June 17,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 30

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

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

details of the 1996 silvicultural program in Newfoundland and Labrador as it is

implemented on both Crown forest lands and pulp and paper industry-held forest

lands. The primary focus of this over $11 million program is to enhance the

productivity of our forest resources. The major thrust is on promoting the

growth of trees by manually thinning the very dense forest stands that often

occur with natural regeneration. Reducing competition provides the young trees

with more space and light to grow.

The second major component is the reforestation of unstocked

or understocked forest lands which can occur after harvesting or from natural

causes such as insect infestation or fires. Mr. Speaker, both programs are very

labour intensive; therefore, they provide immediate jobs as well as long-term

increased productivity of our forests for future use.

Mr. Speaker, the Province will invest $2,251,528 in

fifty-four projects on Crown land to carry out site preparation of about 1,600

hectares, planting of 1,800 hectares and tree thinning 1,900 hectares of forest

land. This level of investment will generate 2,814 weeks of employment. In

addition to this expenditure, the Province will; contribute $1,010,684 which

includes seedlings to the value of $175,000 to the pulp and paper company; spend

$814,000 to grow some 7,500,000 seedlings which will generate another 1,017

weeks of employment; and spend $1.7 million on research and development,

monitoring of company and Crown projects, and program administration. Thus, Mr.

Speaker, the Province's total expenditure on silviculture in 1996-'97 will be

$5,776,212.

I would like to bring to the attention of my honourable

colleagues that the industry itself will invest $6,249,850 in thirty-five

projects on company limits to undertake site preparation of 668 hectares,

planting of 103 hectares and thinning of 4,969 hectares of forest land.

In total, Mr. Speaker, some $11,015,400 will be invested on

silviculture in the Province by the Provincial Government and the two pulp and

paper companies in 1996. This investment will generate over 12,000 weeks of

employment and improve forest productivity on over 11,000 hectares of prime

forest lands.

Mr. Speaker, I have available a

summary of projects on Crown

forest lands for more details, which is attached to the end of the statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We, on this side of the House and the Party, have always felt

that the investment in terms of renewable resource such as the forest industry

plays an important and vital role, not only to the Province but to many

communities within the Province. And while we congratulate the minister,

certainly, for bringing forth and announcing this year the Silviculture Program

for the Province, we also add a cautionary note - that is, it is fine, on the

one hand, to insure the viability of our forest resources is maintained; but, on

the other end, Mr. Speaker, in terms of practices in not only the companies but

the introduction of new technologies into the forest industry that could have

long-lasting negative impacts on the forestry, I would like to hear some

statements from the minister in terms of the state of the forestry today and

what plans the government has to look at those technologies, specifically

dealing with harvesting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are pleased to note that the Provincial Government has

maintained a strong forest-regeneration program despite the cutbacks from the

We are, however, concerned about the long-term problems with

the forest, the looming wood shortage problem that hasn't been addressed, and we

are not sure that this program is sufficient to address it. We would like to see

the company who invest a heck of a lot more back into the forest resources that

they harvest. When you compare the $5 million or $6 million we are spending here

to the actual value of the forest resource that they extract, it is not a very

large sum. So it is a step in the right direction but I don't think it is

adequate to solve the wood shortage problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions, I would

like to welcome to the gallery today, the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr.

Walwin Blackmore and the Deputy Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Bob King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have today, sitting in the

Speaker's gallery, the former member of the House of Assembly for Conception Bay

South, Ms Patt Cowan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

The minister said last week that three fish plants awarded

crab licences submitted proposals that were miles ahead of all other proposals.

I ask the minister, will he confirm that there were no calls

for proposals at all?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I said last week was

exactly how it was. In the case of St. Lawrence, the proposals that were brought

in to me, were brought by the Town of St. Lawrence, put forth by two companies.

I looked at those proposals, worked with the Town, worked with the industry,

worked with the labour, the union, everybody involved, until we were totally

satisfied that the proposal we put forth was satisfactory and to the benefit of

all those involved.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is the minister saying that there were no

proposals for others; it was just the two proposals on the St. Lawrence area?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, in my

meetings with the industry, that is FANL, the independents, and all those people

involved, from day one I said that the fishery of the future must be a

multi-species operation, that for anybody in any part of the Province, whether

it be the region we are talking about, along the South, South-west Coast, the

West Coast, where there were no existing crab licences, I would not entertain,

as minister, giving out a crab licence to just go in and operate crab alone; it

had to be based on multi-species operations.

In the case of Burgeo, the Burgeo Town Council and the people

of Burgeo came to me to see if I, as minister, working with the Town, working

with the company, working with the DFO people, could get a significant number of

quotas, to set aside a resource that could guarantee full-time employment, or as

near as we possibly could get to full-time employment, in that particular area,

based on regional areas around the Province where there were no crab licences,

and working with each town; this is the way we put the deal together.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister inform us how many proposals were received

for crab licences? Could he tell us how many were received, specifically, and

when?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot tell you how many

but I can tell you I have literally dozens of applications and letters from just

about every plant in the Province - not to say every plant, but a significant

number of plants in the Province - requesting crab licences. My answer, very

clearly, either in writing, or in conversation, or directly in meetings where a

number of people were sitting around the tables, I am not, nor will I, entertain

giving a crab licence to anybody who just wants to go in and make a few quick

bucks off processing crab, and leave the communities as is already in existing

areas. In my own home town where there is a crab licence, that is the only thing

they process. When the crab is finished, then they look for make-work programs

or whatever to try to get through the rest of the year. The only way I will

entertain discussions with any industry is to look at, where possible, a

multi-species operation.

How many letters do I have? I cannot tell you exactly, but I

can bring in a stack of letters requesting simply a crab licence with nothing

else in it saying; this is what we will do. We will look at other species, we

will look at underutilized species, we will work with fishermen. Absolutely

nothing in most of the letters whatsoever.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister:

In the three areas where crab licences were issued were there proposals

submitted by at least these three and others for licences to be awarded in those

areas?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've already answered that. Yes,

there were proposals submitted. In the case of Burgeo a proposal was submitted.

First it was submitted to DFO. In fact I went to Ottawa talking to the national

minister Mifflin on Burgeo and he had agreed at that meeting to send his deputy

minister and his assistant deputy minister to St. John's for a meeting with the

town of Burgeo, with the owner of the plant, with the union and myself and all

other interested parties, to discuss the proposal that had been put forth to DFO

in regards to species other than crab. Crab was what you came to the provincial

minister for because we hold the processing licence for crab. We knew the

resource was there, so yes, the proposals were submitted.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked him were

the three that were awarded to the three companies that received crab licences,

did those three companies submit proposals to the minister for a crab licence?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: What I have said to the member very clearly,

what I have said to this House, Mr. Speaker. The proposals and the discussions

between myself and all parties concerned were based on the proposal put forth by

the company based on a multi-species operation only. No other issue or no other

concern would have been given, or no talking about an operation of a crab

licence would have been considered, unless it went hand in hand with a

multi-species operation. The decision was made on the regions where there were

no existing licences.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister promised full industry

consultation before any decision would be entertained on awarding crab licences.

I ask the minister: Was there full industry consultation as you promised?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say unequivocally

in this House, and I will boast in this way if it is to be taken that way: There

is no other minister who has held as much consultation with industry on every

level - not only in the crab licencing but in all other things, in the species

of capelin and all other species - since I became minister. It has been day

after day and at all times. It was DFO, it was the industry, the independents,

the FANL groups, the union, everybody involved and a full consultation process

day after day, even as early as last week, phone calls coming in for meetings.

Would you meet me? Yes, I will. Meetings began at 7:00 a.m. and usually ended

around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the past

month-and-a-half or two, since you promised to open a full consultation with the

industry, whom have you consulted with representing the industry in this last

month-and-a-half prior to your announcement?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I could spell

it out. I cannot name all of the plants individually. I would have to go back to

my office and get the names of all the plants. I consulted with FANL on a number

of occasions. In fact, at one particular meeting I did not know if I was going

to get in or out of the meeting with all of my body in place. The anger was

displayed at the meeting because I was moving forward in doing something that

they were against. If that is where the hon. member is coming from we can get

into the full details of that meeting which I am sure he is quite familiar with.

Full consultation with independents, with individuals, separately, together with

sometimes two and three people, with the union and with everybody else

concerned, town councils and people interested in going into communities and

operating a multi-species operation. Mr. Speaker, I could not have held any more

consultation meetings than I have held in the last two or three months. I think

it was three months Friday past that I became minister on March 14. It has been

a continuous ongoing consultation basis, as much as possibly could be held.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the minister said in his statement last

week that we have an imbalance in regional distribution of snow crab processing

licenses. Will the minister confirm that his department had received a request a

transfer a license to a region which does not have one?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will hold up the map and where

there is a regional imbalance of crab licenses in this Province - look at this,

it is all along the northeast coast. Look from the Burin Peninsula right around

the south-south west coast, right up to St. Anthony, there is not a crab

license. I have had one request to transfer a license - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Leader of the Opposition against

(inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Apparently so.

I have had one request to transfer a license and I have not

granted that request of transferring a crab license and it is not to a region

where there are no existing crab licenses. One was to transfer up to the Baie

Verte Peninsula and where there is one now in Little Bay Islands, in that area

and in Jackson's Arm. So we have not transferred or given any crab licenses in

the area from Englee right down to Cape St. Mary's where there are now seventeen

crab licenses and down to the southwest coast there are absolutely no crab

licenses whatsoever.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated that awarding three new licences will

result in less transportation and better quality because the plants will be

located closer to the supply. Now, the minister just made reference to the South

Coast and, since he has made reference to it, will the minister confirm that

there has been no crab fishery on the South Coast in the Burgeo area, only 1,500

pounds landed there last year, and the crab that is processed there would have

to be trucked in from all over the Province?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't have, and probably if I took some time to look

through I could find out, the exact amount of crab that was landed on the South

Coast last year and that more will be landed this year.

What the hon. member is saying is one of the reasons why the

trucking of crab long distances, from the West Coast right out to the Northeast

Coast, that is one of the reason. The other reason, the main reason, is a

regional imbalance of where crab was harvested, where it had to be trucked, and

where it was processed.

People living on the South Coast, nothing happening in Burgeo

whatsoever, people living on the Burin Peninsula, no employment in St. Lawrence,

people out on the West Coast catching crab, and it being transported several

hundred miles somewhere else. Those people deserve a working opportunity also.

But the key factor, along with those two reasons, is multi-species operation.

Any one of the 200 plants, or the 200 plus plants on the

Island, could use a crab licence, a quick dollar for the owner, a quick dollar

to make, get in and get out, but based on long-term employment for the people

living in that community was the main reason, and no licences in the existing

areas were the main reasons why I, as minister, recommended to the government

and got approval to look at a regional imbalance of what was happening in the

industry now and put some security into communities of employment for the future

where there has been none for a lot of years.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that scientific evidence indicates

recruitment is declining, and this trend is likely to continue for the next two

years in 3L, and that catch declines indicate a decline in commercial biomass

may already have occurred in 2J and 3K?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.

In fact, there are areas now out in 3L, and other areas around the Province,

where the crab has never been so abundant. Not only that, the DFO, the federal

government, just made a decision to increase the quota from last year, which was

30,000 tons, to this year 37,000 metric tons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: What is the hon. member talking about?

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am referring to DFO's stock status report, and I am

referring to the snow crab management plan released just recently that indicates

catch rates in 2J have been declining for the past five years, catch rates in 3K

have been declining since 1993, and while they may be increased in 3L,

pre-recruit crab began declining in 1992 or 1993, and have generally remained

low in 1995. This suggests, in the scientific assessment, that the recruitment

is declining in 3L and the trend is expected to continue for at least the next

two years.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I never knew better I would

say the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to protect his buddies in the

so-called monopoly industry that is out there.

Is the hon. member suggesting that 37,000 metric ton of crab

being harvested this year, that we should continue on with seventeen Island

processing licences to process that amount of crab, and two on the Labrador? No,

that is not the way for people to get the best gains out of the industry, to put

a quality product into the market where last year FANL themselves reported to

me, in one of the consultation meetings, that 40 per cent of the crab processed

last year was processed dead because the plants could not handle the amount of

crab that was coming in.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just reading the scientific assessment, and the crab

management plan that is released by fisheries is my source of information, I say

to the minister. In case he has not read it, I will give him a copy.

Two of the major problems with our industry is that there are

too many fishers chasing too few fish, and there is an overcapacity generally in

the processing sector. Does the minister feel that reactivating closed plants

and increasing processing capacity in an already crippled industry flies in the

face of efforts to put some common sense in the industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely amazing,

given the absolutely excellent work of the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of

the people of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

- it is absolutely amazing to hear the Leader of the

Opposition, whose Party promised, as the main plank in the last election

campaign to open seventy-five new fish plants in the Province, to complain today

that there are too many fish plants operating in the Province. Mr. Speaker, you

would have to have the logistical abilities of a mental gymnast to hold true to

the logic implicit in that argument.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there are another

6,000 metric tons of crab this year; the fact of the matter is the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture has provided for a number of extra licences, a very

few, in areas where there are absolutely no licences whatsoever, but the Leader

of the Opposition really has to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is

whose interest is he trying to protect, the public's interest or some private

interests, and if it is private interests, name them.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is the responsibility of government to

protect the public's interests, I say to the Premier, and I am glad the Premier

is back.

We have increased harvesting capacity for years when the

stocks were declining. My concern is that the same thing doesn't happen with

other fisheries here in this Province.

I say to the minister, the provincial government I understand

is now hiring sixteen new fishery inspectors. Now inspections have traditionally

been done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, so I ask the minister: Is

it his intention to replace federal fishery inspectors or will we be adding new

inspection services, duplicating services that are already there?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the one basis on which we are

going to operate the fisheries of the future in this Province is based on

regions, based on sustainability to communities involved. No longer are we going

to tolerate companies who want to make a quick buck, a fast dollar, to go into

the communities at the expense of those people living in the communities, walk

away with $2 million or $3 million in the bank and not worry what happens

afterwards. Multi-species operations is the way it is going to work in the

future. Wherever that can be, given in a sound proposal to me as minister, I

will entertain looking at other species not only snow crab, shrimp, king crab,

porcupine crab whatever else, Mr. Speaker, but, let us get to the quality. The

one thing that I am going to insist on - and look at the news conference

tomorrow, attend the news conference is probably what you should do.

We are going to insist that if Newfoundland is going to carve

out its place in the future, the fisheries of the future in the market, it

better earn it; and one of the ways we are going to earn it, is on making a

quality product happen from the time it comes out of the water until it hits the

consumers table, and if that means putting more people out there to do

inspections, yes, that is what we will do.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he supports vertical integration in the

fishing industry?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I support in the fisheries

of the future, is people who believe in the industry in this Province. What I

believe and what I support in the fisheries of the future are those people who

take not only the interest of their personal pocket books, which I don't mind a

businessman making lots of money because, when he or she makes lots of money we

all benefit from it if they have the interest of a fisheries of the future and

an interest of the community and all those involved at heart; not the fact that

we can go away and carve out a certain quota for ourselves or a certain dollar

of a specie that they can generate from the fishery, working with the people,

working with all the species available, utilizing everything that is in that

ocean, even the marine cucumber. Yes, we will even turn the cucumbers in the

ocean if that means it is satisfactory to the industry and development of the

species of the future.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

as well.

Will the minister confirm that the new crab processing

license issued to re-activate the government's plant at St. Lawrence under the

name of Grand Atlantic Incorporated, is owned by a group of people, most of whom

are from his own district and one of whom is the minister's chief financial

campaign fund-raiser?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister also confirm, will he stand and admit that

the new crab processing license issued in Benoit's Cove was awarded to the

brother-in-law of the Premier's executive assistant, and the crab licence issued

in Burgeo was a constituent living in the Premier's district?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My information

tells me directly opposite from what the minister is saying. I ask the minister:

Is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador going to give us a fishery rebuilt on

sound economic decision making, or will it once again be an industry on

political pay-off and patronage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of the

government that we have absolute confidence in the way in which the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture has carried out his responsibilities and gone about

the process of creating new jobs and new job opportunities in this Province.

Even if one of the licences has gone to a company, one of whose principals is

the brother of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Carl Sullivan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is

to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Has the minister yet made a

recommendation to Cabinet on the next course of action in response to the

Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal decision on the Trans City health centre

contract, or have the minister and his officials yet completed their

deliberations on the judgement?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we aren't in a position yet to

make a recommendation. We are keeping our option open to apply to the Supreme

Court.

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the

seriousness of the questions about conduct of a part of the public business that

remain unanswered in the Trans City scandal, officials in the Minister of

Justice's department may feel an inquiry is expedient under the terms of the

public inquiries act. Isn't the minister putting his officials in a precarious

position by forcing them to relay their recommendations to Cabinet directly

through him, given the minister's own involvement in the Trans City affair? Will

he concede he is in a gross conflict of interest, functioning as Attorney

General in this matter, and will he ask the Premier to appoint an alternate

Attorney General for the purposes of bringing forth recommendations on this

particular matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is absolute nonsense, the

proposition being put by the member opposite. The fact of the matter is the

Minister of Justice will report in this matter to the whole Cabinet, the Cabinet

will take a decision, and the Cabinet and Premier will stand together with the

Minister of Justice behind that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the

Minister of Environment and Labour through Newfoundland and Labrador Information

Services released some information dealing with the Star Lake power development

project. Can the minister confirm or make aware to the House today and the

people of the Province that Cabinet is about to make a decision on whether Star

Lake will proceed? Can he confirm when he sees Cabinet making that decision, and

the following timetable after for construction?

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the member

that the Star Lake hydro electric proposal has gone through the environmental

process and that the documents have been submitted to the department, have been

assessed, and have been completed. A response has been give to the company and

they have been released from environmental assessment, but the project has to go

to Cabinet for final release and final approval. That will happen in the next

short period of time. When that happens, and whatever the decision is, that will

be communicated to the company and to the public.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

minister for the answer but I would like to be a little more specific. Obviously

there are many concerns associated with the development of this project,

certainly from an environmentalist point of view in terms of the migratory

caribou herd, the affect upon the pine marten. There are other people within

industry and business who see it as an absolute necessity. Can he be more

specific in making aware today when Cabinet will make the decision? Will it be

next week? Does he see it? Will it be the week after? When does he see that

project going ahead, and can he inform the House what the construction timetable

will be thereafter?

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

labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it has taken two years so

far for this project to go through the environmental assessment process. It is

not fully through the process. The Cabinet will make a decision in short order

in due course when the documents come to Cabinet but I cannot give a decision on

a time frame. That will come in short order, in due course. When we do have a

decision though, we will communicate it to the company and then to the public.

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

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

question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

We are now seeing the effects of this government's budget in

rural Newfoundland. As predicted, town councils are now starting to resign

because of the downloading by this provincial government. The town of Englee has

a total population of 800, which is down from 1,000 and a total budget of

$600,000. This year they seen their assessments go up by $3,200 and their

municipal operating grants being cut by $30,000. How does the minister expect

the town of Englee to deal with this situation with a declining population?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to stand

in the House and talk about a particular community but I have to I suppose in

this case. The town of Englee, Mr. Speaker, has not been operating now for some

time. The difficulty we were having with the town of Englee late last year was

that council was not meeting on a regular basis and a number of councillors gave

up the ghost for obvious reasons - or their obvious reasons, not ours - and

there were only a small number of councillors left to operate. They had not

conducted any meetings. We were in contact almost on a weekly basis with the

town clerk and the town clerk was telling us that they had lost interest, the

council had lost interest and she was finding it difficult to try to convince

the council in Englee to actually have a meeting. This has been going on for

over a year.

The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, makes reference to the fact

that they resigned because of a cut in the municipal operating grants for a

number of other reasons. Mr. Speaker, that council was not operating long before

cuts to municipal operating grants were even announced in this House or to the

public. I don't accept and my department does not accept the argument that they

resigned because of municipal operating grant cuts. As far as we were concerned,

in my department, they had resigned over a year ago.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister

confirm that his department has had representation from other towns in similar

situations? Are we to see more towns resigning and administrators appointed? How

is the minister planning to deal with this looming crisis?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any other

representatives or representations made to me by other towns. I had one made to

me by his hon. colleague, sitting to his right, last week but that was not from

a council in particular. That is a case where a council does not exist either. I

don't know of any other communities in the Province that have resigned or there

has not been any communities in the Province threaten me that they will resign.

These stories are coming from the Federation of Municipalities and maybe if the

hon. member asked the President of the Federation of Municipalities or the

Vice-President of the Federation of Municipalities who are putting the stories

out there then he may get an answer to his question.

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

Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has

set aside $1 million in this year's budget as an emergency fund. Will the

minister dip into this fund to help the town of Englee? What is government

specifically planning to do to help financially strapped towns in this Province

as a result of the downloading?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say no to his

question but then I guess the answer is no. Englee has not asked me for any

assistance. Until the town of Englee, which now is being operated by the town

clerk, until the town clerk, the lady comes and asks for assistance, until that

particular point in time I am really not in a position to say whether I will

help them or not. I have had representations from other MHAs in this hon. House

to help communities and I am considering those requests. Yes, there is a fund to

help communities. Municipalities have been written and told that if they find

themselves strapped for money, for dollars to help them over a hurdle than I

will look at the possibility of providing them money.

Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to allow

communities to go under - for want of a better word - because they are in

financial trouble. There are no communities in this Province going to sink

because they are in financial trouble. We are here. I would like for those

communities to come in, meet with me and sit down and talk to me about their

problems, and give me a chance to try to solve the problems before they go to

other members of the House not representing the riding, or possibly hon. members

in the House stop reading The Evening Telegram and coming up with

questions for Question Period and wasting the time of this House, and my time

along with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery, the Mayor of

Pasadena, Mr. David Osmond, on behalf of all members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the Speaker's Gallery,

the hon. Eleanor Norrie, Minister of Natural Resources, from Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The minister is in St. John's today as a

speaker at the Oil and Gas Conference.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present to this hon. House the final report

with the accompanying transcripts of the official public proceedings of the

Select Committee on Children's Interests.

Mr. Speaker, as you and other hon. members would be aware,

this report has been some eighteen months in the making, and has been finalized

after a comprehensive consultation process where this committee travelled

throughout the Province, heard from some 600 people and received 215 written

submissions.

At the outset, I would like to recognize and acknowledge

those people who were instrumental in generating this report. First of all, Ms

Pat Cowan, the former MHA for Conception Bay South, who was the original

Chairperson of this Select Committee, and indeed was the person who was the

driving force behind its being created initially, and undertaking this very

important work.

The Member for Waterford Valley, my colleague in the House,

Mr. Harvey Hodder, served as Vice-Chair on the original committee and

subsequently on the committee that was stuck by the forty-third General

Assembly, to complete the work left over from the previous committee. Also, my

colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, graciously accepted

appointment to the committee to complete the task of finalizing a report, and

certainly brought to the committee a quality that we really appreciated. We had

heard from all the people throughout the Province, and the member, not having

been part of the original process, came with a totally unbiased approach. She

was able, therefore, in responding to myself and the Vice-Chairman, to give us

an objective appraisal and opinion on what we were considering and what we were

proposing, and for that we are most grateful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Also, Mr. Speaker, to complete a report of

this nature certainly requires the assistance of support staff, able people, and

these I would like to acknowledge as well: Elizabeth Murphy from the Clerk's

office, Mr. Jack Oates who looked after a lot of the recording for us, Mr. Bert

Riggs, who works with the Centre for Newfoundland Studies at MUN, and especially

Mr. Richard Abraham, our researcher, who did the bulk of the work for the

committee, certainly all of the organization, all of the co-ordinating, all of

the research and the follow-up, and any other responsibilities that we assigned

to him. As a matter of fact, as late as this weekend, Richard was out in Grand

Falls attending a conference representing the committee, and this he has done

whenever asked to do so, and certainly has risen and performed beyond the call

of duty, and for that we are extremely grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express thanks on behalf of

the committee to the hundreds of people who came out to our public sessions and

shared their views with us. They placed a tremendous trust in this committee,

and we, in turn, have tried to live up to that trust. Now that the report has

been completed, I leave it to them to determine as to how successful we have

been in carrying out our mandate.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this was indeed a very

intensive process, and during the course of our proceedings, the committee heard

some very emotional presentations as the people of the Province, in all areas of

the Province, put forward their views on the problems they saw facing our

children today. This committee has tried to approach its challenge in a

responsible fashion, ever conscious of the fiscal reality of our Province, but

yet, keeping in mind the many needs of the children of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in this report we have tried to mirror and

reflect the reality which exists within our Province as it was presented to us

during this process, and let there be no doubt that many problems do indeed

exist. Where possible, we have tried to make recommendations in response to

identified concerns; however, the most important thing which I feel that we have

attempted to do is to develop a plan for a structure which, when put in place,

will in the future ensure that all government departments are aware and are

responsive to the concerns of children. Further to this, this structure will

ensure that in the future, the lines of communication will remain open between

the bureaucracy and the people it serves, so that as problems develop, the means

will exist to respond to them.

Mr. Speaker, members of this committee were very encouraged

as they travelled the Province and heard of the many examples of initiatives

undertaken by the community to respond to the problems which they recognize as

existing, and I reference here, in particular, preschools and school lunch

programs as two initiatives which have been developed in our Province, driven by

the community, and very often without any active support from government.

Indeed, we heard, in some instances, that it could be said that these

initiatives have actually been discouraged.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I can speak from personal experience,

having been involved a number of years ago in establishing preschool programs in

the district of Port au Port, that I now have the privilege to represent, and at

which time I was an employee of the school board there. We were trying to

develop preschool programs as a means of trying to get at the underlying

problems facing us dealing with under education with a large segment of our

population. I will always remember the first contact that was made - and I am

going back some seven or eight years - by the school board with the Department

of Education to outline what we were considering, and the response that came

back, and this was from a senior bureaucrat in the department; we were talking

about wanting to create preschool programs. The response was, `What if it

works?'

That, to me, spoke volumes of what the thinking was at that

time, and it was clear to me that unless somehow, some time, we would be able to

change that attitude, then nothing would really change in this Province. I am

pleased that this report has provided an opportunity to address that very

concern, because, indeed, I was dismayed to find, in our most recent

consultation process, that attitude is still all too prevalent.

Mr. Speaker, the broader community has recognized the needs,

and they have expressed a willingness to build new partnerships with government

so that a more comprehensive approach may be adopted.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this House, we have all heard

the children of this Province at various times describe as our most precious

resource the key to our future. Unfortunately, the reality we found, in many

instances, makes a whole other statement. As the people's representatives, we

cannot and we must not be content if there is but one child who goes to school

hungry. As the people's representatives, we cannot be content if there is but

one child who lives in an abusive situation and doesn't know where to turn. As

the people's representatives, we cannot be content if there is but one child who

requires the services of a specialist but finds that that service is not

available. As the people's representatives, we cannot be happy and content if

there is but one child whose potential is lost and whose opportunities for later

success in life are seriously restricted by his or her family circumstances.

Can we solve all of the problems immediately? Clearly, the

answer is no. However, today we are presented with an excellent opportunity to

recommit ourselves to the process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: If I could quote from the report. This is a

quote which is found at the very beginning of the report, at the end of the

acknowledgements. It is one that, as a matter of fact, I had picked up just this

past winter in reading The Newfoundland Ancestor , and that is where it is

quoted from. It goes as follows: Children are the messages that we send to a

time when we will not be there.

It is my wish today, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this

House, that history will record of those of us who sit in this Chamber today

that while we may not have solved all of the problems related to children's

issues, we were determined that we would make a difference.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

It is with a great sense of pride and a great deal of

reflection that I join in the comments made by my colleague and good friend, the

Member for Port au Port.

Mr. Speaker, as we journeyed across the Province and met with

parents, with school teachers, social workers, people within the bureaucracy,

people outside the bureaucracy, and we consulted with people from Scotland, from

all the Canadian provinces and the territories, we have come to a sense of where

we are in our dealings with children and to some kind of an idea as to where we

would like to go.

Mr. Speaker, all is not wrong, but all is not right. The

report that my colleague has just tabled provides a beginning of a process to

renew our approach to children and youth issues. The creation of a child and

youth and family secretariat, and the creation of the office of a child and

youth advocate, signal the beginning of a journey to reform and to renewal that

all members of this House should listen to and then should act upon. Because,

indeed, the report is entitled: Listening and Acting .

We have tried, together with the members that the Chair has

already identified, to listen to what people of this Province are saying about

children. We have tried to listen to their cries for help. We have heard parents

say on many occasions: Would you help us, would you tell us how to be better

parents? We have heard schoolchildren say that they themselves wanted to do

better. We have had children come before the Committee with great learning

difficulties and could not process information like you, I and others in this

House take for granted. There were moving moments, very emotional moments and

hours when we left the committee when some of us did not quite know how to cope

with it. We met with foster children and foster parents and we met with those

who have been in group homes. We wanted to meet with real people to discuss real

issues. So the structures which we have included in the report provide a

strategy for government to approach its new thinking towards children, youth and

family. We see evolving from this an approach that is client centred and that is

community responsive.

Mr. Speaker, too many of our initiatives in the past have

tended to be crisis interventionist. So therefore we want to change the thought

processes to make us change to prevention and intervention and to do it at the

earliest possible age. I am going to tell you in words of Dr. Julia O'Sullivan

of Memorial University who told us that the optimum time for intervention, if we

are to achieve success or have the maximum potential for success, is between the

ages of eighteen months and thirty-six months. What a message that sends to us.

What a message it sends to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we also believe that we can integrate our

services. We can bring together and look at the total child - there is only one

child and whether that child is interacted through the Department of Health or

interacted through the Department of Social Services, Education or Justice,

there is one child. Mr. Speaker, we found examples of where there were more than

thirty professionals interacting with one child. After two years of interacting

it is sad to say the condition of that child was not positively affected. That

is the kind of thing that exists in our Province. So we say to all hon. members,

this is not the answer. This approach we have here, we do believe, will cause us

to change the paradigms of our thought processes to reflect. We have done the

listening. We ask all hon. members if they would try to do the reading and the

thinking. The challenge here is for the political process to place emphasis on

action. We know that there will be people who will say that this cannot be done

but we say to you in all honesty, in all sincerity, before you say that it

cannot be done, think about it, the consequences of not acting. The consequences

of not acting is to continue to have services which don't really address the

needs of children. This report has a vision for progress. It is community

responsive, client centred, interventionist at the earliest age.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud as a member of that committee who

listened to the needs of children and have tried to reflect in the report here

what we have heard and what we think the action should be. Mr. Speaker, the last

page of the report it says, `It is time for the process to begin.' That's the

last sentence. We say to all hon. members to reflect on it and think about it.

As we begin to evolve our social policy towards children, family and youth we

believe there is a great deal of information here that demands our attention and

we commend it to you. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to

move the following private members' resolution,

WHEREAS the current automobile insurance rate structure in

Newfoundland and Labrador is unfair and the rates are unacceptably high; and

WHEREAS the statistical (inaudible) used as guides in setting

insurance rates do not reflect fairly the risk to motorists in different areas

of the Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House express its

disapproval of the current automobile insurance rate structure and insurance

rates; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador take appropriate action to produce an improved automobile insurance

rate structure that is fair and that gives consumers insurance rates that are

more reasonable.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

approximately ninety-eight residents of the community of Cormac in the District

of Humber Valley.

I never checked with the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I have added

what was normally the proper petition heading and had it signed by three of my

colleagues here in the House, so as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, my years

spent in the House looking at this particular petition, it is in order but in

case you can look at that after.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is such that it

refers to the petition and the request by Newfoundland Light and Power for a

rate increase. I will just read a particular, one part of the prayer, Mr.

Speaker, because if I read it all, it takes away from some of the comments that

you have to make:

We, the undersigned residents of the community of Cormac in

the District of Humber Valley, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to

protest the proposed increased in electricity rates and that wood-burning

citizens not be penalized for same.

That, they have this particular wood-burning citizens quote

there, Mr. Speaker, because really, in essence that is what Newfoundland Light

and Power referred to in a part of their request for increases.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rose here in this House some time ago and

spoke on a petition by one of my colleagues referring to this particular request

by Newfoundland Light and Power. I have heard members in the last few weeks

rise, on the other side of the House and I think on this side of the House,

referring to this particular request for increase by Newfoundland Light and

Power.

Different comments were made but we did not come up with a

solution. We always said in the past and I go back to when I served on the

Federation of Municipalities, when we had one representative for consumers in

the Province, funded primarily by the Department of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs with regards to rate increases in the Province for pretty well everyone,

Newfoundland Telephone used to come under it then, now they are under the CRTC.

PUB, the hon. Member for Bonavista South mentioned today

insurance rates; they govern insurance rates as well and they look after the

increases by Newfoundland Light and Newfoundland Hydro. In this case, I said it

before and I will say it again, as far as I am concerned, it is unjustified, it

is unjustified but the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, in this whole process, we could

stand in the House, each and every one of us, every day of the week and take up

the full three hours of debate on whether Newfoundland Light and Power or

Newfoundland Hydro should have an increase, we can stand here every day of the

week, every day of the year, Mr. Speaker, and do just that. We are not going to

change a thing.

We are not going to change a thing, until and unless, we make

some changes to the Public Utilities Board. There have been no changes to the

PUB from what I have been told for the past - I don't know -probably

thirty-five, forty years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty years.

MR. WOODFORD: Forty years. Now, they are governed, they

have rules and regulations by which they are governed, and it is incumbent on us

as legislators to make sure that that is done. I have had colleagues on the

other side of the House appear last year to the PUB and they know full well what

it is like appearing there with their lawyers and everything else and all the

work that has to be done, whether it is insurance companies, Light and Power or

what have you, they have their homework done, they have a monopoly as far as I

am concerned on electricity rates in the Province. They are no different as far

as I am concerned from insurance companies or anyone else. Then they are

guaranteed, what is it, 12.5 to 13 per cent rate of return.

MR. E. BYRNE: Guaranteed.

MR. WOODFORD: Guaranteed.

I was reading just the other day that in Nova Scotia it is

10.5 per cent, and then I read an

article in The Evening Telegram the

other day by the head of Newfoundland Light and Power, I think it was Mr.

Marshall, on some of the things that the Province is doing, and some of the

things that the Province is not doing, whether they are doing them right or

wrong. What other business in this Province, and who in this Province, can go

out and start a business and be guaranteed a 13 per cent rate of return? What

other business?

We cannot get at the books. You have to make a judgement

call, whether it is the PUB board, or whoever it is. I had a personal experience

just this past month - the audacity, as far as I am concerned. I had a letter

from Newfoundland Light and Power saying that there was a street light outside

my home in the community of Cormack that, as far as they are concerned, it has

been there since 1975, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a minute

to relate this story.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: And I am sure other members of the House

can relate to it when I am finished.

They said it was there since 1975 and they were not charging

me for it - twenty-one years and they were not charging me for it. A few days

after that I met another person in the same community, and a few days after that

another person in another part of the valley, who said they had letters, had

called me about it. Now, how many other people...

This particular light was paid for by the community council -

there are so many lights along the streets in the communities that the council

pay for - but when I checked it out, the council had it paid up to 1985, so they

were eleven years and never had a cent on that one light - eleven years. They

had not tracked the council on it, and they had not contacted me, so whose fault

is that? And how many more are out there? And now they are looking for an

increase. That is another example. You make that up across this Province and it

could add up to hundreds; it could add up to thousands across this Province, the

way street lights are distributed around this Province. You talk about an

example of incompetency!

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more of the time of the

House on this particular subject, except to say that I think the intervenor in

this case is doing an excellent job, and whether I appear at those hearings,

which I have no problem with - absolutely none - I have done it before, but as

far as I am concerned you have an intervenor there who is doing an excellent

job, and I think that if anybody is going to do a job at those hearings to deny

Newfoundland Light and Power an increase, it will be that particular gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise to speak to the petition and to support the petition

presented by the Member for Humber Valley and to say that, just in referring to

a couple of his points, he is right. There have not been changes made to the PUB

in about thirty-five to forty years. Secondly, there is no company in this

Province that I know of in the private sector that is guaranteed a 12.5 per cent

rate of return. It is very easy for those who live in the ivory towers of the

say that we need a bigger rate of return when, in fact, the people of this

Province, and through this Legislature, through the PUB, has guaranteed the rate

of return.

I support the hon. member in saying that we need to make

changes to the PUB, and we need to make them expeditiously; however, I also want

to say to the hon. the Member for Humber Valley that he has an opportunity as

well to directly influence what people will pay in an increase in electricity

rates. Because, on the one hand, Newfoundland Power has asked for a 2.9 per cent

increase, and on the other hand, while we let that process go through, and if

that increase will go through it will be determined by the PUB, it will be

judged at arm's length, and the people in this Legislature, and government, have

advocated and have given the Consumer Advocate all of the necessary resources,

both financial and otherwise, that he requires. But the reality is that the

biggest increase in electricity rates that is going to occur in this Province

will be a result directly of this government's action when it comes to the

harmonization of the GST and PST. That is what the reality is, an 8 per cent

increase across the board on each and every ratepayer and user of electricity as

a result of the harmonization of PST and GST. Now, Newfoundland Power's request

of 2.9 per cent pales in comparison to what government's action, or lack of

action in this regard, on this issue, has caused. It is very easy, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy last week announced a two-tier system, a basic

royalty regime for the oil companies in this Province. One of the

characteristics of that regime was a complete and utter exemption from RST for

the corporate community as it deals with offshore oil.

While I'm not voicing any disrespect or disregard for that

royalty regime, I want to make the point that government has, and Cabinet has

within its ability, to exempt the increase, or to exempt electrical power

increases from the harmonization of the GST-PST. It is a basic commodity, it is

a necessity. It is something the people of this Province cannot do without.

Where does government see the 40,000 families on Social Services coming up with

an extra 8 per cent? Where does government see the 60,000 people who are in

direct receipt of Social Services coming up with the extra 8 per cent? Where

does government see those elderly people who are living on fixed incomes of

$1,000 or less per month coming up with the extra 8 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask the hon. member that in his own work,

in representing the constituents he talked about today and the petition he

presented, while he implored changes be made in the Public Utilities Board, that

he implore his government, at the same time, and he do it today and continue to

do it until they change it, that electricity rates and home heating fuel which

are basic necessities, which are basic commodities, be exempted from the GST-PST

harmonization. We do not need to see changes to the Public Utilities Board for

that to take effect. All we need to see is the political will within government,

and thus, within Cabinet, for that to happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, with pleasure I support the

petition presented by the hon. member. Not to let this get away from us here, of

course - we do have to realize that we are awaiting the results of the analysis

being done currently by the Public Utilities Board. Also, we know there are

changes that are required, and the overall way in which the Public Utilities

Board does make assessments. There is a lot of room for improvement, I'm sure

with some of the people who have taken office down there lately, over the last

year or so. I am sure that some of these changes will be implemented in order

that the concerns brought forward by the hon. member and members of the

Opposition may be addressed.

MR. E. BYRNE: How do you feel about the extra 8 per cent

as a result of the GST-PST harmonization going (inaudible)?

MR. RAMSAY: Hopefully a lot of this - from my

understanding of that, and it isn't for me to respond to questions, to speak to

the petition, it would be that the understanding of the GST and PST situation as

it relates to electricity rates is part of the overall expenditures that the

average consumer will make. In general, from what we are told, the consumer will

have more money overall through the whole of their expenditures made on all

goods and services over the course of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member's petition, and, along

with the other members of the House, hope that the responding issues that have

been raised will be addressed by the Public Utilities Board and that

Newfoundland Power are diligent in making sure that they lower their overhead

and expenditures to bring the lowest possible electricity rates to the people of

the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 597

people from the Yes Means Yes Committee, and as well, of course, concerning

education reform in this Province. This marks the second petition, I guess, that

we, as an Opposition, have presented. I am very pleased to stand today and

present this petition on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, these people voted `yes' quite some time ago,

and I guess they are very fearful in this Province that we could be one of the

only provinces in Canada where `yes' means `no', and `no' means `yes', which

makes for a very interesting scenario.

These people, Mr. Speaker, asked for their points, and again

I would like to read them into the record so that people are again reminded that

they are here: 1) The establishment of interdenominational schools open to all

children without regard to their religion; 2) the right of all children to

attend their neighbourhood school; 3) provision for uni-denominational schools

where parents prefer and numbers warrant; 4) the appointment of teachers to be

solely on the basis of merit and qualifications except in uni-denominational

schools, and 5) church influence confined to religious education and pastoral

care except in uni-denominational schools.

I think we cannot emphasize this position enough on behalf of

these people. I have attended one of their meetings where their church leaders

were present, and these people were very concerned about what may or may not

have been in the so-called framework of agreement, so much so that I guess some

of their religious leaders went through quite a bit of questioning from the

floor, and there was no doubt in anybody's mind, certainly not in mine, as I sat

and listened to speaker after speaker let their respective clergy know exactly

how they felt with regard to education reform in this Province.

I am very pleased today to present this petition, and would

certainly ask that maybe there just might be somebody on the other side who

would like to get up and support this one. We presented one the other day with

74,000 names on it and nobody moved, and today we have one with ninety-eight and

we actually had a government member get up, so I guess somebody is getting the

message, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the message is well delivered from the Yes

Means Yes Committee.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I stand to make a few

comments with respect to the petition that was just presented by my colleague,

the Member for Conception Bay South. Unfortunately, in this Province today, the

education issue is perhaps the single one issue which has caused significant

confusion amongst Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and this is largely brought

about by public statements which have been made and the infamous framework

agreement which has been made public in recent months, and the response, of

course, to this agreement by all stakeholders in education, and particularly,

church representatives themselves.

As a result of the confusion and complexity of issues, Mr.

Speaker, various stakeholders in education have seen fit to become perhaps more

vocal with respect to their particular stance and position on the whole issue of

education reform. What we hear perhaps most loudly from most Newfoundlanders

today is that people in this Province expect education reform will translate

into what the majority of people understood they were voting for during the

referendum of September 5, 1995.

That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on this

government that when education reform is finalized, when the fine tuning is

complete, and when this government has had a chance to put in place all aspects

of education reform, that it reflect essentially what Newfoundlanders understood

they were voting for in September 1995, and as indicated by my colleague, the

Member for Conception Bay South, that essentially means that most students will

attend schools nearest their home, that most schools will expect to have

students of all denominations, or interdenominational schools, that parents may

chose schools of their own denomination where numbers warrant, that there be

interdenominational school boards, that there be a reduced involvement of

churches in school governance and that there be hiring on the basis of

qualifications. That is essentially what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are

saying today that reflects what they understood they were voting for during the

referendum.

I believe wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker, that parents who

prefer to have a uni-denominational school will have a uni-denominational

school. It is important that we, as Newfoundlanders, believe that that be the

case and that perhaps that be reflected in the actual wording of legislation

which is brought forward. However, the majority of Newfoundlanders have spoken

clearly and loudly that what they understood they were voting for should be in

fact what the end result will be. So perhaps a combination of both arguments is

ultimately what people will be seeking in the end result when education reform

and the legislation concerning that is finalized.

I support the petition, Mr. Speaker, simply because it is

important that Newfoundlanders who voted in the referendum of September of 1995,

in fact have, as education reform in this Province, what they understood they

were voting for and supporting during that referendum. At the same time, in

saying that, I look forward to seeing the legislation to ensure that special

classes, uni-denominational groups and parents who want to support a

uni-denominational school have the ability and the ease, Mr. Speaker, to seek

that school and to have their children placed in the school which meets their

particular desires and interests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to add a few comments again in

response to the petition. The facts are outlined in the petition by the, `Yes

Means Yes Committee.' With respect to schools being interdenominational, again,

I think everybody in this Legislature understands that the schools for the next

school year 1996-'97, will operate as they are today. Reform at the school level

was never scheduled to occur until September 1997. I say that for the record

because there are some media, particularly The Evening Telegram , in some

of its editorial comments, want to keep suggesting: `Are we ever going to get to

actual reform at the school?' Reform at the school was always slated, Mr.

Speaker, for September of 1997. Reform at the school board office will occur

shortly after the passage of Term 17 through the Senate and we certainly hope

that will happen quickly.

So the idea of whether schools will be inter-denominational

or not, Mr. Speaker, we will debate that in the Fall, because the viability

criteria will be in the legislation next Fall, not in the interim legislation.

The selection of parental choice - the exercise of parental choice as to what

schools will be of which description, will occur in the next school year before

the doors open again for September of 1997. The idea of neighbourhood schools,

Mr. Speaker - children in the neighbourhoods have access to the schools now

except that they cannot, by virtue of exercising their right to go to a

neighbourhood school, turn it into a different kind of school. Here in St.

John's, for example, children in the neighbourhood of Gonzaga cannot go to

Gonzaga and say, because I am here and I am not Catholic I want to go to Gonzaga

because it is the neighbourhood, but I also want it no longer to be Catholic.

They can have part one, Mr. Speaker, but they cannot have part two. Part two

will be determined by parental choice and so on sometime during the next school

year and we will see what the schools will be for September of 1997.

The uni-denominational schools, Mr. Speaker, where parents

prefer and numbers warrant, that is what the legislation will draft and follow

the viability criteria and the exercise of parental choice. That will be in the

legislation in the Fall. The hiring of teachers on merit, except in

uni-denominational schools, there was nothing other than that ever contemplated.

Where anybody ever got the idea that it would happen - if it happens like that

today, that is provided for in the new Term 17; that is what will be provided

for, Mr. Speaker, after reform is complete, that in uni-denominational schools,

the teachers will go through a different selection criteria than in

inter-denominational schools but teachers will be hired on merit in all schools,

and denominational consideration will only come into play in uni-denominational

schools. The provision of religious education and pastoral care, those are the

only roles that the denominational representatives have to play, except in

uni-denominational schools where they will have further rights. That is what is

in the current Term and that will be put there.

Mr. Speaker, again the phrase was used, in talking about the

petition, as the `ill-fated framework agreement,' or something of that nature.

There was nothing in the framework agreement other than the fact that there

would be ten boards instead of twenty-seven, and that there was going to be a

single construction board instead of giving the money out by denomination. The

leaders of the churches were indicating they were willing to do that a couple of

months ago by agreement, but people kicked up so much fuss over some other

things that the agreement, of course, evaporated. Now we will wait until August

1 or so to get those two things done, and that will occur. Again, the rest of it

will be resolved in due course with most of the debate occurring next Fall.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition, yet again, on the

Crown lands issue. As many people in the House are aware, we had a public

meeting that the minister attended, as well as myself and two of my colleagues.

I think the message now is quite clear. Most of the people in

the general public are not discontent with the new pricing policy; it has boiled

down to the fact they are discontented with the time allotted to come up with

the funds. They have to make application by October 31 and then they would have

to pay off the full amount remaining in one lump sum owing on their property. If

they don't make application by October 31, the monies that they have paid in

over the number of years will be lost. So if they want to take advantage of the

monies they have already paid in, they have to make application by October 31

and pay their land off in full.

This is the only real problem that I perceive people out

there have with the new pricing policy on Crown lands. I think most people are

quite content to pay off the Crown land and own their land and have it freehold

as opposed to leasehold. But I think what most people are asking of the

government, and I think it is quite reasonable, is that we give them a time

period of three or four or even five years to pay off their Crown land while

taking advantage of the monies that they have paid in since they first took out

the lease on the land.

Again, I am proud to present this petition. I think that is a

minor change to make. The government will still reap the rewards of the income

over a five-year period while giving the leaseholders the right to maintain the

savings of what they have paid in. In doing this, Mr. Speaker, again, I'm proud

to present this petition, and I thank you for the time in the House.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's

South. He is talking about a group of people who aren't in a position - many of

them, if not most of them - to dip into their pockets or dip into their savings

or dip into their bank credit to pay the kind of money that the government is

asking on a very short notice period and a very short time frame to acquire the

freehold of their cottage lot.

This issue has been around for a couple of weeks now since

the minister has made the announcement. He quite graciously, and perhaps

bravely, attended a public meeting where everyone who was there, aside from him

and his officials, was opposed to his program to require people to pay up front

a very large sum of money to them, for property that they had bought under one

set of leasing arrangements and that they had worked over a long period of time,

using their limited resources, in many cases, to build a cottage.

Some of the things that these people said were kind of

interesting. One individual said to me: Look, I don't know why the government is

picking on us. I have a brother who isn't really into having a cottage, and

every year he goes down to Florida and spends a couple of thousand dollars or

$2,500 on a vacation in Florida. He takes a plane out of St. John's, rents

hotels or motels in Florida and rents a car down there and he spends his money

there.

He said: I don't go to Florida but every time I go to my

cabin, I put a tank of gas in the car and I pay tax on that. I buy building

materials; I buy food at the local stores, I am contributing my vacation money

or my recreational money within this Province. I am spending my money here - my

vacation time and effort and recreational funds are being spent in the Province.

The member may not have been listening, but he was comparing

himself to his brother who spent all his money in Florida. He spends about

$2,500 a year going to Florida, or every two years, and this fellow was saying,

you know, I don't believe in that; I spend my money on my cabin and every time I

go to the cabin I buy a tank of gas and all of that is to the good of the local

merchants or the local vendors of gas bars, and the taxpayers of this Province,

by putting money back into the economy.

What the petitioners here are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is not

a free ride by any means. What they are asking for is a bit of a break from a

fairly draconian policy, apparently made by Cabinet ministers who think

everybody is as well-off as they are. That seems to be the problem, that the

people in the Cabinet seem to think that everybody in this Province is as

well-off as they are and can respond very quickly to the kind of initiative that

they have laid down.

Now, what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is hanging over the

heads of these people that if they don't apply for the Crown land by the end of

October and make themselves in a position to pay the balance, they will lose

whatever they have already paid by way of rent, and that is the gun to the head

that this government has. I know the minister responsible has promised to bring

it back to Cabinet; he has not told us what recommendation he is going to make

and I don't know if it has been back to Cabinet yet or not, but the petitioners

here have a very simple request and a very reasonable one, a very sensible one.

They are asking for the support of members of the House to urge the Cabinet to

change this policy.

I hope someone on the other side will speak to this petition

and perhaps give some indication of whether he or she, within the Liberal caucus

or within the Cabinet, is prepared to support the petitioners in this effort to

try to change this government policy. Perhaps someone on the other side will get

up and address the issue and respond to the very real and modest request of the

petitioners to ameliorate this policy by changing it to allow a five-year period

during which people can pay the balance on the property, and give them an

opportunity to acquire the freehold title to this land into which they have put

so much time and effort and money.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a

petition as brought forward by some residents of the District of Bonavista

South, and it reads:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of an essential commodity in this Province is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, having made some $27. 8 million

in profit last year, is not in need of extra revenue from consumers:

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

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

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that has been

brought forward to my attention to present it here to the House of Assembly, and

is another situation where rural Newfoundlanders are speaking out and asking the

government of the day, if they would be sympathetic to their needs and if they

would be sympathetic to their desires to maintain, at least, a status quo in

Newfoundland Power electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, when you consider the rate increase that has

been applied for by this particular utility, coupled with the combination of the

harmonization of the GST and the PST, it won't be unexpected for those people to

see a rate increase in their light bills or on their hydro bills of some $65 to

$75 a month. It won't be uncommon to see the people in rural Newfoundland who

can least afford it, having to pay the highest electricity rates. We might say:

Well, Newfoundland Power must need the rate increase in order for it to justify

going looking for the 4.5 per cent increase.

I say that the $28 million that this particular utility made

last year, just last year, is certainly, to me, a reasonable and an ample profit

to make when you consider the economy of today. Not only does this particular

utility just go out and charge you the rate for the services that you use - not

only do they charge you for the consumption of electricity - but many, many

times you will find that if they have to do any extra work in reaching your

house, or reaching any particular industry to supply you with a service, which

is a service they have a monopoly on, they also charge you for that as well.

It is not uncommon for anybody starting a new business today

to have a projection done of what consumption they expect that particular

utility, that particular industry, to consume in electricity. It is not uncommon

for Newfoundland Power to want and to demand three months of a hydro bill up

front. I know if you go and purchase a business today, the first thing they will

do is go back over the records of what that particular business consumed in

electricity over the past three months, and then they come looking for three

months in advance for their electricity charges. Now, you will get it back.

Sure, you will get it back over a period of time, but many, many times when you

start business today you will find that the few dollars to get into that

business, and your cash flow, is taxed to the limit as it is, and not many

people can come up with three months of a utility bill in advance in order to

access this particular service.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest Newfoundland Power take a lesson from

the largest Crown corporation in Atlantic Canada, which is New Brunswick Hydro.

This particular company offers the same services, and now I understand they are

probably going to receive competition from Quebec Hydro, but they are not going

out and looking for rate increases, and they are not going out to try to

privatize that particular utility. What they are going to do is provide a

service of choice rather than go out and demand higher utility rates, and show

people that what they are selling is service, and to give people another avenue,

if you will. This particular utility here does not have to worry about that.

They do not have any competition - no competition whatsoever - and the service

that they are offering is certainly an essential service; it is not a luxury any

more because all of us today, no matter where we live -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - certainly, in order to function, have

to have electrical appliances, and need electricity in order to survive.

Mr. Speaker, since my time is up, I ask the government if

they would consider intervening to the Public Utilities Board to make sure that

this rate increase is not granted.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the petition as presented by my colleague,

the Member for Bonavista South. As we have heard in the last week or so -

certainly within the last three or four days in this House - we have perhaps in

the range of 75,000 names by Newfoundlanders who voluntarily signed names to

petitions, who are voicing their objections to the proposed increases being

sought by Newfoundland Power before the Public Utilities Board.

I believe it is clear that Newfoundlanders have spoken

loudly, and when we see the tens and tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders who,

as I indicated just a moment ago, have voluntarily signed these petitions,

clearly this is reflective of the anger and the dissatisfaction and the

frustration which is out there in the public when just the idea is presented

that a company such as Newfoundland Power has the gall to proceed to the Public

Utilities Board to seek an approval for an increase in electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, we have to consider that this company has a

monopoly in the delivery of this commodity in the Province, and last year made

in excess of $27 million, almost $28 million, in profit. So the question has to

be asked: What more does it take? What does this company want? How much more

difficulty has to be inflicted upon ordinary Newfoundlanders before the Public

Utilities Board can come to what we feel is a logical conclusion, and hopefully

will deny the request and the requisition which is before it. Mr. Speaker, again

this petition is indicative of the fact that Newfoundlanders have had enough,

and they are, in a very loud way, voicing their concern, their disgust, their

dissatisfaction with what Newfoundland Power is seeking before the Public

Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the petition as presented

by my colleague and indicate to this House that there are indeed more petitions

of a similar vein which will be brought forward in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 1, Order No. 2.

Before moving Order No. 2, I move that this House do not

adjourn at 5:00 o'clock, carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law To

Give Effect To Certain Recommendations Of The Commissioner For Regulatory

Reform." (Bill No. 1)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, one of the major complaints that

we hear from time to time is that there is too much regulation, too much

bureaucracy, and it has been a major concern with people around the Province for

years. Some years ago the Wells administration put a process in place whereby a

committee chaired by Judge Nathaniel Noel would examine every single regulation

that government had. In some cases it was recommended that these regulations

would disappear, and in some places they would be modified and would be

replaced. What we have here today is the omnibus bill which is the sum total of

all these recommendations, which will in many cases abolish regulations and in

other places modify them.

I should also say that it was our hope that we would have had

this exercise completed by June 30 of this year, but unfortunately there are

still a few regulations that we do not have recommendations on yet, and we will

be looking for an extension of the June 30 deadline.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. minister just indicated this bill presumably is

designed to deal with the fact that in the ordinary government process there is

significant regulation, and in the words of the minister, significant red tape

which accompanies most legislation with respect to regulations which are

enforced and any regulatory aspect of law which usually accompanies all acts

before this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that some of the

particulars of the proposed legislation perhaps does a little bit more than just

ease the burden with respect to the regulatory process, and does more, I would

suggest, Mr. Speaker, than just simply reduce the red tape which is found, as I

indicated, in most acts and in most pieces of legislation.

For example, we find under Clause 2 that this bill amends The

Adoption of Children Act. The minister would be authorized to set procedures

with respect to making an application for an adoption order and to approve forms

for the purpose of this act. At present it states that regulations are required

for this purpose. I wonder if the minister is in a position to respond very

briefly to that? I am referring to Clause 2 of the act where it specifically

refers to the Adoption of Children Act, and indicates that procedures would be

set by the minister with respect to making applications for an adoption order.

I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything new in

this, or is this something which just now gives the minister the ability to make

this determination? In other words does he now have the discretion to deal with

that or simply to replace the regulations which are now before the Legislature

or is this a new power that is given to the minister? I wonder if the minister

may wish to comment on that briefly, Mr. Speaker?

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to my understanding -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. minister just answering a

question or closing the debate?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, no just answering the question, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: It is my understanding there is no new power

there, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a process whereby we can have - instead of

having all the regulations, the minister will be given some discretion there.

There are no new powers.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Clause 8 of the bill, under the Bills of Sale Act, it

removes the time limit within which a bill of sale must be registered and

extends the registration period from three years to five years. The amendments

also remove, Mr. Speaker, the need to have the approval of a judge of the trial

division to renew a registration after it had expired. This is something which

personally I welcome, Mr. Speaker, because all to often it was necessary - and

it was only just a procedural exercise whereby it was necessary for

representatives of companies or representatives of individuals who had an

interest under the Bills of Sale Act to make basically just a pro forma

appearance, Mr. Speaker, before the judge of the trial division of the Supreme

Court and I am not aware of any incidence when such a request would have been

denied. So this sort of particular amendment is welcomed and perhaps it is

consistent with what the hon. minister's opening remarks were in that it helps

cut the red tape and in the long run makes it easier and in essence cheaper on

an applicant before a court.

I would just like to go to the conditional sales act where

Clause 15 of this Bill No. 1 states much the same, where a conditional sale must

be registered and it now extends the registration period from three to five

years. Similarly to the provision under the Bills of Sale Act, the amendments

also remove the need to have the approval of a judge of the trial division to

renew a registration after it had expired. So I think the same logic, Mr.

Speaker, is found in Clause 15 as it is in Clause 8 with respect to amendment to

both the Bills of Sale Act and to the conditional sales act.

With respect to Clause 9, Mr. Speaker, there is reference to

the change of name act and it states that the amendments would clarify who was a

resident of the Province for the purpose of applying for a change of name and

would permit the minister to set fees. We notice throughout most of this

legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would say the majority of the various provisions

found in this legislation has to do with the setting of fees. Therefore the act,

I would add, is essentially administrated in nature and it empowers the minister

to set fees when indeed the ministry finds it appropriate to do so.

Under the Child Welfare Act, under Clause 10, it moves the

powers of the minister to administer the act from regulations to the policy

level. That one I question to some extent because I am not sure if I see the

distinction, Mr. Speaker, between the discretionary power that the minister

would ordinarily have to administer the act from regulations to the policy

level. It seems to me that the minister could have equal discretion and

certainly be in a position of influence, as minister, to deal with any

amendment, whether it be with respect to regulations or indeed the policy of the

department.

An interesting one, Mr. Speaker, under Clause 11 gives the

power to the City of St. John's to authorize the city to make by-laws in the

regulation and control of the use of skateboards. Interestingly, it is only in

the last several days that this issue has become a public one and indeed the

city was able to deal with it in some respect.

Mr. Speaker, one which caught my attention as well is with

respect to Clause 26 of the bill. It is an amendment to the Embalmers and

Funeral Directors Act and it ensures that crematoria are operated by only

licensed funeral directors. My first response to that is, well who other than

funeral directors would be the appropriate individuals to operate crematoria in

this Province? It also indicates that an embalmer and a funeral director

maintain the records required by the minister. I guess, too, that is only

perhaps reinforcing the obvious, that obviously, a licensed funeral director and

a person in this line of business would be appropriate with the necessary record

keeping, which is required by law in any event.

Mr. Speaker, one area of concern is clause 33 of the act. It

refers directly to freedom of information. It removes the need to enact

regulations to create forms and set fees for the purpose of the act. The

Minister of Justice is now authorized to set fees for information provided under

the act. I find that it is perhaps an area of some concern, that again, where it

is in the discretion of the minister to set fees and, I suppose, he, in his own

discretion would be able to create the policy or the regulations with respect to

how the Freedom of Information Act is governed, in my view, this gives

significant power to the minister. The minister is in a position to essentially

set up the rules or the restrictions or the limitations as to how the public or

members on this side of the House or the media or whatever other body it might

be - how they are to access information pursuant to the Freedom of Information

Act.

It is a particular area on which I wish to voice my concern,

having reviewed this act in the last little while. I raise this concern simply

to ask: How far can the minister go, if, in fact, the minister should choose in

any way to limit or restrict access to information under the Freedom of

Information Act?

Clause 60 is an amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act,

1991 and it indicates that there is a repealing of a provision authorizing the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the operation of

the act. This particular

section as well -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is clause 60 of the bill. We can

just have a quick look at it, Mr. Speaker. It indicates that

section 33 of the

Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 is repealed.

Section 33, I would just like to

refer to it briefly. It is essentially the appeal provision of the Public

Service Pensions Act, 1991.

It states that: A contributor or other person who is

aggrieved by a decision of the minister or of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

in a matter related to, connected with or arising out of his or her entitlement

to or the award to him or her of a pension or other money under this Act, may

appeal from the decision to a judge of the Trial Division.

Subsection (2) states: Where a contributor or other person

proposes to appeal under subsection (1), he or she shall, within sixty days

after he or she has received the decision of the minister or of the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council, serve on the minister a written notice of his or

her intention to appeal to a judge of the Trial Division.

Subsection (3) says: The notice of appeal served under

subsection (2) shall be signed by the contributor or other person or by his or

her solicitor or agent, (unquote). It just carries that it then shall be filed

in the registry of the Supreme Court of this Province.

Again, it is just a question, I suppose, that I pose having

reviewed this particular

section of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. This

section 33 now having been repealed, my question is: What replaces this? What

will substitute for this provision? How will the public, in fact, or anybody who

is aggrieved under this particular act, have now the necessary recourse that

ordinarily would have been found in

section 33? But as indicated by clause 60 of

Bill No. 1,

section 33 of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 is now repealed.

Mr. Speaker, clause 73 is a clause of which the intent, I

would submit, is certainly worthy and one that I have no difficulty supporting.

It states that the Tobacco Control Act, under an amendment, would now allow the

minister to direct the posting of signs under the Act and would more clearly

state that those signs are to be visible. Presently, provisions for signs are

made by regulation.

Again, I think this is more, Mr. Speaker, of an

administrative change and now the minister has the discretion to deal with this

as opposed to regulation, but the spirit of this amendment is one which I can

support when it is certainly under the Tobacco Control Act; it is certainly the

wish and the spirit of the legislation that young people not engage in smoking

as an habitual practice.

Mr. Speaker, what I have attempted to do is just review some

of the provisions which concern me to some extent, and other provisions which I

have no difficulty supporting as it relates to Bill No. 1, "An Act To Amend The

Law To Give Effect To Certain Recommendations Of The Commissioner For Regulatory

Reform." It is largely a piece of legislation which is administrative, which

eases the administrative burden and shifts some of the responsibility from a

regulatory nature to that of the discretion of the minister.

Ny only concern is that the minister, in using his or her

discretion, will, rather than going the regulatory route, Mr. Speaker, or

pursuant to any statute, use discretion which is consistent with what the spirit

of the legislation is all about. And the one act that comes to my mind, which

perhaps is a source of some concern, is the Freedom to Information act, to which

I referred earlier and which is found under clause 33 of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague, the Member for

Kilbride, is also going to make a few comments and I will now allow him to do

so.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The presentation of this bill at this time, with some

eighty-five clauses in it, is a rather complex piece of legislation and requires

a fair bit of study, actually, to find out exactly what the government is doing

here.

We have had a number of debates on this issue in the past

couple of sessions in the House, because government at that time passed

legislation which would have the effect of doing away with all regulations that

weren't re-promulgated by a certain date and I think that date is June 30. And

we were promised at that time, by the former Minister of Justice and Government

House Leader that, before we were being asked to deal with all of this, we would

have in our hands, a copy available of the regulations that were left and the

regulations that were gone so that we would know exactly what government is

doing.

Now, we do not have a really good idea of what government is

doing. Some of the things, obviously, in this Bill 1, are quite desirable and

reasonable; any number of provisions and clauses in the bill which allow the

doing away with, or the repealing of regulations that require or pieces of

legislation that require certain forms to be issued by regulation or fees, that

you can't change the form that is used by a particular government department

without having it go to the Cabinet and issue a new Order in Council and change

the regulation; in fact, we even see that in some legislation, the forms

attached to the legislation, but certainly, in regulations, forms have to be

approved by Cabinet.

Obviously, a lot of that is unnecessary. On the fees side, I

say for the most part as well, when fees change on something, as they might from

time to time, we don't see any particular problem with the minister setting

fees, although I suppose, in certain areas, there are some problems. The Freedom

of Information Act was mentioned by the Member for St. John's East as an area

where perhaps the minister should have less power and the Cabinet should have

more.

Essentially, most of the content of the legislation is to

give the ministers more power and the Cabinet less. That is what is happening

here, that the ministers are given more responsibility and the Cabinet is given

less. If you change something, take it out of the requirement for regulation

which must be passed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which everyone knows

is the Cabinet, and give that to the minister by ministerial directive or

ministerial policy, then essentially, you are giving the Cabinet minister more

authority over his or her department, and that may be a good thing.

I understand certain Cabinet ministers in the previous

government were concerned about what authority they actually had, and were quite

hesitant in doing things without the right approval from the right person on

high. So I think it is, generally speaking, a good thing to give Cabinet

ministers more authority and responsibility. With that authority, of course,

goes the responsibility of answering in the House and in public for what is

done. Here in this legislation are a number of instances where that happens. For

example, clause 58 amends the Public Examinations Act so it removes the need for

the Cabinet to make regulations to fix the remuneration of persons employed in

connection with holding public examinations. So we are going to amend that, and

we are going to allow the minister to decide who he is going to pay, and how

much, to correct the public examinations. He tried to fix it a little while ago

by suggesting that he pay nobody to correct them because they were already on

salary, but that did not work out very well and the minister is taking flak and

responsibility for that.

What I worry about is that in this bill there are, in fact,

some policy changes - policy changes in a sense that it gives a lot of

ministerial discretion in areas which were, in fact, policy-related. Clause 47

is a good example, where the Memorial University Pensions Act is changed by

repealing a provision which authorized the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to

make regulations respecting the operation of the pension plan. It says here that

the same result can be achieved by ministerial directive.

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the operation of a

pensions plan, the important aspect of that has to do with the rights of

individuals to collect the pension in particular circumstances, and when these

rights, or when these

interpretations, or when these application of rules are

contained in regulations, they are published, they are available, they are under

the Subordinate Legislation and Regulations Act, they are published in The

Newfoundland Gazette , they are available in indexes - people can look them

up - and they have the force of law. They can be changed, of course, by Cabinet,

but they have the force of law.

If you are dealing with a ministerial directive, or a policy

that comes from the minister's office, well, if the minister does not like the

fact that someone is coming in with an

interpretation of the ministerial

directive or his or her rights under, say, in this case, the Memorial University

pension plan, all the minister has to do is sit down with some official and say:

Oh, well, we will get him. We will make sure he does not qualify. We will change

the directive. We will just simply issue a new ministerial directive, or the

minister will just sign a new policy statement saying this is how the

legislation is to be followed, implemented, or interpreted.

That is a very different set of circumstances when someone is

relying on the

interpretation of a regulation which may be in his or her favour,

and in order to overcome the particular right or obligation that the government

has to this individual, they would have to go back to the Cabinet with all that

is involved in that: The preparation of a Cabinet paper, the consideration of

all sides of the issue, perhaps obtaining a legal opinion, perhaps a little bit

of consultation and thought going into the change. To go before one's Cabinet

colleagues and justify a change to a regulation, that involves a reasonable

amount of effort.

The public or the citizen has a certain amount of security

knowing that what is in the regulations is good and will work for them, or work

against them as the case may be, but at least they know where they stand and can

rely on the regulations in order to pursue a course of action. Whether it be to

make a decision on some option that they might have under a pension plan, to

make a decision as to what to do with a particular circumstance, they can rely

on it because they know that to change it requires a fair bit of effort. Unless

there is some policy review under way the likelihood of that happening is pretty

slim.

On the other hand, if it is merely a ministerial directive or

policy statement from the minister's office, then that is something the minister

can change with the stroke of a pen. I know the Minister of Education is anxious

to have more power so he can change policy with the stroke of a pen, like he

tried to do with public examinations and got himself in hot water. If I were the

Minister of Education I would want less power, not more, because it might keep

me out of trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He was going to collect up the books and now

he has changed his mind. He is only going to collect up some of them, or it is

going to be a voluntary program. If I were the Minister of Education I would

say: Look, give the Cabinet more power so that I can share this responsibility,

I don't have to take the blame. If I were the Minister of Education I would want

to have the Minister of Justice, for example, to share some of the blame rather

than have to hold it on my own shoulders as the minister responsible.

This act gives the ministers a lot more power and a lot more

authority and lot more responsibility. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether some

of these ministers are going to be able to handle the power and responsibility

and authority that they are being given. There are a lot of changes in here that

cause a little bit of concern.

It was mentioned that the freedom of information in fact is

being changed to allow the minister to set forms and fees for information

provided under the act. This is a pretty touchy area. Forms? I don't have a

problem with forms, unless you can devise a form - I suppose you could devise a

form that makes it difficult for people to ask for information because it might

require them to identify with a great amount of specificity what exactly it is

they are looking for. If they want to find out information that government may

have on a particular issue or individual, if it is themselves, they might make a

form so difficult that it enables government to hide behind the form.

The provision of fees becomes an issue. I know before the

Freedom of Information Act and regulations were passed the government changed

the regulations in fact to change the fees substantially, some thought in an

effort to prevent the news media from getting access to it. I believe the

previous government was involved in that. I don't know if the Minister of

Justice remembers that, when a newspaper called The Sunday Express was

very anxious to get certain information from the previous government. One of the

responses of that government was to jack up the fees for freedom of information

requests so that it became an expensive proposition. I guess they made Harry

Steele pay for his information. (Inaudible) if he is going to get any mileage

out of this newspaper politically he is going to have to pay for it. So they

jacked up the fees. In the process of doing that, of course, it made access to

information by all members of the public a little harder to get hold of.

I think the temptation, by giving authority to ministers in

certain circumstances to merely issue a ministerial directive rather than to

have to go to Cabinet and convince his or her colleagues that a certain move is

not only justifiable but is also good public policy and good practice, I think

acts as a certain amount of a brake on rash judgements and rash moves. We have

seen a fair number of rash judgements and rash moves by ministers in the past

few months and I don't know if it comes with the new government, the new

administration, the freeing up of ministers from the old regime. I don't know if

it is the freeing up of ministers from the old regime where they never had an

opportunity to do much on their own judgement but now since the new regime is

under way they have an opportunity to take some judgements and show their lack

of judgement in certain areas.

I have a number of concerns resulting from these regulations.

The second major problem I have with this legislation is that regulations are

available - any member of the public can go to a law library, to a public

library or to the Queen's Printer and request copies of regulations made under

legislation. The Newfoundland Gazette has an index. There is an index of

subordinate legislation that is published by the Queen's Printer on a regular

basis which gives people access to the information contained in - the

availability of regulations is there for the public, Mr. Speaker, through The

Newfoundland Gazette and they know exactly what the regulations are. Now

what the public has to do is go to each individual minister and ask for copies

of all their policy directives. I would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if they are

going to be that easily accessible. One can go to the library and say, okay,

under the Election Act, where are all the regulations or under the Employers

Liability Act or the Environmental Assessment Act and ask for all of the

regulations. One can very quickly get copies of all the regulations that apply

to the legislation under that act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when all of these regulations or

opportunity for regulation is being moved and given to the minister, I would

have to go over to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and say: Mr.

Minister, could you give me a list of all your policy directives and all of your

policies under this act? He would tell me: Well what are you talking about? Are

you talking about anything in particular?... well no, I just want to know how

you are running your department and what your policy directives are? The act

leaves it in your hands to issue policy directives on any number of issues and I

would like to know what they are?' He probably would tell me to come back when I

know what I am looking for and maybe I will be able to get it.

I know with the Department of Social Services it has been an

ongoing struggle for years to get your hands on a policy manual. They give

various excuses. I used to ask regularly in the Estimates Committee for a copy

of the policy manual and was told it would be taken under advisement and given

various excuses from time to time. I know when the Member for Bonavista North

was Minister of Social Services he readily agreed to make it available but that

was after a struggle with previous ministers to try and get hold of the policy

manual. The various reasons that were given was that well we cannot give you a

policy manual because we change our policies from time to time. Well that is

exactly the point, Mr. Speaker, when things are left to policy you don't know

what the policy is unless you are on top of it all. In regulations the

regulations are specific and they are there. They are there, Mr. Speaker, for

all to see because they are published in The Newfoundland Gazette and

they are required to be available to the public through these provisions. So if

we are going to pass this legislation in principle there ought to be another

principle that is contained in the legislation which makes it certain that all

policy directives or ministerial policies under any piece of legislation ought

to be available to the public, that these policy manuals in fact form a

substance of government that is very important to the operations of government.

In fact the report that was tabled in the House today by the Committee on

Children's Interests had this to say about policy manuals as public documents:

Policy manuals in government are the means to which laws passed by the House of

Assembly are interpreted so that civil servants can have a framework on which to

make their decisions. In many ways then a policy manual is the legislation, and

by keeping policy manuals as private documents it can be argued that citizens

are being barred from seeing the laws under which they are governed, therefore

the Select Committee on Children's Interests made in recommendation number two -

they were very upfront at the beginning of their report, made a recommendation

that all policy manuals of government that control the type and quality of

service received by clients of government be made public documents.

That is a significant recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and one

that if we are dealing with legislation here that is changing the obligation of

regulations to be published, and changing the obligation of certain policies to

be included in regulation and given to ministers for policy and policy

directives, then there ought to be a requirement that those policy directives be

public documents as well and open for inspection at the minister's office.

I would urge members to consider that this legislation before

us today be amended to provide for public disclosure and public availability of

all policy directives issued under legislation of government, and any particular

policy manuals that would indicate to public servants as to how to interpret

legislation and how to act, because people do not know what the policies are in

terms of the operation of legislation.

I think the House was told last fall that there are over 400

individual acts or pieces of legislation that are currently enforced in this

Province today, and under those acts there was some 2000 and some odd different

sets of regulations. Now, Mr. Speaker, all of that will not disappear merely

because certain regulations are repealed. They will not just go away. Government

is still going to be interpreting legislation. There is still going to be policy

as to how certain pieces of legislation are implemented, and if the public does

not have access to that information I do not think from an administrative law

point of view, or even from an administration point of view it is necessary for

all of these individual items to be covered by regulation. No doubt there are

many regulations that may have outlived their usefulness and are no longer

appropriate to the operation of government, and this type of house cleaning is

certainly appropriate.

But, and it is a very big but, what about those things that

will still be going on in government in terms of the implementation and

operation of legislation that are going to be governed by policy but then that

policy is not widely available to the public? That is the concern I have, that

not only would it not be widely available to the public but is policy that could

be changed by the minister at some ministerial whim, or based on the coming

across the circumstance that the minister or his department does not like to

have to deal with under the current policy framework and decide they will change

it to deal with a particular circumstance.

I have those concerns about the legislation at this stage of

second reading which is approval in principle. Obviously there are some details

we might discuss at third reading, but the general principle here of giving

ministers more power is probably a good one, although certain ministers may not

be able to deal with it without getting in trouble, but the question of public

knowledge of government policies and the access to policies, access to knowledge

read them and get access to them, may not make it so available if these things

are left to policy or ministerial directive.

The example of course that I used of the Department of Social

Services being one, and one of the most important ones, where individuals cannot

find out what they are actually entitled to except by asking a social worker.

Then, if they don't accept that, having to go through a review process rather

than having access to the policy manuals themselves.

I think this legislation could probably use a general

amendment which would see to it that ministerial directives or policies be

available to the public in line with the recommendation number two of the

Committee on Children's Interests, which was tabled in the House today, which

indicates the importance of policy as it reflects the operation of legislation

that is passed in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess back in the

fall I guess when the previous government introduced legislation that empowered

government to repeal all of the rules and regulations associated with every act

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? That is a good question. Where

is the list of new ones? One of the major concerns that was expressed at that

time was that while we, as legislators, pass legislation and deal with it, the

real implications of any piece of legislation is set forth in the rules and

regulations associated with it. There are many.

This is a pretty large bill. It may be administratively

certainly the minister - it is a way that governme