's Counsel Act.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act, read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

12,

An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act,

1966". (Bill 38)

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend the Loan (Canada Pension Plan

Investment Fund) Act, 1966, read a third time, ordered passed and its title

be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

13,

An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code. (Bill 37)

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

14,

An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It moved and seconded that said bill be now read a third

time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a couple of brief comments on this particular one. What is

proposed here is certainly in agreement with physiotherapists. There is one

particular concern that is not addressed, and I certainly want to be on the

record on this. I made it in an earlier stage of the bill, and that is the long,

long, extremely long waiting list to be able to see a physiotherapist; that

people are not getting the medical attention they need because they are on

waiting lists for months and months trying to access them at hospitals and so

on. People are being forced -

One person I spoke with recently underwent surgery in Toronto and came back

here, at $75 a week to a private physiotherapist, and now he just cannot afford

it. He is a young person, in his early twenties, and he cannot access it through

the hospital system now - for months and months. They need this physiotherapy,

and we have to look at some system. If they are not going to allow reimbursement

for medical expenses that are needed there, there will have to be the hiring and

provision of more physiotherapists within our system to be able to accommodate

people who need help; because if they do not get the help they need you will

have long-term costs on the system. If you can get physiotherapy early you

correct the problem. Later on, you have to have much more extensive

physiotherapy. Right now they are just carving up the hours that are there among

all the people. They are trying to see who is the most urgent, who needs it

worse than the next person. It has gone on with that not only in physiotherapy.

It has gone on in heart surgery, you name it, and everything else out there.

That is a concern, that there are long waiting lists and people are not getting

the care they need because we have not addressed the problems with

physiotherapists here in our Province.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act, read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

15,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act (No 2). (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We are making tremendous progress, I say to the Opposition House Leader. We

are getting down through these bills in such rapid order that there seems to be

a spirit of cooperation existing here that probably is indicative of the

proceedings towards the end of a session.

We on this side have considered this particular bill and we recognize what

the government is doing here, that they have taken money from the general

revenues to put into the sinking funds. What has happened is that, because of

the changes in the exchange rates and because of other factors that happen in

the order of the business or government, there is about a $35 million amount

that is extra to what is needed to pay off the debts. Therefore, in the sinking

fund there is about that amount of money extra.

We agree that rather than applying that to the debt, given our financial

position, that it probably should be returned to the consolidated revenues from

whence it came. It would be appropriate that government would take that money -

if we were the government we would do the very same thing - take that amount of

money that is extra and not needed to pay off our debts, take it from the

sinking fund, return it to consolidated revenues, and use it for services that

might be needed for the general public in providing the services government is

responsible for in the administration of the Province. We are saying this is an

appropriate thing to do. We would like probably some time to be able to just put

it on the rest of the debt, but it is not necessary and at this point in time we

believe the actions here are appropriate.

This bill will also let the government take this action in the next years

without having to come back directly to the Legislature every time you need to

do it. It is an appropriate amount. It was mentioned in the Budget last year,

and this legislation gives the President of Treasury Board the authority to do

it under the law as it will now be amended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act (No.

2), read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 34)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, how come you are recognizing me this afternoon and

I am not even stood up yet? You are fast today.

MR. SPEAKER: Anticipation. You are in a hurry and so am I.

MR. TULK: The rule of anticipation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, he is slow getting up.

MR. TULK: I am getting old, boy.

Order 16,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, Bill

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few words on the bill,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health

and Safety Act. We did have some concerns about the Occupational Health and

Safety Act as the changes were being made, but I think in consultation and

questions to the minister he has adequately addressed the concerns that we had

and provided explanations we required to the changes in the bill. I would like

to say to the House that the Occupational Health and Safety Act in this Province

is certainly one of the best pieces of legislation pertaining to occupational

health and safety in the country. We are forever on guard as workers to make

sure that it stays that way.

I would just like to say that the changes that are proposed in the

legislation here now certainly go towards enhancing the Occupational Health and

Safety Act and make it stronger than it was previously, and provides for certain

actions to take place in terms of services that we need from time to time

outside the Province,

whereas before we were restricted in that. I would just

like to say that we support the changes to the Occupational Health and Safety

Act. Again, it is one of the best pieces of legislation in the country

protecting workers. Thank you very much.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act,

read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill

33)

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

MR. TULK: Order 17, An

Act To Amend

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act,

Bill 44.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be

as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

18,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to rise and be on record to support this act. It is very

important that we recognize the danger of forest fires in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Last year, there was 228 forest fires with a devastating effect on our forest

land, burning over 39,000 hectares of forest land. Out of this, 176 of these

fires were linked to human error or human cause. I think this act gives the

power to the forestry officials to do a better job in combating forest fires and

combating the human error part of this very serious problem that we have. It is

a resource that we cannot afford to lose because of the unavailability of other

forest stands. We have to make sure that anybody responsible for causing these

forest fires will be caught and prosecuted. I think this act goes a long way to

give the power to the forestry officials to do their work and do it in a very

responsible way. I also recognize the fact that these forest fires do have a

high cost. In 1999, it has shown that it caused over $400,000 worth of property

damage.

I just want to be on record to say that I do support this act, and I hope

that in the year to come we do not have the same problem that we had this year

with forest fires in the hot season, in the summer months. I think that our

forestry department should be commended for the great job they did last year in

battling the forest fires and keeping up with the commitment they made at the

beginning of the season. I know first hand that they worked very hard and I

certainly commend the Department of Forestry for doing that.

I hope this year it will be a little easier for them because this is a very

difficult job to do. It is not something easy when you get up at daylight and

fight a forest fire right till dark in the middle of the summer when the days

are long. The commitment that the department, the volunteer workers and some of

the temporary workers made certainly has to be commended. I am certainly proud

to get here today and say that they did a good job. I have no problems

supporting this amendment to the bill to help forestry officials do this job

better this year. Hopefully, this year will not be as bad as last year and we

will not have the great loss again this summer coming that we had last year.

Because we really cannot afford to lose this resource any more.

I just want to be on the record for saying that. That is my final comment on

that act, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Forestry Act, read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

19,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public

Officials Garnishee Act, Bill 42.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act

And The Public Officials Garnishee Act, read a third time, ordered passed and

its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 42)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

20,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public

Utilities Act, Bill 51.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994

And The Public Utilities Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title

be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 51)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order

21,

An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act, Bill 30.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves

Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order

Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the next order of business that we are going to

call, as per agreement between myself and the Opposition House Leader, is Motion

3. What is does is it has to do with the passage of the motion that we tabled

yesterday on the Standing Orders. I think we have agreed that I would say a few

words introducing the bill, the hon. the Opposition House Leader would say a few

words, and if the Leader of the NDP were here he would say a few words, and then

we would vote. I think that was the agreement we had, because basically we have

done this in Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: What is the problem? Is there a problem?

MR. SPEAKER: Not a problem. I just want to confer with the Clerk on the

order of proceedings, that is all.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to take a few minutes again to say

that I believe that this is a very good accomplishment, and it shows the kind of

thing that you can get done when people cooperate and work together for the good

of this Legislature and for the good of all of us. I think it will go a long

ways to move us forward into the 20 century, as it picks up and catches up with

a number of other parliamentary jurisdictions in the country.

I refer specifically - and I would say to my colleagues and those people on

the other side - that maybe right after the next election, and if His Honor

should, heaven forbid, have to come out of the Chair for any reason whatsoever

whenever the Chair is vacant, that they should probably get ready to run for one

of the most distinguished offices this House has to offer up to a member. That

is the election of a Speaker, because what we have essentially done here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You are voting for me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely. How could I vote against (inaudible).

MR. TULK: That is true. The truth is that whenever the Chair becomes

vacant again, whether it is vacated by the present Speaker or whether it is

after the next election, that the Speaker of this House should be elected by

secret ballot. I believe it is fair to say, and I am sure the Opposition House

Leader will correct me if I am wrong, I think it is correct to say that all the

rest of the jurisdictions in the country now elect the Speaker, with the

exception of the Territories.

Another

section here is the time for the meeting of the House. I want to say

that I was a bit disappointed yesterday afternoon, in the

article in The

Telegram - or, I think it was this morning it came out, and I am not

referring to a cruise or anything like that. I was a bit disappointed in the

fact that they seem to want to imply that somehow or another members were taking

more time off from the House and all that kind of stuff. It is quite the

opposite. As a matter of fact, the debate in this House has been increased and I

suggest to you that it has been enhanced by the fact that we have said that we

will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, and from

2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and that in actual fact we will do away

with what we used to call the Late Show, which in actual fact all of us

considered, I think, on the committee, was somewhat outdated and a waste of

time. By doing that, we have increased the effectiveness and the efficiency of

the House while at the same time allowing members, particularly members who live

outside the city, to get home to their constituents and do some work on Friday

and make themselves more available to their own people.

The other thing is - and this is a rule I have no problem with. I moved

today, for example, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Under those new

rules, if you are to do that, I would have had to give notice of it on

yesterday, which makes all kinds of sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) as a precaution.

MR. TULK: That is right, I give the notice as a precaution. At least

members know that there is the possibility that tomorrow night, the next night,

whatever they have to do, they have to stay.

I think another very important move that we made in those Standing Orders was

Statements by Members. Basically what that is: at the beginning of each day, on

the Order Paper, when we come back, will appear, under Routine Proceedings,

before Statements by Ministers, Statements by Members, and we have laid out the

rules for those. There will be a total of six minutes given for that, and any

one member may stand up for one minute to talk about a number of subjects that

might be of interest to him or her, not to be controversial, not to be in

debate, but to stand up and make a statement on some things that may be of

importance to him or her.

The other thing that we have often found - I think it was the Clerks who

motivated us to change this more than anybody - is that under the Business of

Supply, Ways and Means and Budget, the procedure that we have had in this House

has been somewhat archaic, up and down, in and out almost. What we did was ask

the Clerks to put together a suitable means - still hold the government

accountable, but put together a suitable means of shortening that procedure, and

getting clear of that archaic piece of work.

The other thing that we did which should be of particular interest to members

is the notion of a Parliamentary Calendar. While it is not set down exactly what

will happen in a given year, because the government will always have the

privilege - and they have to; I don't care who the government is - to lengthen

the time. We have set down that there will be a minimum of four weeks in the

fall, and that they adjourn not later than one week before Christmas, so that

again members do not have to be here unl ess there is

something that the government feels it has to do. Members do not have to be

here; they have some idea of the last week before Christmas and they can plan

their lives -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Now, I did that.

That wasn't Steve.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I don't care.

Read Hansard. When was it? The Clerk will tell me. It was December 21, 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am sorry. My good friend is no longer here but he cannot take

credit for that one.

The other thing is that in the spring we will open the House on the second

Monday in March and we will go to the Friday before the Victoria Day weekend,

with a two week break for Easter.

Much to the chagrin of my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the committee

could not seem to find agreement that we would recognize him and his colleague

from Labrador West as a Parliamentary Group, but the rules are set down so that

anybody knows that you must have contested two-thirds of the number of seats in

the House of Assembly at the preceding general election, and have elected at

least three members, or at a by-election. This, we said, should not affect the

ruling of Speaker McNicholas in 1987 concerning the right of a two-person group

within the House to reply to Ministerial Statements.

I think one other thing that we did, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give

particular credit to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition for this, in that

we moved the amount of time that we would use for petitions, and that is all it

should be. The amount of time that we move for petitions should be three

minutes, and that there should be one speaker; because the purpose of a petition

is not to enter into debate, not to go back and forth. It is to stand up and

present the wishes of the views of the people signing the petition to the House

for the government to act upon. That is what the purpose of a petition is, and

we moved in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down with those few words. I think what we did

here, I think what this Committee did, under the chairmanship of the Member for

Terra Nova, Mr. Lush, if I can use his name, who is, as I have said yesterday,

the dean of parliamentary procedure in this House, under the vice-chairmanship

of the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader, put together a

practice that I think will benefit all of us. I want to thank again all of the

members of the committee. If I missed

somebody - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I even enjoyed him, except in

the early mornings. He gets a bit uptight, a bit squeamish, and a bit - I don't

know - chippy' early in the mornings. There is something about him. I don't

know why that happens. The Member for Lewisporte, who is not here, spent some

time with us on this committee this summer - unfortunately he could not be with

us this fall - and the Member for Topsail, the Member for Trinity, and at times

the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and the Member for

Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I think it is a great piece of work that we

have done here and should indeed enhance the work of this House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments. I made reference to some of the subject matter

that is discussed there with leave when I tabled the report. As the Government

House Leader has indicated, we are also in the process, I think, as he mentioned

yesterday of getting the Standing Orders sort of cleaned up and get some order

and structure to them, but with reference to some of the specific things here,

election of a Speaker, I think it is about time that we moved into electing a

Speaker - the last Province in Cana da

- and with that comes certain authority, we recognize, that should be with the

Speaker. For instance, we cannot appeal the ruling of the Speaker, the Speaker's

right to suspend someone from the House for the remainder of that day and so on

would come with that also. That is certainly something that we can support

there, and I think the committee has moved in the appropriate direction on

these.

What we see here in this motion as procedures and so on, electing, I am not

going to comment on that. They are pretty standardized procedures in which you

would elect a Speaker, and when a Speaker would be elected and so on. Obviously

it would be after - generally the Cabinet is put in place first. When you are

voting then, somebody would not be, of course, a Member of Cabinet. That would

not be possible; nor would it occur prior to that. That would give an

opportunity that somebody, if appointed to Cabinet, would not have to step down

as Speaker and go through the process again.

We have some fairly significant changes overall in our Standing Orders. One

reference there is Sitting Day Extended. Basically, when you look at and debate

whether there is more time in a particular day - we can look at it realistically

and say that in a normal day in the House of Assembly there are about two hours

used for debating in the House. The first hour is usually taken up with

Ministerial Statements, Question Period and Petitions, and then you generally

have two hours. By removing Friday, we have taken out two hours and we have

added an hour into each day to put three more hours on, and we have taken a half

hour for the Late Show to give it three-and-a-half -

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus Petitions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Petitions could always be presented on the other days

anyway, because you may have the same number; you might do them in four days.

Still it reduces, generally, the time there. Really, at worse case, if you just

compared equals there, you would probably end up with probably

an-hour-and-a-half extra debating time. Added into a particular week, that does

increase the amount of time that we have to do business of the day. I think that

is a positive one. It is positive in a sense that on Friday it allows especially

two things: Not only members who live far away from the city and have to get

home and are tied up in travel; it also allows a day in which the House is not

sitting during the week that you have to do business.

A lot of people get constituent calls and it is difficult to do it when you

are in meetings. I know, from our perspective, we are normally in meetings from

9:00 a.m. often until noon hour. You are waiting to get calls back. You come to

the House and people call you back. It is at least one day of the week in which

you can be there to take calls and at least get calls back during a working day.

It is kind of difficult to do it otherwise. I think it is much in line with

other jurisdictions across the country, too, that they do not sit on Friday.

I think that aids not only in the travel aspect, but it also aids in being

able to carry out the business of constituents. That is one of the reasons why

we were elected in the first place, and probably a very important reason why

anyone may want to get reelected again, by serving constituents in the district.

If you do not look after constit