June 14,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 29

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. the Member for

St. John's South raised a question about the awarding of a tender for the

refurbishing of buses owned by the St. John's Transportation Commission, to a

company located outside the Province. The member referenced the Provincial

Preference Act, suggesting that a local company, East Coast Fleet Repair, should

have won the tender. I committed to look into the matter and report back to the

House. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, who is today on the beautiful island of Fogo, I am doing that

for her today.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very specific preference policy in

place under the Provincial Preference Act. It is intended to give companies

located in this Province an advantage in bidding for work under tenders issued

by any government body or agency in the Province. The advantage is based on a

calculation which is comprised of a Provincial Overhead Allowance number, the

local labour content, and the local materials content of the bid. This local

content information must be supplied as part of the bid before the tender is

opened if the company wishes to avail of local preference. These preference

rules have been in place for many years and are generally well understood by the

supplier community.

As in any bid on a tender call, it is the responsibility of

to comply with the applicable legislation. It is by this means that the fairness

of the bidding process is maintained. The bidder must come to know these things

before placing the bid and not afterwards, as was evidently the case here. I

have checked with officials who administer the Provincial Preference Act and

other public tender legislation and they have advised me of a number of factors

relative to the bid of East Coast Fleet Repair.

First, this company did not consult government officials with

respect to the local preference requirements of the tender call before the

tender closed. Second, in a legal opinion, the Department of Justice advised

that, once the bids are opened it is not possible for a bidder to re-submit on

any part of the bid, including the local content portions. Third, the legal

opinion stated that the sort of labour referred to in the tender call -

refurbishing buses - may not, in any event, be within the spirit or intent of

the "provincial labour content" as it is defined in the Regulations under the

Provincial Preference Act.

The owner of East Coast Fleet Repair, Mr. Stamp, is quoted in

the newspaper as saying his failure to understand the rules of provincial

preference cost him the contract. This is an unfortunate turn of events for him.

However, I would reiterate that there is no way that changes to the bid

submission may be made after the tender closing time.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Preference Act helps businesses

compete for work in the Province. But it is essential that suppliers be aware of

the requirements of the Act, and I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I think this

Provincial Preference Act has been around for some ten or fifteen years. As a

matter of fact, I believe it was brought in by the Peckford Administration.

Officials are more than willing to assist suppliers in this

regard, but the onus is on suppliers to request relevant information.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister, on behalf of my colleagues and the

members on this side of the House for supplying the Ministerial Statement just

before the House opened. The issue here is not one of the legalities, I say to

the minister; the issue here is our concern that there has been a breakdown in

communications between the government and its regulatory agencies and the local

business community.

I would ask the hon. the minister, on behalf of the

government, to assure that its regulations, relative to public tender and the

local preference policy be well communicated through the Chambers of Commerce

and through the Boards of Trade and that kind of thing so that all businessmen

in the Province have an opportunity to know the regulations. While Mr. Stamp

admits his failure to be fully aware, what that says is that Mr. Stamp, who is

an experienced businessman, who owns a business in Donovans Industrial Park, if

he and his group of people don't know the policy, then we ask the question: How

many more people do not know the policy? So I ask the minister to do a little

bit of public relations and do your job to keep jobs in Newfoundland and

Labrador and let us make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen because of

the failure of communications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess this is an example of provincial regulations being in

place but people not fully understanding how they operate and being able to take

advantage of them.

It is a very sad thing to see a number of buses being driven

from here to Ontario to be fixed up and driven back to be operated when someone

locally can do the work, and I think it is, certainly incumbent upon government

to make sure people are aware of these programs. Obviously, businesses have that

responsibility too. People in this Province, Mr. Speaker, need all the work they

can get and this government has the responsibility to make sure that they know

how to get it.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the

honourable House of Assembly of the forestry resource road contracts that have

been awarded to private contractors throughout the Province.

To date, Mr. Speaker - and I emphasis that this is to date -

$378,000 has been awarded for resource road construction involving the

construction of four bridges and road upgrading, plus the construction of

approximately twelve kilometres of new roads. These resource roads provide

critical access to both commercial and domestic timber harvesting operators. I

would also stress, Mr. Speaker, that these roads are used for silviculture

purposes, as well as by recreational users such as cottage owners, hunters,

ecotourism operators.

Mr. Speaker, the resource road program is now completely

funded by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As a result of these contracts, Mr. Speaker, approximately

sixty-six jobs will be created, scattered across the Province in areas where

forestry harvesting and forest management work is underway. This will result in

375 weeks of employment.

Mr. Speaker, the following list outlines the project

locations and weeks of employment created: the first one on the list, Mr.

Speaker, is Baie Verte. That upset the member for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Twenty weeks of employment; Bonavista North, my

district, only twenty-four weeks of employment and then we get to Bonavista

South - how non-partisan are we - fifty weeks of employment. The highest on the

list, the Member for Baie Verte (inaudible). Conception Bay East & Bell Island,

twelve weeks of employment; Humber Valley, twenty-five weeks of employment;

Lewisporte, forty-eight weeks of employment; Straits - White Bay, twenty-three

weeks of employment; Terra Nova, forty-nine weeks of employment; Windsor -

Springdale, twenty-one weeks of employment. The highest district, Bonavista

South. The Member for Port de Grave shakes his head.

Mr. Speaker, in these times of economic uncertainty these

jobs are of great value to the families living in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the work being carried out provides for the

continued viability of our forest-based industries and for the long-term

management of our forests.

I wonder if the Member for Baie Verte can stand any more good

news this morning?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say to the

minister I was hoping that the $6 million for road transportation could be a bit

more spread around, seeing that out of $6 million there was one culvert for

Bonavista South.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this road access is

critical to both commercial and the domestic harvesting practices in the

Province and we certainly agree with that. It is also for silviculture purposes

and recreational purposes and so on, Mr. Speaker, but I would also like to

remind the minister that there are some very serious concerns in the forest

industry right now and of course the harvesting and the amount of jobs that are

being lost this summer because of harvesting practices of the harvesters. That

is something that the minister should draw his attention to and he will hear it

Sunday when he visits my district.

Although this is critical, that those practices have to be

adhered to and listened to, the minister should address the very important

issues in the forest industry, one of those being the practices of the

harvesters in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; my questions today

are for the Minister of Education.

The Senate, yesterday, unanimously decided to hold public

hearings on Term 17 and report back by July 17. Will our own government,

therefore, now release the legislation it wants passed before September - that

is Bill 8 - and use the interim between now and the middle of July to let people

see what exactly is in the bill?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are two issues, actually; I am glad the hon. member and

Leader of the Opposition raised the question. There will be some pressure of

time with respect to a date of mid to late July with the Senate giving its full

deliberation to the matter of something that is of great importance to

Newfoundland and Labrador, which is passage of a constitutional amendment

enabling education reform to proceed, and I understand completely that all

members of this House are fully supportive of the initiative and want it to

conclude at the earliest date.

The position for the government to debate, and we will be

doing this early next week, is again whether or not it is appropriate for this

particular Legislature to try and presume what the Senate might do as a result

of its hearings, and then a vote following that, or whether we will totally

respect the authority of the Senate to go ahead with its hearings, some of which

will be held in the Province, and then bring it to a final vote, and after the

Senate has completed it bring forward legislation.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will explore the

issue with further questions, as he usually does, because I would hope that he

is not suggesting that in the interim legislation, which is all we are going to

bring forward to deal with two issues, the establishment of ten

interdenominational boards instead of twenty-seven denominationally based, which

everybody agrees with in principle, including all of the leaders of the churches

and so on, but that does not mean that somebody might not find some reason to

quibble or haggle over a few of the words that might be in a piece of

legislation giving rise to those ten boards. That is a different issue, and that

is what the Cabinet has been dealing with and that is what we will decide, as to

whether or not it is productive for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador to be

having any kind of a discussion where people have already indicated, when we saw

some sign with respect to a framework agreement that suggested the kinds of

things that might occur, that people can disagree over words, even when there is

full agreement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - over the basic principle of ten boards and

a construction board.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What exactly is the hold-up? The Premier said I would have a

copy as soon as Cabinet has seen it. So, I am understanding -

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't.

MR. SULLIVAN: They haven't! Do you mean to tell me that

Cabinet still has no idea as to exactly how it plans to reduce school boards and

establish a school construction board by September. They don't know now! You are

telling the Senate to get on with it and your own Cabinet hasn't even considered

the bill, that we wanted that passed by the end of this month. I say to the

minister: Why aren't you ready?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government and the Department of Education, Mr. Speaker,

have been ready to proceed on this issue since before the last election. That is

why there was a clear statement in the mandate of the government of the Province

led by Premier Tobin at the time and endorsed by the people of the Province or

the large mandate that is reflected in the make-up of this Legislature

indicating that we would proceed with ten boards instead -

MR. J. BYRNE: Answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: - of twenty-seven denominationally based

boards, and that we would proceed, Mr. Speaker, with a single construction board

rather than have monies for construction passed out on a per capita basis by

denomination.

However - and here is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker -

the Cabinet itself has not yet dealt with the details of the language that would

enable that to occur, because when you deal with the language even - let me make

this suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House - even the

Leader of the Opposition, who fully supports the principle, might find some

reason to haggle or quibble over a few of the words that give effect to it. That

is what a debate over legislation leads to and that is why the Cabinet will

consider and continue to consider whether or not it is productive and useful and

constructive for us to be debating the details of the legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - prior to the Senate concluding its

deliberations on the matter.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, every single person on this side of

the House in the PC Official Opposition were here, present and voted, when that

was dealt with to move expeditiously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Members of your side scrambled out the door

before the vote and they aren't all united on that issue, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Now we are committed. I say to the

minister: You have admitted now. Won't you acknowledge that the only thing to

prevent government from now sending Bill No. 8 to a legislation review committee

is that the government isn't ready for educational reform?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, the government is completely

ready for education reform. It has been endorsed in a general sense by the

people of the Province. What we have is the government recognizing and

respecting the parliamentary processes that are in place, one of which is that

the Parliament of Canada has not yet completed its deliberation with respect to

the amendment to the Constitution.

Even while there is general consensus, as I've been pointing

out, with respect to the notion of ten interdenominational boards instead of

twenty-seven separate denominational boards, a single construction board instead

of giving money out for construction on a pro-rated basis by denomination -

while those principles are agreed, and I believe unanimous in the Province,

there has already been indication, even in discussions we have had with the

representatives of the denominational education councils, when we have discussed

the matter with representatives of the Yes Means Yes committee and others, that

there is never unanimous agreement as to the actual detailed words that would

put those things into effect. That is what the legislation provides for.

The Cabinet has not dealt with and given final approval to

legislation that the Department of Education has put forward with respect to

this issue. It is a continuing debate. We will again very early next week be

reconvening in Cabinet to deal with the issues of what happens with respect to

the Senate; how would the Senate and the Senators feel with respect to the

Province going forward with legislation prior to them having a full, open and

clear debate of the issues as they know them to be, and whether or not that will

be advantageous with respect to proceeding with education reform that we all

want.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the minister were the two happiest people

that the Senate delayed this bill. He said here today: We are not ready with the

wording. We are quibbling over wording. He said: We are not yet ready to deal

with it. Now -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I did talk to my buddies. I wrote the House

Leader of the Senate, the PC Leader of the Senate yesterday morning. I wrote and

I got a response thirty minutes after the Senate closed yesterday from Senator

Lynch-Staunton requesting expeditious passage of this. I dealt with that in the

House yesterday evening and the minister agreed with it, and complimented us on

our proactive approach to getting that through the Senate yesterday. I had

numerous conversations with Senators over the last two days and with the Senate

Leader for the PCs.

I ask the minister: In light of what the minister has just

said, he has just indicated government is not ready yet to deal with it. Did the

minister not realize that a finalized draft of Bill No. 8 would be needed

earlier than today in case the Senate had passed Term 17 after just two days

like the House of Commons did? Didn't he realize we would need that bill ready

and it is you who is delaying the process?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no delay. The fact

of the matter is that regardless of what the Leader of the Opposition would like

to suggest with respect to provincial legislation, in any event, none of it

would have legal effect until the Parliament of Canada is finished its

deliberations. That is not finished yet. There is going to be a public dialogue

in the Province, televised as I understand it, where the Senate will have at

least - the last I heard was sixteen or seventeen groups which will present and

discuss the reform issue and the need for the amendment.

What we want to do at this point is make sure that everybody

is clear and hopefully united in terms of appearing before the Senate committee

to guarantee that the Province wants, almost unanimously, the amendment to

proceed so we can get back to a debate in this Legislature with respect to our

own legislation.

With respect to the issue raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, I think again I would like for the public record to compliment the

Leader of the Opposition, and also the Leader of the NDP. But most recently the

Leader of the Opposition yesterday, in a very trying circumstance, for the

betterment of the Province and on behalf of the people of the Province, put

forth an extraordinary effort in contacting members of the Senate who were

Progressive Conservatives. Intervening on behalf of the people of the Province

yesterday, he put partisan politics aside, asking them to be reasonable with

respect to their approach in finalizing their consideration of Term 17 -

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

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - and as a result, Mr. Speaker, we will have

the hearings concluded by July 17 and we can proceed with legislation very

quickly after that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and the government have orchestrated a nice ploy

to divert attention away from their inability and incompetence to prepare this

legislation by talking about Meech Lake. Senator Rompkey indicated he heard

nothing about Meech Lake and the Liberal Senate. That is a figment in the

imagination of the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now I ask the minister: Why is the

government setting itself up to ram it through this Legislature by mid-July

without hearings? Doesn't the minister know by now, that for the framework

agreement, this kind of secretive behaviour just gets you into trouble?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there can hardly be any suggestion of any secretive

behaviour.

The next thing that needs to occur, with respect to education

reform proceeding in this Province, is to have the amendment to Term 17 pass the

Parliament of Canada. In order for it to pass the complete Parliament of Canada,

it needs, Mr. Speaker, to pass the Senate. There is going to be absolutely

nothing secretive about the Senate debate, it is going to be televised here in

the Province with representations and there is really not much point or purpose

in the Opposition now trying to suggest that there should be - and this is what

the government is still puzzled at, Mr. Speaker - how the Leader of the

Opposition can be so completely supportive in one breath, of going ahead with

reform and having ten boards and having a single construction board, and then

suggesting, as he is today, that there needs to be some kind of extended,

protracted debate on a piece of legislation that does nothing else except

accomplish those two things which are, to have ten boards and a single

construction board.

Now, the view of the government, Mr. Speaker, is that the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador are sick and tired of this debate and would

rather that we just, even if we did it the day after the Senate is there,

because there is not much point before hand, they may defeat the amendment yet,

Mr. Speaker, that is a possibility, but we hope that is not the case, but that

we go ahead, Mr. Speaker, and pass the thing.

The suggestion is that there needs to be some wide-ranging

debate in the Province about a piece of legislation that establishes ten boards

and a construction board, and I would ask the question: Why would anybody

suggest that we should debate that for any more than thirty seconds, have it

passed and have it done with, so if the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker,

is suggesting that they will pass that this morning, without debate and we can

carry on, then get the amendment passed, the Cabinet will convene, I am sure,

before twelve o'clock, we can have it done and we can have the Newfoundland

portion of it finished before twelve o'clock.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the minister that if we see it now, and when it

comes to this Legislature that it won't be beyond two days, it will be through

this House; I will give him that guarantee. And there are two reasons why I want

to see it now, I say to the minister, in response to him. Number one, the

Premier promised in this House, he would provide me with a copy of the draft

legislation before it is tabled -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- and secondly, if there is nothing of major importance in

it, why not let us see it now?

I ask the minister, is the framework agreement that you

announced on April 17, the basis of this legislation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Leader of the

Opposition now is dreaming of some romantic days in the past.

It is clear in the Province that, first of all, the

Opposition, Mr. Speaker, tried to suggest that they, for some reason, in

education didn't understand the concept of a framework agreement when they

understand it in all other context.

A framework agreement, as everybody understands, lays out the

principles that you hope to accomplish and it laid out that we hoped to

accomplish ten interdenominational boards and a single construction board. On

the other issues, Mr. Speaker, that are going to be debated next Fall in a major

way in this Province, with respect to viability, the expression of parental

preference, all of those, Mr. Speaker, were spelled out in the framework

agreement as issues yet to be addressed, and for some reason, some people,

including the Leader of the Opposition and a few others, jumped on it and said:

Oh, this is awful, this is shocking, this is an abandonment of what the

referendum was about.

The Premier has stated consistently, Mr. Speaker, that the

legislation does nothing more, nothing less than deliver exactly what is

provided for in the amended Term 17; that is what it will do, Mr. Speaker, and

if that is the case, and we can have passage in two days, we will convene the

Cabinet shortly, bring it in this morning and we will have it finished by

Tuesday.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the framework agreement were the principles, yet it was

a lack of principle and commitment to the people of this Province that occurred

in that framework agreement, I say to the minister.

Now, will the minister reaffirm the commitment that the

Premier gave here in this House last month, and again this past week, that this

legislation will reflect what people voted for last September?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that has been confirmed in this

Legislature several times, and the amendment itself, the legislation will deal

with exactly that. Even in the absence of the Premier I am confident that I can

say again to the Leader of the Opposition that if he is suggesting and

committing now that we could have a debate in this Legislature concluded in two

days, by next Tuesday, we will convene the Cabinet this morning, finalize the

legislation, contact the Premier, and have the debate over with by Tuesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said before, and I ask again: What is wrong with submitting

it? It is completely within the confines of the Legislature of this House to

refer the draft legislation to a Legislation Review Committee so we can have

public hearings on this starting now, so we are ready to deal with it in the

House within two days.

Will the minister commit to allowing a legislative committee

of this House to have public hearings to deal with this legislation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now we understand again, as we see, the Leader of the

Opposition speaks out of one side of his mouth and says: We agree, we can do it

in two days; and then out of the other side of his mouth says: We have to have a

major public dialogue and discussion about ten boards and a construction board.

The issue again for the government, if that is his request,

if he wants it dealt with expeditiously, if he wants these basic principles

enshrined in legislation in a couple of days, and wants it over with on behalf

of the people of the Province, that we can accommodate. If he thinks for some

reason that there is a need in this Province to have a major debate about

whether we should have ten boards instead of twenty-seven, and a single

construction board, instead of dividing the money by denomination on a per

capita basis, then that is the only reason why we would think there would be a

need for any kind of Parliamentary committee of this House to tour the Province.

We think those issues in the Province have been decided; they are finalized. We

will certainly bring in the legislation if we want to pass it in a couple of

days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer.

MR. GRIMES: If we want to have some kind of a committee

travel around for two or three weeks, then we have to have another debate about

the issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; my question is for

the Minister of Education.

Yesterday the Board of Regents at Memorial University met to

discuss many things, but certainly it met to discuss the impact of the

provincial government's budget. Let me ask the minister: Can he inform the House

today of what the Board of Regents decided with respect to tuition increases?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I could if I had had any

official contact with the university this morning. I had a preliminary

discussion with Dr. May yesterday afternoon when they were getting ready to

conclude their meetings and were left with one item yet on their agenda, which

was the tuition increases. I have not had a direct contact with them at this

point in time. I have some information indirectly with respect to the decisions

they have made on tuition increases, and I understand that the University, which

is the appropriate organization, will be making their decisions public this

morning in a press conference, and I believe it would be inappropriate for me to

be suggesting - because some of the information I have gotten indirectly may not

be exactly what the final decision was. Even while I have some information that

suggests what the increases might be - and there will be increases - I believe

it would be inappropriate for me to be announcing them on behalf of the

University, which is going to do that publicly, because it is their role to do

so, in short order.

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

supplementary.

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

My information tells me that the increases have gone through

as I have presented in the House in terms of undergraduate fees.

Let me ask the minister: While it is the University's role to

deal with the funding that government provides it, and then decide how they use

the funding, it is certainly the provincial government's responsibility when it

comes to student aid and ensuring that people have access to a quality

post-secondary education. Can the minister give a commitment today that he will

introduce corresponding increases in the amount of loans available - and he

knows that it is loans only - corresponding increases in the amount of

provincial loans available to students that will match the increases in tuition

that Memorial will be introducing?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that particular question, because I think that

is an issue that the government, through the Department of Education, has some

latitude to try and assist students in borrowing more money to offset increased

costs in tuition.

Because there has been projected for some while, ever since

the government reduced its grant to the University, that there would likely be

tuition increases, we have had officials in the Department of Education and in

the Student Load Division look at what flexibility we do have in the program to

increase the loan portfolio and the capability of students to borrow more money

on a weekly and semester basis. With the final numbers that are going to be

available to us today, Mr. Speaker, in short order, probably in the next week or

ten days or so the officials in the Department of Education should be able to

finalize the limits and extent to which we can potentially increase the

borrowing capability under the Canada Student Loan Program.

There is indeed, Mr. Speaker, some flexibility in that

program. There are monies available in the Budget contemplating some potential

increases because of the decrease in the granting from government; and the

details of that should be worked out within the next week or ten days. I believe

it would be appropriate at this point to suggest that students, in all

likelihood, could expect to see their capability to borrow increase somewhat to

offset some of these tuition increases.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my information says that

standard undergraduate fees at the University will increase by 15 per cent and

those in professional schools will go up by about 32 to 33 per cent. So, is the

minister making a commitment today that his department and the provincial

government will match exactly the amounts that tuitions have gone up, because

there are significant increases; the minister knows that, government knows that.

If student aid does not rise in a matching fashion or corresponding fashion,

Is the minister saying today, can he confirm that he will

ensure that the tuition increases, while going up a certain percentage, that

student aid, the provincial grant portion, will also go up exactly the amount

that tuition goes up, to ensure that each and every student in this Province has

an opportunity to go to Memorial or any other post-secondary educational

institution?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately I can't answer that it would be exactly in

step, but the information that we have in a preliminary fashion, and the study

that has been done in the last couple of weeks, is that the vast majority of the

increases at all levels, undergraduate and in the professional schools and so

on, can probably be accommodated through some increased capability in the Canada

Student Loan Program. It won't be dollar for dollar, Mr. Speaker.

The information, I think, maybe using a number that is fairly

close to accurate - there is a phrase that the hon. member is aware of, that

even today there is what is known as an unmet need with respect to student

loans, that the student loan doesn't cover 100 per cent of the fundamental costs

of a semester at the University or at one of the trades colleges, the community

colleges or even at one of the private schools. There has always been a category

of unmet need of some portion of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is expected that somewhere in the range of

three-quarters or more of the increased unmet need might be able to be

accommodated by increases in the Canada Student Loan Program. So it doesn't seem

as if the Student Loan Program has the capability to offset 100 per cent of the

increase, but it certainly seems that there is a capability to offset the

greater proportion of it, so that there again would be the least negative impact

upon the students that can possibly be dealt with through the Canada Student

Loan Program.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite government's difficulty with legislation on education

reform, there is a piece of legislation that the government can pass and can

pass very quickly. My question is to the Minister of Environment and Labour who

is also responsible for the Human Rights Code.

Is the minister prepared to commit to bring in an amendment

to the Human Rights Code this session that will have the effect of including

sexual orientation as one of the prohibitive grounds? Mr. Speaker, this change

has been made in almost all the jurisdictions of Canada; most recently, in the

House of Commons. Will the minister do what he said a couple of weeks ago he

would do, make our own amendment and not rely on the Supreme Court to tell us

what to do? Can he tell he is bringing in an amendment now to just merely add

sexual orientation to the list of prohibitive grounds in the Newfoundland and

Labrador Human Rights Code?

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

Labour.

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

I want to thank the member for the question. I would also

like to thank the member for his letter that he gave me yesterday with the

request.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the government has decided

to bring this matter to the Legislature as quickly as possible. Our people in

the Legislative side of the House of Assembly are getting the amendment ready

and Cabinet will review that amendment and bring it forward in due course. I

would expect that we will have it ready for fall session, as quickly as

possible, as quickly as we can bring it forward, for a vote in the Legislature

which will be, and it is a commitment by the government to do so for the first

time in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi, on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: I appreciate the commitment that the minister

made for the first time, as he says. It is a bit surprising that it can't be

done more quickly, Mr. Speaker. The government has been in court fighting the

Human Rights Commission over this issue last year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

MR. HARRIS: They have had this issue before them for many

years, why can't they do it sooner and why can't they bring it to the House now?

It is a simple amendment basically adding two words to a list several times in

the act.

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to debate the

simplification of the amendment. The government has given a commitment to bring

this matter to the Legislature to deal with the matter, to have a vote on the

matter for everybody in this House of Assembly and we are going to do that. We

are drafting, people are getting the amendments ready, Cabinet has to have a

look at it and then we will bring it forward to the House of Assembly. So the

House Leader will soon, in very short order and in due course, have an amendment

that we can lay here on the Order Paper for the House of Assembly to have a vote

on for the first time. Yes, it is about time that we brought it forward, Mr.

Speaker, I totally agree.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this

morning are for the Minister of Health.

Some day between now and the end of 1998 the government tells

us the contents of the Janeway, machinery, records, staff, patients and all,

will be uprooted and transferred to a facility in, on, under, connected to or

not far away from the Health Sciences Complex. Somewhere that's right, the

government apparently has not yet made up its mind. Two years is a very short

period of time when we are talking about moving an existing hospital to a

non-existing setting. At what stage, Mr. Minister, are the blueprints for the

new facility and the plan for transferring the guts of the Janeway from point A

to point B?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the

question, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot help but say that the question is far from

original. The question has been asked in this House half-a-dozen times at least

in different forms. Let me tell the hon. member again, for the record and for

the information of the House, that plans are proceeding exactly as were laid out

last June 29 when we announced restructuring. December 31, 1998 is the proposed

completion date to have all of the restructuring done.

In terms of the specific plans for the new space over at the

Health Sciences that will accommodate a new paediatric children's hospital, the

programming has been completed or is being completed as we speak. By the middle

of July, latest end of July, I will have before me the programming information

and the conceptuals as to the amount of space that will be required, what that

space will look like, where it will be added to, contiguous with, adjacent to

the existing Health Sciences and all of that will be made available, not only to

me but as quickly as I can thereafter, to the members of the public as well. We

are on schedule. The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South need not worry or

lose any sleep, it is in good hands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: That's what frightens me.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister anticipate inviting proposals

to design, build and lease this new facility as it did with the Trans City

health care facilities or will it follow the usual course by first calling for

design and then calling for tenders on the work itself?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once we have

received and decided on what the scope and extent of the actual construction

project will be we will move forward in a manner that is consistent with

government policy meeting all of the requirements of public tendering as will be

appropriate at that time. We will do what is right and we will do it in a right

and proper manner so that we will maximize the value of the taxpayers dollar in

terms of the return we will get for the investment that we will make in the new

capital construction that has to go forward.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table the annual report

for 1995-96 of the Canada Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and in so doing

wish to state that since this is a report sent jointly to me and to the federal

minister, it is also being released in Ottawa today. I table the report.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Internal

Economic Commission Act." (Bill No. 18)

Petitions

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

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

today on the last day of the week for a growing list of names on the food

fishery from the great District of Exploits. Botwood, Point Leamington, all that

area, almost 800 names in this petition. I haven't had a chance to count them

exactly yet but approximately 800 names. Another petition, a petition that

continues to grow by the minute.

I will read the prayer first of all: We, the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to support our petition to open a food fishery for the

people of this Province. Every ocean bordering province in Canada except

Newfoundland and Labrador - and now of course including St. Pierre and Miquelon.

We the undersigned take strong exception to the treatment we are receiving from

the government. We did not destroy the fishery and object to the fact that as a

people our heritage is being taken away from us. We do not believe that a small

hand line fishery would damage the recovering stocks.

That last line, Mr. Speaker, is especially for the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Because it is really strange, it is like he is

flip-flopping all over the place on this particular issue. He tries to use a

smoke screen. Every now and then I listen to the minister in the House and he

starts to make some sense and he is right on track, and he even sounds like he

is back to his old Newfoundland self, speaking with his fists grasped on behalf

of Newfoundlanders. Then all of a sudden he turns it around again. Yesterday was

the most ridiculous statement that the minister (inaudible). Honest. I couldn't

believe the statement the minister made yesterday. He said to me: Why don't you

present petitions for the commercial food fishery? Commercial fishery!

There are two points why I haven't presented a petition for

the commercial fishery. Number one, because I haven't got one. I have a petition

for the recreational food fishery.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will make it official in this

House that I did not go to any doors. As a matter of fact I will give the

minister the name of the man who heard me say it somewhere and he sent me 810

names. He said: Keep it up, boy. Keep it up for God's sake, you have to have

somebody fight for Newfoundlanders.

This is not a commercial food fishery. That is one reason I

did not present commercial fishery petitions because I do not have one. That is

an obvious one. The other one is it is chalk and cheese. We are talking about

less than 1,000 tons of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If you want me to tell you, you will be

quiet. If you wanted me to give you the reasons I will give them to you. I'm not

afraid to say them. I said to the minister: I will talk to you anywhere on them

any time. I'm talking about a commercial fishery and the minister knows it. It

is just a big show going on here now, that is all it is, Mr. Speaker. A

commercial fishery -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, and I started it when I didn't know who

was supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I started saying this two years when I had one

petition with twenty names on it. I didn't know who was there. It is on record

in this House, the petitions I presented two years ago when the principle of the

idea -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture is getting on with malarkey. He knows bloody well that I'm just as

concerned - and I would say more concerned than the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture about people getting back to work in this Province. That is

foolishness. That won't wash. He knows that.

The truth is there is a principle involved here that the

minister is trying to hide behind. The principle is that a man should be able to

go out and jig a fish. As far as hurting recovering stocks, he listened to my

point the other day and now he is investigating, he said on the open line. The

truth is we don't know the research of the bay stocks and offshore biomasses. We

do have research on the biomasses. That is why we are in a moratorium. That is

why I do not support a commercial fishery until our scientific research is done

and shows that we can support a commercial food fishery. But there is no

evidence that tells us the bay stocks can't support 1,000 tons. That is the

whole key to this. A measly 1,000 tons is what it is, it is a principle.

The whole bottom line to all of this is this: It is

discrimination that is going on. Whether we should have one or not, whether we

can support or not a sustainable fishery, the point is the principle of

discrimination. It is bad enough that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick - we have

argued that for two years, but the minister knows and I think he agrees on this,

but he flip-flops around, that St. Pierre and Miquelon, with borders off our

Province of only three miles, can go out and jig a fish. Mr. Speaker, if those

people can go out and jig one fish - if it is open down there to jig one fish -

then the principle of discrimination has to be questioned, that people just

three miles off our shore can jig a fish to eat. Are they hurting recovering

stocks? Are they worried about jobs rebounding? The minister knows that he

cannot compare the commercial food fishery with the recreational food fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I want to make a couple of points in support of the petition.

First of all, I have listened to the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture for the last week on this issue, and he was astounded yesterday.

He said that members on this side had not presented a petition for a commercial

fishery - and neither will we. We do not support a commercial fishery at this

time - at this time.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: Because of conservation. The minister will

have a chance; he will he hear me.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, as he knows it, we support

conservation. The second reality is that members over here do not go out and

knock on doors getting petitions ready to bring into this House. If people bring

petitions to this House, we have a responsibility to bring them forward. The

Member for Baie Verte has brought them forward.

The real question is this: Would a food fishery interfere

with conservation of the stock? That is the issue that has to be answered. Now,

if you use the logic that is emanating out of Ottawa from the federal Minister

of Fisheries, you would think it would not. Other provinces in Atlantic Canada

are allowed to jig a codfish. St. Pierre and Miquelon, three miles off the coast

of this Province, are allowed to have a food fishery. Now, if we use that logic

coming from Ottawa -

MR. EFFORD: It didn't come from Ottawa.

MR. E. BYRNE: Where did it come from?

MR. EFFORD: France. You don't even know what you are

talking about.

MR. E. BYRNE: Indeed I do.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: A food fishery for the rest of Atlantic

Canada came from France? Is that what the provincial Minister of Fisheries is

saying, that a food fishery allowed in the other Atlantic Provinces and in

Quebec did not come from Ottawa?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, no, that came from the Government of

France; I understand that.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: Because that is along their corridor.

MR. EFFORD: Who made the decision?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. EFFORD: Who made the decision (inaudible)?

MR. EFFORD: No, it did not.

MR. E. BYRNE: Who negotiated it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) had nothing to do with

negotiations. You don't know what you are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are they out there jigging fish or not?

Yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, I don't think the minister

supports a food fishery in St. Pierre and Miquelon - I am sure he doesn't - and

I am sure that he does not support a food fishery in the rest of Atlantic

Canada. The real question for the minister to answer is this: What

representations has he made to Ottawa to stop it? That is the real question. And

what research can he lay on the table to show that the stocks in the bays, which

are not part of the overall biomass, will affect the overall stock? It will not.

He knows it; he alluded to it on the Fisheries Broadcast the other day -

I heard him - and what he is doing each and every day in responding to these

petitions is trying to make cheap political points. It is as simple as that, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not even have to think

about making cheap, political points in this House, because that is totally the

objective of members opposite, because that is what they are doing on a

day-to-day basis in presenting petitions for a food fishery in this Province.

Out of one side of their mouth they are saying they are concerned about

conservation, and out of the other side of their mouth they are saying we should

have a food fishery.

Let me give you some figures. You would think the members

would research this before they back themselves into a corner. Let's suppose we

call a food fishery open tomorrow morning. I would suspect there would be at

least 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out hand-lining or jigging cod,

whatever they would prefer to do, but let's say there were 20,000 - use those

numbers as an example - and let's say they were allowed to catch ten fish each.

Ten times 20,000 is 200,000 fish, minimum, that would be taken out of the water

on the very first day. Now, put that on for fourteen days, or put it on for

twenty days; that is 4 million fish; multiply that times an average of five

pounds of fish, that is twenty million pounds of fish, and they tell me they are

concerned about conservation? They are only jokes, Mr. Speaker, jokes.

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

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

Today I rise in my place to present a petition from areas in

my district, Logy Bay, Middle Cove, Outer Cove, concerning the Literacy 2000

Program. We have a letter attached that I will read into the record, Mr.

Speaker:

We, the parents and teachers of St. Agnes School, request the

reinstatement of the Literacy 2000 Program for 1996-'97 Kindergarten class,

which was scheduled to commence in September. We all know our youth of today

will have the responsibilities of our future endeavours. We have an obligation

as today's adults to ensure that our children are educated to handle the

challenges of the 21st Century.

Eliminating this process now, is a step backwards if we are

to bring our education standards up to average with the rest of Canada. We ask

that you please reconsider your decision and proceed with the original plan for

the sake of our children and for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we

are to compete globally, we must make the investment today. The letter is signed

by a number of the parents at St. Agnes and the PTA.

The petition to the House reads: The petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS we have an obligation as today's adults to ensure

that our children are educated to handle the challenges of the 21st Century; and

WHEREAS the cancellation of the Literacy 2000 Program for the

1996-'97 Kindergarten class is a step backwards in educating our children;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

reinstate the Literacy 2000 Program for the 1996-'97 Kindergarten class.

This is signed by over 120 people.

Mr. Speaker, this program was piloted by the government.

There was a two-day seminar on it and I think they had a lot of support from the

primary teachers from the schools in the Province and the various boards. This

program, as I said, was piloted by the government; obviously, they had to have

supported it themselves. From what I understand, the program in place now has

been in place for seventeen to eighteen years and the parents, teachers and the

boards find that this present program is ineffective and doesn't do the job it

is supposed to do.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, that is what I have been told. I am

repeating what I have been told, it is ineffective - you will have your chance

to say - Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Education, he will have his

chance, but I have been told that it is ineffective, it is old.

I have been talking to principals who want this new program

reinstated this year, the sooner the better. As a matter of fact, I have been

told that teachers actually bring in their own materials. Because the materials

that they are using in the present program are ineffective and they are bringing

in their own materials to help educate our children.

This new program, Literacy 2000, is seen to be an answer to

the problem; it was scheduled to go in place this September and because of the

Budget cuts, of course, we saw the Literacy 2000 Program being cut. And from

what I understand, it would not take a great amount of money to put this program

in place.

This government has maintained in the past that the solution

to our financial problems in this Province is Education and if the government is

true to that statement, then obviously, we must start at the very beginning of

our education program, with the Kindergarten class. Mr. Speaker, I have been

told by a number of people that they feel that the government of today, by

cancelling this Literacy 2000 Program is leaving our children high and dry.

I want to say, and make it publicly known, that I believe

this program should be reinstated this September and I call upon the Minister of

Education to reach down into the financial pockets of this administration and

come up with the money that is required to put the Literacy 2000 Program in

place this year. I will say to the Minister of Education again, I support the

petition of the people from Logy Bay, Pouch Cove, Torbay, Flatrock, Bauline and

St. John's. We have over 120 names on the petition. These people are genuinely

concerned that this program be put in place this year and I call upon the

minister to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

The issue of Kindergarten education is of paramount

importance to our young people. Perhaps the minister can confirm this but the

information that I have is that the Kindergarten program in this Province has

not been changed in nineteen years. When the Member for Baie Verte was in

Kindergarten nineteen years ago, that was the program that he was studying. So,

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in all areas of education, surely this is an

area that needs to be upgraded and updated. The theories of education have no

doubt changed and the technologies have changed considerably. What the children

are exposed to prior to going to Kindergarten has been changed, whether it be

computers or Sesame Street or whatever it is they watch.

As a recent father of a young child, I am obviously very

aware of the kind of learning that goes on in pre-school for children, and

obviously that has changed over the last nineteen years. And for this government

to say: Well, we have had this program for nineteen years, we have been studying

it, restudying it, we have some new programs coming out but we are not going to

implement them, we are going to postpone the implementation for some other

reason, the government is taking away an opportunity to improve, at the very

important pre-school age, the quality of education for young children. I know

that some schools and some school districts have made tremendous efforts to try

to improve the pre-school atmosphere for children.

I know, on Bell Island seven or eight years ago, a group

formed that was very interested in providing some enriched environments for kids

who might otherwise not be exposed to the kind of learning that goes on in a

pre-school and have gone out of their way to try to bring children into the

school at the age of three and four for a pre-school environment in order to

enhance the ability of those children to succeed. Studies time and time again

have shown that as early as Grade I, teachers can identify those children who

will succeed well in school and unfortunately, identify those children who will

have great difficulty succeeding in school.

The Member for Waterford - Valley instills his teaching

experience and educational expertise into the debate by suggesting age three. By

age three they don't even see the school, Mr. Speaker, because there is not any

adequate pre-school program in this Province. But when we get to Kindergarten,

the government seems to be sort of flip-flopping. Last year or a year or so ago

the Minister of Education was going to insist that the Kindergarten program be

imposed; full day Kindergarten was going to be imposed, just like that, on all

schools in the Province immediately. Now, this Minister of Education is saying:

Well, we have a nineteen year old Kindergarten program. The Member for Baie

Verte went to Kindergarten under that program and if it was good enough for him

it is going to be good enough for the crowd that are coming in next year. I just

don't think that that is the proper approach to the outstanding problems that we

have in education in this Province. We are all struggling with the difficulties

of reforming the overall education system and we want to enhance that education

system to make it possible for more dollars to go into education or as the

former, former, former Minister of Education would say: More scholar for the

dollar. That was his favourite phrase in this House with respect to education

reform. Mr. Speaker, it is not simply a question of more dollars for education,

it is a question of having a program that meets the needs of modern educational

theories and meets the needs of Newfoundland students. If we are going to

improve performance at the school level, obviously, an enhanced Kindergarten

program is very necessary to that task.

I support the efforts of the petitioners who are quite

concerned about their own children and about the children of this Province and

want to see this program implemented. It is, I understand, a good program. It is

one that PTAs across the Province are concerned about, not just in the District

of Cape St. Francis. I have heard representations from others and I have had

correspondence and calls from people who are concerned that the government, at

both ends of the spectrum - at the Kindergarten level they are reducing programs

and cutting out new initiatives and at the post-secondary level as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, to ask the minister

to change this policy.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief comments with respect to the petition. While

the thrust of the petition is quite understandable, Mr. Speaker, from the point

of view of parents being concerned and some of the teachers, there are a couple

of comments that I would like to make. I would invite the presenter of the

petition, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, to get a copy of Hansard and

pass the response back to the petitioners so that they will know exactly what I

have said.

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I will, I definitely will.

MR. GRIMES: I think there are some teachers concerned

about this issue, and appropriately so. There are some parents concerned about

the issue and appropriately so. Nobody, Mr. Speaker, would want to be taking

these decisions. We would like to change the curriculum materials and move to

more modern and more updated curriculum materials. But, Mr. Speaker, I think

that the teachers themselves, in making some suggestions here, and other

petitioners, and the hon. member in presenting it, have done a great disservice

in terms of suggesting that the current program has been ineffective. It is

nineteen years old, Mr. Speaker, but let me tell you the track record of what

has happened in the schools when the students -

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, why do you want to change it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Because change is necessary from a point of

view, but the point, Mr. Speaker, is whether it was essential this year and

whether or not we absolutely had to put the money in the Budget to do it, or

whether it was an effective enough program to be used for one more year.

Mr. Speaker, here is the record of nineteen years of this

program: In nineteen years, where this program is used to give the fundamental

introduction to reading at the Kindergarten Level - some students come to school

already with a capability of reading and others have had very little involvement

and experience with books, with literature and with the printed word and start

from scratch. Some are pretty advanced readers. There is a program in

Kindergarten, Mr. Speaker, a literacy program, that gives the students the

opportunity to make sure that all of them, before they leave Kindergarten, know

the fundamentals of the alphabet, of literacy, the fundamentals of the

beginnings for reading as a skill, which is essential to all the other learnings

that you would do.

In the nineteen years that this program has been used, rather

than be ineffective, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen are literacy rates amongst

the school-leaving population higher than ever, as a result of this program

being used for the last nineteen years. The rates for dropouts are lower than

ever because the people have a better foundation and their beginnings in school

and other programs are there. The percentage of students graduating, who started

their school experience with this program, is higher than ever in the Province,

Mr. Speaker. The literacy levels of the students are higher than ever.

Then for anyone to suggest that this program is ineffective,

as the hon. member mentioned in his presentation with respect to the petition,

is total, absolute disservice to the great program that has been in place for

the last nineteen years. Because the fundamentals of the program, Mr. Speaker,

are not scheduled to change, it is a matter of having more updated materials

that relate to current types of characters that young people today might

identify more readily than some that were in vogue nineteen years ago.

The fundamentals of the program are not scheduled to change

even in the new program. It is just that we would have more colourful, brighter,

more modern materials, which we would like to have. But Is it essential? Will

the students be in a position where they will not learn basic literacy skills in

Kindergarten? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is definitely not. This was one of the

very easy budget decisions that we could make, to defer implementation of a

preferred curriculum resource for one more year because we do know that it is an

effective program, it does serve the needs, it has served the needs well for

nineteen years. It could serve the needs, Mr. Speaker, for another fifty years,

because the fundamentals of the program are essentially the same as will be in

any other program. Those fundamentals in learning how to read largely don't

change. For anyone to suggest that it has been ineffective is doing a disservice

to the students, to the teachers and to the program that has served the Province

extremely well for the last nineteen years.

Our hope is that next year we will be able to bring in a new

program that has already been piloted, has been shown to be maybe and probably

equally as good, and we would hope that we would have these new materials for a

year's time. Unfortunately, due to the Budget consideration, we are not in a

position to fund them for September of 1996. In some areas, rather than parents

sign petitions, they have gone out and actually purchased these new materials

themselves and donated them to the school.

I was in a school in Port aux Basques just last week where

the parents themselves, when they heard that the government didn't have the

money to put the new materials in place, they have raised the money themselves

and they put the new materials in the school for the use of the Kindergarten

students.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: What a minister! Mr. Speaker, I suggest

to the minister that he take that funding out of his leadership campaign fund

because it will never be active again. There will be no need for it. He has a

few dollars there that he can spread around.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador: that

WHEREAS the new Crown lands prices are so great that many

people with low incomes will not be able to afford to have a cabin or cottage;

and

WHEREAS many cabin owners who have invested a great deal of

energy in cleaning up their land may find their investment is used against them

when the land is appraised; and

WHEREAS this Crown lands money grab is an attack on a way of

life that Newfoundlanders have enjoyed for years; and

WHEREAS the government that promised to listen to the people

neglected to consult with people before making this decision;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the government of Newfoundland and Labrador to revert

to the old system of charging reasonable leases on lands so people with limited

means can have ownership of cabins and recreational areas.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition with I think about 180 to 200

names taken from one particular road, if you would, in my district and in the

District of Terra Nova. People asked me if they took up and circulated a

petition if I would present it to the House for them. It is a situation where

those people are very upset. Now, they are going to be faced with bill of some

$2,500 to $3,000 for a remote cabin lot - or not a remote cabin lot, but it is a

lot that they have to - it is accessible by car so it is not considered remote.

But it is a lot that they thought they would have to pay only $75 a year as an

agreement that they had entered into with government for a lease on this

particular land.

Many of those people are living on a fixed income. Many are

not working at full-time jobs. Many of them are seniors and don't have access to

$2,500 or $3,000. Some of the statements that are being brought forward are not

very clear. I know that the minister suggested, or the minister has every

intention of getting information out to cabin owners. First, I would suggest

that he do that with the greatest speed that he can so people will be able to

understand exactly what it is he proposes to do.

The other plea, I suppose, that I would make to the minister

is that he give those people ample time to consider their options. I don't know

if many of them will have many options. Because I know a lot of them will not be

able to pay the $500 a year over five years, or the $2,500 down payment that he

will be looking for in order for them to have ownership of the land. Most of

those cabin owners don't need ownership of the land. They don't want ownership

of the land. They are quite satisfied with the agreement that they have already

entered into. I think that should be allowed to happen.

When you look at some of the work that has been put into many

of those cabins, the way that the particular land has been enhanced, the river

streams, the brooks, the ponds, the lakes that have been cleaned up by those

people, I think they have already done an excellent service to the department by

enhancing the landscape and beautifying the area. Now, all of a sudden, the

government sees a way to have a money grab, and they reach out, once again

without consulting, and say: Here is a way that we can make some quick money.

I think this is wrong. Many of those cabin owners did not go

and hire contractors to go in the woods and build their cabin. They could not

afford to do that, I say to the minister. Most of them went and cut their own

logs, and borrowed or bummed or bought second-hand furniture, second-hand

building supplies, in order to build a cabin. They did not have the $2,000 or

$3,000 then, and they don't have it now. For those people it is the only

vacation, the only outing, that they get in their lifetime, many of them. They

cannot afford to go to Florida every year; they cannot afford to go to

Disneyland. The trip that they take into their cabin is the enjoyment that they

get out of life, and now the minister has seen fit to reach out and take that

little bit of enjoyment away from many of those people who will probably have

to, if the minister puts the heavy hand of them, vacate the cabins and the areas

into which they put so much work.

I don't know how he is ever going to go out and deal with the

cabin owners who are living on or residing on registered land, or unregistered

land, because now, once again, the people who did not break the law, the people

who said: In order for us to build a cabin we are going to do what is right; we

are going to do it above board; we are going to go and apply; we are going to

get our land surveyed; we are going to pay the government the fee - and now they

are being penalized, and they wonder if it always proper to do what is right.

Maybe it is better to take the shortcuts, and at the end of the day you might be

much better off. You would certainly be better off as far as dollars and cents

in your pocket book are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he would seriously

consider this piece of legislation, or regulation, that he is about to

introduce. I ask that he would look at the cabin owners' situation and see what

their ability is to pay. I ask if he would consider what people out there today

are calling a cabin. I have no problem with him dealing with the people with

mansions built in the woods, where they land their helicopter on their

helicopter pad -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, those are not cottages; those

are places almost like condominiums in the forest where people go, and they can

afford to pay, and maybe they should pay, but we certainly should not go and

look at those low-wage earners, look at those senior citizens, and reach out and

demand that they pay $2,500 to $3,000 when they don't have the ability to pay.

I ask the minister if he would seriously look at this piece

of legislation, and look at changing it so he can accommodate those people who

are voicing their concerns.

Thank you.

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

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

I rise in my place today to support the petition presented by

the Member for Bonavista South concerning the situation with the Crown land

cabin lots. We have had a lot of discussion on this with respect to petitions

and public meetings and so on, called by this side of the House. People are

quite upset. There has been a lot of media attention to this issue, and the

people in the Province with cabin lots are quite upset that they are being

forced now to try to come up with money by October 31 to apply for a grant.

This issue seems to be in the media a lot with respect to

cabin owners, but there are more people involved than just cabin owners; there

are people with residential leases involved in this money grab also. I have

brought it up and asked a number of questions in the House of the minister with

respect to this issue, and I did not get the answers that the people of this

Province expected to get. You would expect an answer, but really we did not get

any answers.

We know the history over the past couple of weeks of how this

policy has been developed as time went by. But I want to get back to two issues.

One is the snow job, I suppose, that has been presented by the department with

respect to now saying that people can get their land, their leases, converted to

grants, and they will own the land at the end of the situation. I want to be

quite clear that the people of this Province know that that policy is in place

this very day. It was in place before the new policy was brought into being.

People who had the leases, once they met the conditions of that lease, they

could have applied for and got a grant. So to try to have this snow job cover up

and say now that people can own their land at the end of the deal is trying to

put something forward to the people to confuse the situation and not to clarify

the situation at all.

We had a public meeting last Wednesday night at the Holiday

Inn and the minister attended. I appreciate his attending the meeting, and I

think a number of the people were pleased that he showed up, and displeased at

the same time, because of the answers that were given. The minister did make a

commitment, and I want to hold him to it, that he would bring this back to

Cabinet. The biggest concern at that meeting was the time frame in which this

policy was to be put in place and how people would be forced to come up with

upwards of $2,000, $3,000 within ninety days, basically, of October 31. Because

they do have ninety days once the application is made. If they made their

application on October 31 1996 they could qualify for this new program. If they

didn't make application, well, then, they would be nailed to the cross, so to

speak, with the new rates where they would have to pay upwards of thousands of

dollars depending on the location of their property.

I want the minister to confirm that he has brought it to

Cabinet and if not, when he is going to bring it to Cabinet. I think at the

meeting the public was expecting to hear back from the minister within at least

two weeks. There is a week and two days gone by now and we haven't heard

anything yet. At least, I haven't heard anything. So, I hope the minister will

speak to this petition and let the people of the Province know when he is

bringing it to Cabinet if he has not already done so, and if he has done so,

what the results of that Cabinet meeting were. Will the people be given at least

three to five years to come up with the money that they would have had to come

up with say, by the end of January 1997? I would like the minister to address

that if he feels he would like to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) -

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

I believe the Minister of Government Services and Lands would

like to speak to the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of issues on the Crown lands policy. That

policy is in place. It was brought in as a budgetary item. In response to the

hon. the Member for Bonavista South, we have started the process of notifying

everybody who is a leaseholder who will be affected by this policy. In response

to the Member for Cape St. Francis, I will be taking to the Cabinet the request

from the meeting at the Holiday Inn in due course.

We have, to date, tried to deal with every person who has a

lease who has requested the department to deal with it. We are dealing with all

of these on an individual basis because the majority of those are all of

different circumstance. We need to ensure that each person receives the proper

information with regard to the leasehold that they now have. I would ask the

Member for Bonavista South if all of those whom he mentions are actually a part

of the program that we have in place. Remote cabins are not a part of this

particular Crown lands policy. There are a number of components through

commercial leases, residential leases and cottage lot leases that are underneath

this particular Crown lands policy.

With regard to the residential leases, as the member probably

is already aware, the people who are currently paying $50 for residential leases

can continue to do that. They are not required to apply by October 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, if they don't (inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: They are required to continue to pay fifty

dollars a year on their residential leases.

In regard to the extension, once the Cabinet has dealt with

the information and the request that we will be putting forward to Cabinet to

extend the payment period for cabin owners, we will be notifying hon. members

opposite at that particular time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, during Notices of Motion, I

neglected to give a motion. I wonder if I could have leave to revert to Notices

of Motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to

Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. the Minister

of Environment and Labour, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act." (Bill No. 17)

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. minister, I just

want to draw hon. members' attention to Bill Nos. 3 and 4 that were passed in

Committee last night and reported back to the House. In order to make sure that

we have a clear record on this, and that the record is complete, I am going to

ask the Clerk to read the bills for a third time.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered

passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill No. 3)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Financial Corporations Capital

Tax Act." (Bill No. 4)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 7. I believe we have

agreed to do second reading and that we will move to Committee immediately after

second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 7.

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

Safety Of The Public With Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices,

Amusement Rides, Pressure And Electrical Systems." (Bill No. 10)

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

and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, the previous administration

started a process of regulatory reform, and as part of that process the

government decided to establish government service centres in which all of the

inspection portions of government services would be done under this one roof.

Mr. Speaker, the result of that accommodation is the repealing of a number of

these acts into one which makes it much more reasonable for the government to

deal with these types of inspections. This bill is basically the result of a

number of acts being repealed into one because of the fact that we have gone to

one department to administer all of the legislation in these particular acts.

They are all being done now by the government service centres thereby not

requiring a whole bunch of different acts in order to be able to inspect these

types of establishments and mechanisms.

There will be a continuing effort to further consolidate

other bills in the process as we move along into a government services

department which will further lessen the requirements of a whole list of other

acts being out there in different departments.

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

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

I have a few comments relative to the general intent of this

particular bill. To facilitate matters, I may advise the minister that I may

direct some questions to him which he may want to comment on at this stage in

the proceedings. We have agreed, Mr. Speaker, together with the Government House

Leader, that we will permit a ten-minute rotation if that is agreeable to all

hon. members. In that way we will permit a number of speakers to be able to

speak and we will not unduly delay the proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side, are very conscious of the need

for safety in all parts of our communities. Mr. Speaker, I just want to note

that data which has been supplied to me from the Canadian Hospitals Injury

Reporting Prevention Program tells me that 75 per cent to 80 per cent of all the

accidents in this country could be prevented. In the data which has been

supplied it indicates that if we were to have a real good prevention program we

could have significant savings in our health care. For example, data supplied to

me from sources within the hospital administration systems in Newfoundland and

Labrador say that $220 million a year could be saved in this Province if we

could cut down on the number of injuries and accidents. So, Mr. Speaker, we want

to encourage the government to be always conscious of the need to protect our

citizens and the need to make sure that we do all we can to reduce the number of

the people who are injured, not only for their own personal benefit which is of

course a priority but also because of the extensive cost it has in our health

care system.

Mr. Speaker, I still have a couple of things I wanted to

direct the minister's attention to, in

Section 3, on page 6 of the bill - if the

minister is following there - when you mention there that the bill has

application for, "the design, manufacture, construction, installation, operation

and maintenance of," and you list out, "amusement rides; electrical systems;

elevating devices; and pressure systems." I am wondering if you included here

the chair lifts for example, that are at the various ski resorts? If that is

included there under amusement rides? Maybe yes, maybe no. What are the

regulations relative to the inspection, maintenance and the continued upkeep of

chair lifts at the ski resorts and at other places where there might be

elevating devices used? It is not specifically mentioned here but it might very

well fall into that very same category.

Section 4, again on page 6, it says, "Where, in the

opinion of the chief inspector, exceptional circumstances exist making strict

compliance with a regulation impractical, the chief inspector may grant an

exception from compliance with that regulation in individual cases, so long as

the exception is, in the opinion of the chief inspector consistent with safe

practices." Now, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know what documentation there might be

required of that for the exceptions? When exceptions are made, where is the

documentation filed? We know who makes the decision, is there public knowledge

of those exceptions? For example, on amusement rides if there is an exception

made, with the device, is that posted somewhere in the area? Where would the

people know and how would the people know that exceptions have been made whether

it is to an elevator, an amusement ride or any other systems that are mentioned

here? Where would the knowledge come from?

Section 6, I want to direct the minister's attention to

the fact that says, "The chief inspector for the purpose of carrying out his or

her duties under this Act may require the production of and inspect drawings and

specifications of a system or device." Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon.

minister when we use things like, `may require' and that's used twice in that

particular section, I have misgivings about that because surely goodness when we

are talking about electrical systems, elevating devices, pressure systems and

amusement rides it should not say `may' because that becomes a loophole. We

should be saying things like, `must require' or it is again absolutely needed

because `may require' will give some cases, I am sure, the temptation to

probably not enforce the regulation to the absolute limit. So I always get,

shall we say, a little bit less than comfortable when I see things like `may

require' and then. you can have all kinds of exceptions made to it.

In

section No. 7, it says for the purpose of the validation

of a certificate issued under this Act or the regulation, the chief inspector

may order the inspection of or testing of or re-testing of a person or a system

or a device; but what I don't see in the regulations here and I haven't given

them the greatest of scrutiny but when we talk about the testing of a person, I

was wondering what are the regulations talking here in terms of the testing of a

person. Are we saying that we have to have set procedures for certification and

that from time to time, a person who does not meet those procedures then that

person will have to be re-tested? I am wondering what the regulations are,

relative to the testing of a person. I can understand system or a device but to

say the testing of a person, I want the minister to, if he could, when he rises

again to comment on that particular part of it and tell us where the regulations

exist for the testing of a person.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to refer as well to the fact that I see

section 19, on page 11, I would say to the minister, you have financial

responsibility which basically says that a person is not entitled to a

certificate relating to amusement ride under this Act until he or she has shown

the chief inspector proof of financial responsibility.

I want to say to the minister: what will be the kind of

documentation that will be put forward, is there a consistency in the kind of

financial responsibility that you will be expecting from people when they own or

operate these devices, and in that case, I want to particularly refer to the

responsibility of amusement-ride operators going around the Province from place

to place and that kind of thing.

So, Mr. Speaker, what is the role here of municipalities for

example? Does a municipality have to show proof that they have adequate

insurance or does the operator have to show the municipality proof that he has

adequate insurance and that the insurance is up to date and that kind of thing;

what are the particulars of the proof of financial responsibility, to whom do

they have to show that and, does that include the municipality before they have

the permit granted?

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I would again ask the

minister to reflect on these when he speaks to close this part of the debate and

I think my hon. colleague, the Member for Cape St. Francis has a few comments

before we ask the minister to make his concluding statements.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few comments on this bill and

ask a few questions of the minister as we go through the bill.

Basically, it is a housekeeping bill in my opinion and of

course, anything that has to do with the safety of the people in this Province

has to be taken very seriously and I believe the minister made, in his

introduction of the bill, which was very short actually, I thought there would

be more to the minister's comments because there are something like eighteen

pages of this bill -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We can go over it word for word, I say to

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Now, seeing that he said that, I think I just might.

First Session, 43rd General Assembly, 45 Elizabeth II, 1996.

BILL 10:

An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The Public With Respect To The Use

And Operation - I am reading it word for word now, I will be here - how much

time do I have? ... word for word - You see, that is what you get for opening

your big mouth. That is what you have when you open your big mouth, you put

people on to get them upset and then they have to come back, so we will go word

for word - received and -

MR. EFFORD: When you read, can you speak (Inaudible),

shore?

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, that is something for the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, to make a comment to someone about the way he speaks.

Enough said, I will say nothing else on that topic because it only leads to

people getting upset and some insults thrown back I would advise the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, not to make any comments about the way people speak

in this House.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill No. 10, under

section 3,

the Member for Waterford Valley said a few words with respect to

section 3. He

addressed some of the concerns actually that I had. That is: "This Act applies

to the design, manufacture, construction, installation, operation and

maintenance of: (

a) amusement rides; (

b) electrical systems; (

c) elevating

devices; and (

d) pressure systems."

With respect to the elevating devices, my colleague mentioned

about chairs or lifts for ski resorts and what have you. I think that would come

under elevating devices and not really amusement rides. I would imagine that

those chair lifts are regularly inspected and if not they should be, of course.

The minister can address that when he gets to his feet. With respect to the

amusement rides I often wondered about these amusement circuses or whatever

coming to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, well, they should be. They should go

on a few of those fast slides downhill, I would say to the Member for Baie

Verte. The amusement rides coming into the Province, Mr. Speaker. I've often

wondered about the safety and the inspections and how often the inspections are

done with respect to those amusement rides.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture, if he is going to be asking questions don't ask a question when

it is quite clearly what has been stated unless he wants to pay attention. He is

out of order because he is not in his chair. He can stand and speak to this bill

which I doubt if he will. He may.

MR. EFFORD: By the time you finish reading there will be

no time for anybody else.

MR. J. BYRNE: Hopefully we won't have too much time for

you. I'm sure this House is sick of listening to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

We are on second reading of a bill. I would suggest the hon.

member stick to the second reading of the bill.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker - well, okay, I will accept

your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 4(2) says: "Where, in the opinion of the chief

inspector, exceptional circumstances exist making strict compliance with a

regulation impractical, the chief inspector may grant an exception from

compliance...." Now again, the Member for Waterford Valley brought that up, the

exact same point that I had highlighted here, that I think needs to be

addressed. He referred to the documentation. Is any documentation required with

respect to that section? I think that is a point that needs to be made and I

think the minister should address it.

Under

section 6 again I think my colleague the Member for

Waterford Valley brought it up. The point seems to be, throughout this whole

bill, and I had concerns with it, and he did address it, is that it says: "The

chief inspector for the purpose of carrying out his or her duties under this Act

may require the production of and inspect...." That is a problem. I have a

problem with a number of sections here where the word "may" is used instead of

the word "shall." That refers to drawings and inspections. I think the word

"shall" should be included in most areas here where we have the word "may."

section 7(2): "Where a certificate or a permit has been

issued under this Act, the chief inspector may suspend or cancel the certificate

or permit for just cause." If that is going to be open to

interpretation, I

suppose, what is just cause? Who will decide it? Is it going to be the minister?

Is there any regulation set in place for what just cause will be, Mr. Minister?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I will just move on. I will try to ignore

the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, like most people in the Province do.

Mr. Speaker,

section 8, which refers to shop inspection. That

of course to me is just a clear statement that the government would be reacting

responsibly in requesting that the inspector make shop inspections on boilers

and what have you. That is only again acting responsibly and is a motherhood

issue type of thing.

Section 8(2) again gets into: :...[T]he chief inspector may

arrange for the shop inspection...." I don't think that word should be there. It

should be: shall arrange for shop inspections.

Again under

section 10 it says: "The chief inspector may

require an owner, vendor, contractor, manufacturer or designer... to maintain a

quality management system that meets the requirements that may be prescribed by

regulation." The chief inspector shall, as far as I'm concerned, require

(inaudible) maintain a quality management system. Again it goes on throughout

the whole bill, that type of wording.

Under

section 14: "Where an inspector is not satisfied with

the design, construction, installation, testing, condition, operation,

maintenance..." - it goes on and on - "the inspector may" - `may' -"order in

writing that the system or device shall not be operated."

Again, if the system is not safe, it should be that it

`shall' order in writing that the system or device shall not be operated.

I think that although the intention of this bill is good, it

should be reworded to be a bit more forceful, a bit more authority given to the

inspector in that he `may' - and I think it is too much open for

interpretation

with respect to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: At least I am saying something.

Under

section 15.(1): A person shall not use or operate a

system or device in an unsafe manner or in a manner that does not comply with

this Act or the regulations.

(2) A person who has reasonable cause to believe

that a system or device is unsafe... shall not use or operate it or permit it to

be used or operated.

Here we have the word `shall' - shall not use or operate it

or permit it to be used... The question I had here, it says: A person who has

reasonable cause to believe that a system is unsafe.

Again, if we have an amusement ride, and a person in the

public comes in and pays his fee and wants to use the system, and he believes

that the system is unsafe, what steps does he take? He cannot close it down, I

wouldn't say, so obviously there has to be something in place in these

regulations where a person, if he feels it is unsafe, can approach an

individual, an inspector or whoever is in charge, and say: I want that machine

closed down because it is unsafe, and they should be required to do so.

Under

section 18: A person shall not sell, construct,

install, control or operate a system or device or supervise... This is with

respect to the certificates. Again, it is a motherhood issue here, so I won't

say too much on that.

Under

section 25 it talks about appeal boards: The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint an appeal board to make decisions

regarding a person aggrieved by an action taken under this Act or regulation.

Again, I think an appeal board should be in place where a

person who is aggrieved by actions taken under this act can approach the appeal

board. I would imagine there is a standing appeal board in place, I would say to

the minister, and I would like for him to address that.

Section 26 again deals

with the appeal board.

There are a few other items I will just address here now.

Fees, under

section 30: "An owner, operator or installation contractor of a

system or device shall pay the fees, expenses, charges or levies that may be set

by the minister, and, where the issue of a certificate, licence or permit

requires the payment of a fee, the person requesting the certificate, licence or

permit shall pay the fee set by the minister."

I don't know if we saw any increases in these fees with the

new Budget that came down. I know there was a rack of fee increases, and I would

like the minister to address that if he could, when he gets to his feet to

conclude debate on this bill.

Under

section 34: "For the purpose of carrying out this Act

and the regulations, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may adopt by reference

the whole or part of a published code, rule or standard recognized by the

Standards Council of Canada..."

Again, it says, "the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may

adopt" - and that deals with the approval of designs, the manufacturing, the

construction, alteration, installation, the operation and the testing. To me,

again, I think it `shall' adopt by reference the whole or part of the published

code, the CSA standards.

The second-last one that I wanted to address was

section 35:

"An inspector or other officer is not personally liable for anything done or

omitted to be done in the performance of his or her duties under this Act..."

Basically, what he is saying is that if a person is employed

by the government and he or she goes out and does not do his or her job, or they

omit something to be done, or they omit an inspection that is supposed to be

done on a regular basis, and someone is injured, that person is not going to be

held liable. I really don't know if that is just or not. I don't know if that is

fair. I think it would take some of the responsibility away from the individual,

or the inspector, or the person involved. So, to say if they omit to do

something, Mr. Speaker, they will not be held responsible, is going a bit far.

So I think the minister should address that and give the reasons or the logic

behind that section, if you can. That is a very important point, I would say to

the minister.

Section 36(

d) is with offenses and penalties and, of course, in

any act, if they are violated, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't. How much time do I have? Do I

have half an hour or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Half an hour?

MR. J. BYRNE: At least.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, I was going to get up only for three

or four minutes. If you want to thank anybody for that, thank the Minister of

Fisheries and ask him to keep his mouth closed and not be trying to irritate

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's the second time this week, I say to

the minister, that's the second time this week. I must be doing my job and I

must be doing it well.

I am getting to the point - I was almost going to sit down. I

only had one line left and now I have to start all over again, some of the

sections I did not do.

This is a very serious matter. It deals with the safety of

the people of this Province, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: And you loved it, right? Yes, sure you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old night crawler, is it, they call

you, `John'?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, going around the grass with the

flashlights, slithering around the grass with the flashlight down there, I know.

Down on the White Hills was it? We heard about it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say to the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture, I would not lower myself to follow in your footsteps or in the

tracks in the grass - and you know what else makes tracks in the grass?

With respect to

Section 36, "A person is guilty of an

offence..." There are two penalties here, Mr. Speaker, one is $50,000 for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, there are two points I want to make

and that is the one with respect to the penalties, "...is liable on

summary

conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000...". If the offence is serious enough

that it causes injury or is a potential to cause injury to the people of this

Province, to tourists or visitors to this Province, there should be a fairly

stiff penalty, I say to the Government House Leader. Of course, there is another

fine of $5,000 for each day during which the offence occurs. So this can rack up

a pretty big bill for people who do not follow or businesses who do not follow

this act, Bill 10.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister

of Government Services and Lands that if he could - if he kept up with the

statements and the concerns I had, I would like for him to address each and

every one of those when he stands up to conclude the discussion on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Member for Kilbride, I would

like to remind hon. members that we are in second reading of a bill. The rules

of the House are very clear on this, that second reading of a bill is to debate

the principle of the bill. The Committee part of the proceedings of this House

provides for detailed analysis of the clause-by-clause study of each bill. I

would request of hon. members, when they are in debate on second reading, that

they stick to the principle of the bill. There is ample opportunity in debate,

in Committee, for detailed analysis of each clause and it is in the Committee of

the Whole House that we make amendments to the bills. So I remind hon. members

that we are on second reading of a bill which is the principles of the bill. So

it is a general discussion rather than a specific discussion on each clause of

the bill.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

I am not going to take up too much time. I just want to say

that I support this legislation in principle. It consolidates a number of

government acts into one act that will make it clearer for the public and those

people who are involved in the details of the bill as outlined here. It will

make it more clear for businesses and inspectors in terms of what their roles,

responsibilities and duties are.

I say to the minister, this is part of government's overall

regulatory reform. This is one piece of legislation that is emanating from that

process, that ongoing process. As he indicated in his bill or in his opening

remarks, it deals with government's approach to one-stop shopping in various

areas and I think that the public has been well served by the concept of

one-stop shopping. As we move forward to working out some of the bugs that with

any change in terms of approach move on, in terms of approach, Mr. Speaker, on

principle, one-stop shopping is good. It provides an opportunity for the public

to move in, get what they need to get in terms of inspections, certificates,

into one area, not deal with four or five different bureaucracies that really

hold up, I guess, many initiatives by the general public, both from a private

company point of view, corporate point of view, or from a private citizen's

point of view.

I want to highlight, however, for the minister just a couple

of sections that I think he and government should be concerned about. Certainly,

on page 8 of the bill, dealing with inspection,

section 13(1). It says: "An

inspector may, for the purpose of this Act and at reasonable times on production

of proof of appointment as an inspector...." In dealing with that it seems to me

that the bill is saying that a government inspector going in to inspect, whether

it be an elevator or elevating device, amusements rides, has to produce proof

that he is an inspector - which is fine on the one hand, but it seems from

reading the clause, that he has to make an appointment with any business or

corporation or entity that this bill entitles to; that the chief inspector or

inspector has to make an appointment to let them know that he is coming in to

actually inspect their premises or the devices outlined in this bill.

The only concern I have with that is that in terms of

operating devices, if there are devices that are not operating properly or

according to the rules and regulations as set forth by government, why would an

inspector of the Department of Government Services and Lands have to make an

appointment to go in and do an inspection? I may be off, but that is how I am

reading that

section of the bill.

With respect to appointments of appeal boards, I would like

the minister to provide some more detail, because his opening remarks were very

brief. I would like him to provide some more detail dealing with the process of

appeal boards. From what I understand, this act will eliminate appeal boards,

probably four different appeal boards - I could be wrong - but this act will

eliminate appeal boards emanating from four different act previous to this one,

reduce it down to one appeal board. But I want to ask him, can he enlighten the

House - I know, at Committee stage, we have an opportunity to get into debate on

clause-by-clause of the bill, but I would like him to generally outline the

process by which this appeal board either will be appointed or if it already has

been appointed.

The only other

section that I would like to deal with is the

whole question of liability. Liability is very important. As we have seen in the

Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia, for example, the inspectors in that

government, and that government department - certainly, while the judgement has

not been rendered on that issue, it is clear that inspectors of government

really did not necessarily do their job. The whole question of liability, who is

responsible, enters into question.

While this is a housekeeping piece of legislation it is often

times that the smallest details in government end up being some of the most

important ones. When you are dealing with occupational health and safety, you

are dealing with elevating devices, you are dealing with amusement rides which

many children and adults use throughout the Province, and if the inspector is

not liable, then who is? The minister, I think, has an obligation to answer

that. It says here in

section 35 that: "An inspector or other officer is not

personally liable for anything done or omitted to be done in the performance of

his or her duties under this Act or the regulations."

I think that what I would like - again, we will have a chance

to debate that in the clause-by-clause stage of this piece of legislation. But I

would like the minister to enlighten the House and members, and through the

House the general public, on the whole notion of liability. Somebody has to be

responsible for decisions made or not made. We have seen too many times in

government where that has fallen down and the burden of proof lies on the victim

rather than upon those who have been entrusted to make the correct decisions and

who should be liable for the decisions. If officers or inspectors are employed

by the Crown or by this Legislature or departments, then they should be liable.

If there is any omission in the duties as set forth by this act, then liability

must lie with those officers for that omission.

With that I will sit down again and just ask the minister if

he can highlight those concerns, or deal with the concerns that I've raised

certainly in a general fashion. I look forward to the clause-by-clause debate on

this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Before I recognize you, I would like to welcome to the public

galleries this morning, nineteen students from Grades IV to VI, from Leading

Tickles Elementary in the District of Exploits, accompanied by their teacher

Dennis Simms, Wayne Emiry and their bus driver, Wayne Parson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to say a very few, brief words. I see the Opposition

House Leader looking over his glasses at me and wondering why I rose up but

there are a couple of concerns that I would like to bring to the minister's

attention on this particular bill and now is the chance to do it I guess on this

second reading.

First of all, it is a good piece of legislation I say to the

minister. When this government decided to do away with electrical inspections

and boiler-pressure vessel inspections, I was the first one who raised a lot of

concerns about it because that has been my background and I know some of the

things that can happen. I know that most of the time, when you are involved in

any occupation, in any business, Mr. Speaker, the thing that drives that

particular business is profits, and sometimes, Mr. Speaker, people have been

known to take short cuts and do things to create a larger profit margin and not

considering the safety aspects of that particular job and as you know and I

know, that when you hear of house fires and other industrial fires today,

minister, most of them are electrical related, and that gave me great concern.

I understand that it is working well and it is not new today

because this system now has been in effect for some time, and there is no reason

why responsible people cannot go out and work responsibly and I suppose if you

would be responsible for the safety and the operation of whatever it is that

they perform, but one thing that bothers me, and I have heard it said many times

- and this is the only issue that I will raise and I don't even know if it is

covered under this piece of legislation - is the filling of pressurized oxygen

tanks. I would imagine that it is.

A lot of places today, especially fire departments are

getting in to filling their own oxygen tanks. I don't think it is a problem, it

doesn't appear to be a problem with fire departments as those people seem to be

very safety conscious if you would, and they make sure that what goes into the

tanks are good and the filters are clean and that they are only pressurized up

to a limit that they are capable of holding. However, the one thing that has

come to my attention and many of the people who fill those particular tanks are

the sports divers, the sport that has become very popular today.

I understand from talking to some people that it is not

uncommon for some people to want those tanks filled to much higher pressure than

they are capable of filling so that they can get the maximum length of time when

they participate in this particular sport, and if it is, Mr. Speaker, I

sometimes wonder about the safety instructions that some of those people have

received as it relates to what can happen with those particular tanks should

they be overfilled or over-pressurized. That is the one issue that I would like

to bring forward, and if it is something that falls under this piece of

regulation, I think the minister should be cognizant of that.

Mr. Speaker, as well, when we take away something, if it

works very well then it seems like we always want to take away a little bit more

and a little bit more, so even though inspections in the electrical and in the

boiler pressure trades are not what they used to be, we still have inspections

and so we should. I don't think that we should allow the whole thing to be

opened up and not have inspections and leave it to the discretion of the owners

or the contractors. That is the other thing that I would caution the minister

about and that is, not to relinquish inspections altogether; make sure that we

maintain some form of responsibility where, people must have inspections whether

it is on a continuous basis or whether it is a situation where it is only spot

checking; at least then, people will know when they perform those duties that

there will be an inspection done, they will be held accountable and maybe, their

own contracting ability or their own licences if you would, will depend on that.

So as long as the minister is cognizant of those couple of items, Mr. Speaker, I

will sit and allow the minister to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister speaks now, he will

close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate on this bill,

I would say to the hon. House that the prime intent of this bill is to insure

that public safety is met to its maximum and by consolidating all of the Bills

that are out there, we certainly are trying to insure that this will be the

actual fact that happen's at the end of the process.

In response to a few of the questions that were asked by the

members opposite. Under

Section 3, I would certainly indicate to the hon.

members that all forms of amusement rides and ski lifts would be either included

in the elevating devices or amusement rides. Under one or the other we would

ensure that these are inspected, that would be simply the case.

Under number 5 and number 6, in indicating that you should

use the word shall instead of may, in some areas may is a better term simply

because if you use the word shall you would require that drawings and

specifications be hauled out on every inspection and in a lot of cases it is not

necessary because the inspectors are very well educated in that particular

process.

In terms of the electrical inspections, certainly it is a

requirement that we have been studying, as the member from Bonavista South

indicated these inspection processes were changed just a few years ago, but I

would like to ensure him that we will and we are always reviewing that process

to ensure that we are doing the required inspections. We may need to, in fact,

increase the number of inspections if we find that there is becoming a problem

because of the numbers that we have indicated now are not sufficient. Mr.

Speaker, we would certainly be ensuring that this is done and if the member

opposite has some expertise in that particular field, we would certainly welcome

his input into identifying for us as to whether or not these inspection levels

now are sufficient in that regard.

With respect to the appeals boards, once that legislation is

repealed then obviously everything within that piece of legislation is repealed

with it. What would happen is when the new act is in place then naturally

sufficient appeals boards will be put in place to replace the ones that were

under the other legislations if that is so required.

But, in summing it up, I certainly duly note the concerns

raised by the members opposite. I have marked those, I have indicated those and

I am sure that they will come up for discussion in Committee debate as well.

I would like to say in closing that this Bill, we feel is a

good piece of legislation in terms that it provides for government the maximum

amount of public safety that we can attest to in terms of the legislative

requirement under inspections and alike with the government service centres

which has the responsibility to carry out the legislative requirement under this

particular Bill.

Thank you very much Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Safety Of The

Public With Respect To The Use And Operation Of Elevating Devices, Amusement

Rides, Pressure And Electrical Systems" read a second time, ordered referred to

a Committee of the Whole House now. (Bill No. 10).

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

Motion, that the committee report having passed the bill,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture is back; Order No. 2.

CHAIR: Bill 9; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, since introducing this piece of

legislation into the House of Assembly, and reviewing it, and listening to

public consultation on this, and still listening to the reviews of fishermen, we

realize there are a couple of things that we wanted to change in the bill

because of the dema