April 12, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 16

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As today marks the beginning of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, I rise in this hon.

House today not just as the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island,

but also as the coach for of an MHA hockey team who did their

part last night in

helping raise a little over $36,000 for the General Hospital Health Foundation.

On a side note Calgary fired their coach this morning; I was fired last night.

Led by such notables as the "Rocket" Roger Grimes, the

"Mountain" Wally Anderson, the "Wildman" Rick Woodford and

the "Killer" Kevin Alyward, as well as "the Streak" Loyola

Sullivan, this team of MHAs, as well as political staffers, valiantly battled a

group of doctors and health care specialists called the Hockey Docs, but fell

short by a score of 5-4.

A special mention is given to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

who tallied our team's second goal on a penalty shot, much to the delight of

our bench.

Fans also came out in droves to take shots at our Minister of Health and

Community Services, who donned the goalie pads before the game began as people

paid $10 each to shoot the puck at the minister. Despite the valiant effort, I

do have to point out to him that he is no Chris Osgood.

Mr. Speaker, our team may have come up short in scores this year, but there

is one big winner, and that is the General Hospital Health Foundation who,

combined with the help of the MHAs, have raised in excess of $36,000 as a result

of this event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: I extend my congratulations to all members and to indeed all

those who participated in the fundraiser. We wish them the greatest success

again next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to make special acknowledgment of Janine Browne, an

eighteen year old student of Fatima Academy in St. Bride's, who has just been

recruited by Memorial University's Lady Sea Hawks basketball team to play for

them in September of this year.

Janine was born and raised in St. Bride's and is the daughter of Keith and

Rose Browne. She has played basketball since she was in grade VI and has played

for the Fatima Royals on both junior and senior teams. Janine maintains a 94 per

cent academic average in level III and still manages to play basketball.

Over the past few months Janine has received letters from numerous

universities such as Simon Fraser in British Columbia, Butler University in

Indiana, Cape Breton University, and the universities of Dalhousie, Acadia, St.

Mary's, and St. Francis Xavier in Nova Scotia. However, she has opted to

attend Memorial University and play for the Sea Hawks. She has been a member of

the Newfoundland provincial team for the past three summers and has traveled to

PEI where they captured the gold medal, to Vancouver and Halifax, as well as

many places in Newfoundland.

This past fall Janine attended the Nike Camp in Toronto where she draw the

attention of the mainland universities. Janine just recently played her last

game with the Fatima Royals at the 3 "A" basketball tournament in

Fogo. She has been awarded many individual and team awards. Janine is a role

model for younger people and has a promising and bright future ahead. I want to

wish her the best of luck in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like leave, please, to do a member's statement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

Today I would to recognize one of our most dedicated and innovated teachers.

Mr. Derek Moore, who is principal of Booth Memorial High School in my district

of St. John's Centre, recently received the Distinguished Principal of the

Year Award for Newfoundland and Labrador. This morning I attended an award

ceremony in his honor.

Under Mr. Moore's leadership, Booth Memorial has been recognized many time

for their progressive and valuable initiatives, such as the Future Pathways

career exploration program and their information technology education program.

Mr. Moore has lobbied for an infant care program at the school to allow

students who have children to continue their education while having their

children cared for at the school. It lets mothers be close to their children

throughout the day while still pursuing their education and better preparing for

their futures.

Mr. Moore supported and enabled the beginnings of the Coffee Booth, a

restaurant at the school which allows challenging needs students to get a

practical sense of the workforce through their own experiences while offering a

service to students, staff and visitors.

Under Mr. Moores' leadership Booth Memorial has received distinction and

recognition through the national award in co-op education, the Royal Bank

Partners in Education Award. The school has also received national recognition

for technology as a Member of Industry Canada's Network of Innovative Schools.

Mr. Moore is an excellent role model, is action oriented, and he gets things

done. I'm sure that through the combined efforts of Booth Memorial's

students, teachers and staff the school will continue to receive awards and

special recognition under the guidance and leadership of Derek Moore.

Congratulations, Derek Moore, on receiving the Distinguished Principal of the

Year award for Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I and my colleague, the hon.

Roger Grimes, participated in a news conference to announce government's

intention to proceed with legislative changes to pursue legal action against

tobacco companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: This the first step on the road toward health care costs

incurred by the Province as a result of tobacco products. The care of those

individuals impacted by tobacco has placed a significant financial burden on the

Province and government believes that this burden should be rightly borne by

tobacco manufacturers and not the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Government of British Columbia is leading the way in Canada in this new

area of liability and civil litigation. BC has put forward legislation in

support of legal action against tobacco companies.

In February of this year, the BC Supreme Court ruled that parts of the

proposed legislation violated the Constitution. However, the Court upheld more

than 80 per cent of the BC legislation and that government announced in March of

this year its intention to amend and re-enact the Tobacco Damages and Health

Care Costs Recovery Act.

It is important that we in this Province have the proper statutory framework

in place in order to initiate this action. That is why my department is closely

monitoring the progress of legislation in British Columbia. We plan to review BC's

amended legislation prior to finalizing the legislation for this Province. It is

intended that the legislation would affirm government's right to seek

compensation for the health care costs incurred and address certain rules of

evidence and procedure.

We intend to work closely with the Government of British Columbia with regard

to both legislation and research. In fact, we are entering into a collaboration

agreement with BC to share research in this matter. This will, of course,

benefit both provinces.

I am also pleased today to inform my hon. colleagues that we have a legal

team in place to assist us in this initiative. We have retained Graham Watton,

Q.C., Dennis Browne, Q.C., and Jamie Smith as legal consultants to assist in the

development of legislation and act on government's behalf in litigation

against tobacco manufactures.

In addition, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and

Community Services will form an instructing committee. This committee, comprised

of senior officials from both departments, will provide guidance and advice to

the legal team.

Than you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this obviously can only be viewed as a very positive initiative

by government . We certainly have no objection, in our Province, working closely

with the Province of British Columbia both in the preparation and finalization

of legislation and research, and also in working with British Columbia from a

procedural point of view.

I would suggest to the minister that perhaps he could consider even going a

step further. That is to suggest that maybe once the preparatory work is

completed, to wait and see what the outcome of the British Columbia experience

is before embarking on the actual litigation in this Province. In doing so, it

would seem to me, depending on the outcome, the results of that litigation could

be cost saving to this Province and quite possibly unnecessary, depending on the

outcome.

Nevertheless, having said that, it is indeed a very positive initiative and I

certainly encourage government's decision to work closely with British

Columbia. However, I would just suggest perhaps that extra step: see what the

actual outcome is before actually advancing to the litigation stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ask and ye shall receive. It was only a week ago I urged the minister to move

forward on this particular initiative and I am glad to see they are going

swiftly forward to follow the actions of the British Columbia government and to

work closely with them to recover some of the many hundreds of millions of

dollars per year that are lost.

Based on the information released by the minister today, the $16.5 billion

annually health care cost in Canada, using the same formula that the Minister of

Health used for federal initiatives, it would over $300 million a year in health

care costs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - for this Province. I hope the minister is going to pursue

this aggressively and not take a wait-and-see approach as is proposed by the

Opposition just a moment ago.

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

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

I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this is National

Wildlife Week, with the theme this year being: Migration. Accordingly, I would

like to speak to initiatives in this Province which are promoting the concepts

of partnerships and stewardship in wildlife habitat conservation for migrating

species.

One of the shining program areas pioneered in this Province has been the

stewardship program which informs residents and corporations about the value of

wildlife habitats in and around their homes and workplaces, and encourages them

to commit to conservation beyond that of normal legislative requirements. I am

pleased to inform this House that the response to this initiative by

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians has been so positive over the past ten years

that our stewardship programs are now being used as a model by other provinces.

Newfoundland and Labrador is considered to be on the cutting edge of stewardship

concepts in Canada.

The task of promoting wildlife conservation in this Province has also been

supported by municipalities, community organizations and the corporate

community.

Several municipalities, through the Eastern Habitat Joint Venture, have

entered into an agreement with government which sees them supporting a variety

of stewardship initiatives aimed at habitat conservation. Included among these

are Whitbourne, Spaniard's Bay-Bay Roberts, Come By Chance, Gander,

Carmanville, Grand Falls-Windsor, Stephenville Crossing, Winterland and Torbay.

I would also like to acknowledge important work being done by the Codroy

Valley Area Development Association supporting stewardship practices being

carried out in the Grand Codroy Estuary. Efforts here have resulted in 300 acres

of islands and important marshlands being purchased for long-term protection in

this estuary. In addition, over 2,000 acres of other private lands surrounding

the estuary have been signed voluntarily by the landowners for stewardship

commitments. This action is a positive response toward the protection of the

only designated Wetland of International Importance in the entire Province.

Important work is also being done in Labrador. For example, a total of

thirty-eight tiny islands have been identified as important nesting habitats for

the common eider duck. Accordingly, these areas have been set aside by Crown

Land Designation as areas to rebuild duck populations.

Mr. Speaker, more wildlife conservation challenges are mounting every year.

To meet these challenges, government is providing resources to support these

initiatives. Last year, the Inland Fish and Wildlife Division was given a new

senior biologist with expertise in habitat enhancement, stewardship and

developing partnerships. One of our partners, Wildlife Habitat Canada, has

provided two biologists to assist with our provincial programs. Starting next

year, we will be implementing a coastal stewardship program in Labrador for a

variety of species, including those which are endangered. Stewardship agreements

are being pursued with more communities and municipalities as well.

Mr. Speaker, these are challenging times for wildlife management and

conservation. I am confident that we are meeting this challenge. I assure the

House that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to put

every effort into protecting and conserving our natural heritage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of his statement. I, too, support

National Wildlife Week, and I do agree with the concept of partnership and

stewardship in wildlife habitat conservation.

We must recognize the value of our wildlife habitat everywhere in this

Province, and we must realize that the wildlife has been a stakeholder in our

environment long before us. I also congratulate the participants in the Eastern

Habitat Joint Venture, particularly the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, which is

part of my district. I also recognize the Codroy Brook Enhancement Association

in Grand Falls-Windsor, which is certainly working diligently to enhance the

environment and wetlands in their venture with their trail. It is a beautiful

trail, and I encourage anybody visiting Central Newfoundland to have a look at

what the Codroy Brook Enhancement Association has done with respect to the

environment in Central Newfoundland.

I also welcome the biologists. It is important that we do put the resources

in place to also protect our environment and protect the areas of our wildlife.

I am very pleased to see the interest in the stewardship of our wildlife

resources. We must meet the challenges of wildlife management and conservation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It being National Wildlife Week, it is an appropriate time to congratulate

and thank all those who work so diligently to support habitat for wildlife and

encourage programs to support proper wildlife management and efficient use of

our wildlife resource. However, it is also important to acknowledge that habitat

loss is the single most important contributor to species decline. We have

twenty-two species in this Province who are either on the list as endangered,

threatened or vulnerable. I urge this government to proceed quickly to adopt

what was promised for many years, and that is a systems plan that will ensure

the protection of wildlife habitat for the many years to come, which government

has promised for many years but not yet adopted.

Thank you.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform Members of the House of

Assembly today that our government has reached an agreement in principle with

Nolan Hall on the sale of the King George V Building on Water Street, in St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, a total of seven parties expressed interest in acquiring the

building and responded to an invited proposal call by government. The proposals

included plans to demolish King George V, requests for government funding to

redevelop the building, and offers to purchase the building for various prices.

With its plans to restore the heritage features to the building, and its offered

price of $70,000, Nolan Hall was the successful proponent. Mr. Speaker, of all

proposals submitted to my department, Nolan Hall offered the best scenario for

the Province. Nolan Hall offered the best proposal for redevelopment of the

property and have stated that they will restore and retain the building's

heritage features, which is very important to the people of the Province,

especially in the St. John's area.

Mr. Speaker, Nolan Hall has an excellent track record for preserving heritage

buildings, and as part of this deal they have agreed to begin restoration of the

building's exterior immediately. Redevelopment and refurbishment of the

interior will take place within the next twelve to eighteen months.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for the people of the Province. King George

V has been vacant since late 1998 and, because of the costs associated with

maintenance and repairs, it is in the Province's best interest to sell the

building. We are pleased that the building will be sold to an established

company, such as Nolan Hall, who are committed to its refurbishment and

preservation. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are very pleased to make this

announcement today and expect the sale to be finalized by the end of April.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just hope that a competing bidder is not embroiled in litigation with the

provincial government in some two or three years time.

With respect to the statement that has been presented, I am familiar with the

work of Nolan Hall. In fact, there have been a few buildings in my own district,

in St. John's East, a few residences - for example, on Darling Street and

Rennies Mill Road, I am familiar with a couple of homes that were developed.

They are quite beautiful homes and they have been restored very well in that

district.

I am also familiar with this particular building, the King George V Building

on the East End of Water Street, which I understand is in the district of my

colleague here, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. They do good work, and I

think what is encouraging about this particular announcement is that heritage is

quite important. It seems to be front and center in terms of the work that they

tend to undertake. So, generally speaking, we support this particular incentive

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and we hope that the completed work is to the minister's

satisfaction.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly good news that this building will be restored. I would

certainly hope that these improvements are a condition of the sale and not left

to them afterwards to decide what to do with it, although they do have a good

track record. I have no doubt that they would want to do what they have

suggested.

This is a very good idea, but may I suggest to the minister that he consider

a larger policy that would provide for the banking of heritage properties or

public buildings that could find another use after a couple of years time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: So that instead of having each building's fate decided

based on the vicissitudes of the market on a particular time but rather be part

of a longer term government policy and strategy to preserve buildings that are

of architectural merit and that can find other uses, perhaps not immediately but

in a couple of years time. I think it may be a worthy consideration. We do it

with land banking for housing developments. There is no reason why we couldn't

consider something like that as a long-term policy to preserve this type of

structure.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the acting Minister

of Environment and Labour. They concern a fair wage

schedule for federal

government construction contracts, and the effect this wage

schedule is having

on the working trades people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This wage

schedule

prescribes the rates of pay applicable to each trade for federally-funded

projects. Under this arrangement, a contractor is required to quote the wage

rate set out in the federal

schedule when a company is bidding on a

federally-funded project. This requirement came into force in the fall of 1999.

I would like to ask the minister: Is she aware that this fair wage

schedule

contains discriminatory rates for the workers of this Province?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. What I

will do is take it under advisement, get the details, and we will bring an

answer back this afternoon and get the details for it. We are aware that the new

schedule is in but, as to your comment about whether or not it is

discriminatory, we will check it out.

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

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have in my possession documents that show dozens of examples of

discrimination with workers within the Province. As an example, a carpenter

working on the federal government funded project on the Avalon Peninsula, St.

John's region, receives $14.12 per hour, while a carpenter doing the exact

same work in Corner Brook is receiving, by law, only $11.52 per hour, a

difference of $2.60. Does the minister believe that this is fair? Can he tell

this House today how his cousins in Ottawa justify this discrimination?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to look at the family

tree, as to whether or not we are cousins.

I say to the member that it sounds like there is a problem and we certainly

will check it out. What we will do is have our officials check it out this

afternoon and talk with the federal Department of Labour about the situation. We

want to see - it says it is a fair wage act. It is supposed to be a fair wage.

We will check it out.

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

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, whether you are fifth cousins or you are first

cousins, the fact is that we believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are

being discriminated against. That is the issue here. It is called a fair wage

schedule.

Many workers in this Province commute, particularly those involved in the

construction industry. Whether it is a union or non-union work site, this unfair

wage schedule, as I would call it, requires payment of different rates to two

different workers from the same community doing the same work but at different

job locations, one in the Avalon region and one on the outside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister: What steps has this government taken to

correct this situation? And what, if anything, has been the response from

Ottawa?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to ensuring

that our people get treated fairly when it comes to - be it federal wage law or

even internal trade. We see in Quebec where we had an unfair practice up in

Labrador West, which the Minister of Environment and Labour, only in the last

year-and-a-half, was able to help fix the law which now sees our workers on this

side of the border being treated the same as they are on the other side of the

border, and where contracts were coming across the border and we were getting

contracts and bringing workers in and our workers were not allowed to go across.

That was action taken by this government. I am sure that the minister will

undertake to do the same here.

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

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the federal government released the fair wage

schedule in the fall of 1999. Discrimination in the federal wage rates is not

only within the boundaries of this Province; it goes much further. In the

economic region of Halifax a carpenter on a federally-funded project receives

$17.06 per hour while in the economic region of St. John's a carpenter

receives only $14.12, while in rural Newfoundland a carpenter doing the same

work receives only $11.52.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: I ask the minister: Does he believe that Newfoundlanders are

being discriminated against in this situation? Can he tell us: Has his

government taken this issue to his counterparts in Ottawa to remove this blatant

show of discrimination for Newfoundlanders?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we will have our

officials this afternoon check out the situation. On behalf of the minister, who

is not here today, we will make sure that we get a response and we will come

back with the details; but we are committed to ensuring that our people in this

Province are treated fairly and we will get the answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, this has been ongoing now since October of

1999, I say to the minister. The absurdity of federal regulations goes even

further, I say. The hours of work required in the EI system is based on a person's

place of residence, while the wage rate in federally-funded projects is based on

the job location. Therefore, as an example, a worker living in Clarenville or

working in St. John's receives EI based on his place of residence but his

federal wage rate is based on where he was employed. This shows that people are

being treated unfairly based on where they live, even though they are all

Newfoundlanders.

I ask the minister: Doesn't he believe this is grossly unfair to the

tradespeople of this Province, and can he give them the assurance today that

this issue will be resolved quickly so that wherever you live in this country

you will be treated fairly by the federal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, we have undertaken to get the information

and to report back to the House, and we will do that. We will make sure that the

minister gets back to the House and I will get the information for this

afternoon.

We are always working here to ensure that our people are treated fairly. I am

sure that we will check out the situation and we will find we will get a

response and hopefully we can get it worked out.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Today I have questions for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In 1997, the Province gave $500,000 of taxpayers' money to an individual to

build a commercially operated sportsplex in Clarenville, but two years after it

opened the sportsplex closed amid reports the facility is structurally unsound.

For more than two years we demanded caution and accountability for this

investment but the government dismissed those concerns as nonsense. Now that

those concerns have proven to be well-founded, let me ask the minister this: Did

the Province have any security on its investment in this commercial operation,

or has yet another $500,000 of taxpayers' money slipped through this

government's hands?

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

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

In fact, the Province has entered into an agreement with the individual who

obtained the funding to do this, and right now we have that agreement before

Justice to actually make sure, in fact, that it is a reliable agreement and that

everything is in order; but there were many partners involved in this whole

process, as members opposite would know, including the FBDB as well as the

provincial government and the individual involved, who also gained money, as

well as the federal government.

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

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

Minister, you did not publicly tender the sportsplex but instead put $500,000

into the pocket of a hand-picked private business man. You did not protect

taxpayers monies, but instead you left the investment unsecured and that was

pretty well confirmed by a previous minister. Didn't you at least monitor the

project you were funding? If so, could you explain how it is that the facility

is now closed due to design problems and who is benefitting from this facility

now?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You know, Mr. Speaker, this is another example of trying

to put something really in the red before it has a chance to get off the ground.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is closed down.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: In fact, the owner of this right now is trying to secure

a new owner. He has been actively seeking to find someone to take over the

sportsplex. He has not declared bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I have to refer back

because I think this is important about this hand-picked person. This

hand-picked person, I would like to say, has been supported by the town council,

by the district school association and I might add, by someone by the name of

Roger Fitzgerald as well. So it has been supported -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The Member for Bonavista South. This facility was

supported by all groups in the surrounding areas as a regional complex, from

people all around, and I think the member opposite knows this decision to

support this was well founded in support.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind all hon. members that when referring to members of this

House they should use the district that the member represents.

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

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

I would like to inform the minister that the town of Clarenville actually

supported this after they received a letter from a previous minister, Minister

Reid, asking them to support it and putting pressure on them to support it. They

were opposed to infrastructure money being spent on that project in the first

place, I say to the minister. So when she is doing her research she should do it

properly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, isn't it the case that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Isn't it the case that government has a policy of not

providing public subsidies for businesses that compete with existing commercial

operations because that is unfair? How is it then that this individual was able

to put in his subsidized sportsplex a commercial Don Cherry's restaurant? Why

did you use taxpayers money to help create an uneven playing field that helped

drive an existing Clarenville employer out of business?

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

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

I would again say there is a letter on file from the Member for Bonavista

South supporting this issue. I will also say, and the members opposite know,

that there are many businesses in this Province, including right in Clarenville,

that have availed of government money to build and to get their facilities off

the ground. If the member was to do his research on this issue, he would find

that there are businesses actually in Clarenville themselves that have availed

of government money to get their businesses off the ground. He knows that very

well.

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

Francis.

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

I would like to inform the minister that we asked questions in this House of

Assembly in May 1997 and in December 1998 with respect to accountability and

security on the money, that $500,000. With respect to businesses in the area, it

is a government policy from my understanding that they do not give money to

compete with other existing businesses in the exact same location.

Madam Minister, isn't it true that there are reports now that the

application which was made through ACOA and the funding that was provided was

for a certain type of building and certain requirements within that building,

and the building that was actually constructed is not the same that was applied

for?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, just for information, government did not

build the building. The gentleman who actually secured the money hired a

contractor to do that particular building. We did not oversee this building. I

would say again that his colleague supported this initiative along with the town

council, the mayors, and the school board association. This was a broadly-based,

well supported initiative for that particular area.

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

Francis.

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

Madam Minister, isn't it true and would you not confirm that a previous

minister, Minister Reid, actually put in writing, and in this House of Assembly,

that he did not know if they had security on the money, the $500,000 of

provincial taxpayers dollars, that went into that facility? That this government

did not have security on that money? True or false.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the comments that are being asked and

requiring an answer are comments that were made by the former to the previous

minister. I am not prepared to comment on what may or may not have been

transcribed in Hansard at this particular time.

All I can say is that there are a number of parties involved. In addition to

the current owner, there is the FBDB as well as the provincial government and

the federal government. I do know that the bank has first call on the loan. I am

well aware of that. I have also said that there was a written agreement that we

have in place that is currently before Justice now as it relates to the

guidelines associated with the funding and what would happen, in fact, if this

sportsplex facility was not to get off the ground. That is the current status of

this right now.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

number of beds in a clinical investigation unit at the Health Sciences Centre

allocated for endocrinology was reduced from eight down to six over the past few

years. Now notification is given to reduce it further, down to five. That is

going to create tremendous hardships for people that are waiting to use the

facility. There are currently four endocrinologists now utilizing this unit,

which is the only one of its kind in the Province. It is essential, in many

cases, to treat people on an in-patient basis, because the specialists are in

here in conjunction with the School of Medicine and the availability of experts.

It is not practical to serve people from an outpatient basis.

I ask the minister: Has he looked at the impact this will have on the

treatment of patients that have endocrine disorders?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I can readily admit that I have not. It is

the first time that I have heard tell of it. It is not the kind of day-to-day

administrative issue at any one of the health care facilities that I actually

deal with.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister was copied on the same letter I was copied on that was written

on April 2, and the Premier was copied on this letter. The letter went to Sister

Elizabeth Davis, the CEO there. So I'm sure the minister has the

correspondence in his department.

This recent move by the Health Care Corporation of St. John's drastically

downgrades the service and it increases the time a patient must wait for

adequate diagnosis and treatment on a follow-up basis. Early intervention is the

key to successful treatment and the cure of many endocrine disorders. If a

patient has to wait four to five months now to be admitted to this unit, it

increases the risk factors associated with the disease. I ask the minister: Does

he realize that delayed diagnosis and treatment could actually cost more money

in the long-term?

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

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, there is no question to that. As

pointed out, the letter was not a letter to me, it was a letter to Sister

Elizabeth as the CEO of the Corporation, which is the right place to raise the

concern.

We have wait lists in a whole range of areas. We do understand and

acknowledge that of course if you have to wait for any particular treatment or

procedure the potential is that there could be a higher risk in the future and

maybe a bigger cost, but that is one of the realities of a publicly funded

health care system. As soon as somebody can be seen, they are. The medical

professionals make a decision, and make hundreds of decisions every day, as to

where the priority is, who should be seen, in which area. That is where I leave

the issues. I do not suggest to them that I know better than the health care

professionals that are making those day-to-day decisions.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the department funds money to their appointed boards at a rate of close to

$700 million a year, there should be an accountability as to if we are being

cost effective in how we utilize that money. That is the role of the minister.

I spoke yesterday with a woman who spent nineteen years commuting between

Goose Bay and St. John's to deal with her medical condition. This woman wrote

the Health Care Corporation - the letter I am talking about, copied to the

Premier and the minister - strongly urging the Health Care Corporation to

reconsider its decision and reinstate the number of beds to eight. That has been

basically a 37.5 per cent reduction in beds over the last number of years.

I ask the minister: Will he stop those devastating cuts which are

jeopardizing the health of patients that are needing the services of an

endocrinologist?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the hon. member in his line of questioning often raises the issue

about the fact that we as the government choose to use boards to administer the

health care system instead of having the minister and the Department of Health

and Community Services do it directly every day. Mr. Speaker, that issue was

fully explored in the last election. The Blue Book, which managed to attract

voters for fourteen members, suggested that there would be no boards, and that

the questions raised by the hon. member would be the right and appropriate ones;

because, by the model that they put forward to the people of Newfoundland for

the delivery of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, they suggested that

the minister should answer every single question and be responsible for every

single decision, because that's the model they put forward. They would have no

boards and every single person who made a decision in the health care system

would answer directly to the minister. So, in their model, the minister should

stand up and answer the question. Our model that the people accepted, because

thirty-two of the people got elected to this side -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!.

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - was the boards would make the decision. They would hire the

staff. The ministry would monitor and would provide funding and policy

direction. That is the model that got accepted by the people of the Province.

That is the one that we are using, not one where the minister deals with

individual issues every ay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Among

the many victims of the federal UI changes are approximately 150 seasonal

workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: EI.

MR. HARRIS: I am going to continue to call it the UI system, unemployment

insurance. It is about people who are unemployed, not about people who are

employed.

There are about 140 or 150 seasonal workers who are unemployed annually by

the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, who received their last UI

cheque on Friday of last week, or will on Friday of this week. Normally these

people aren't re-engaged until after the May 24 weekend, so they won't get

another cheque until the middle of June.

Is the minister prepared to see these people go to social assistance to be

able to afford to continue to live, pay their mortgages and feed their families?

Or is she prepared to take some action now to see them re-employed earlier,

perhaps as early as next week or the week after, to start the seasonal

maintenance work that has to be done anyway, so that these employees can in fact

feed their families and not be forced to go on social assistance between jobs

for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the

member opposite for the question.

I, in fact, have met with all of the outside workers in St. John's, as well

as all of the inside workers in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, as well as

the executive. I have actually committed that we will try to get them back to

work just as soon as possible. We are working with the senior management to try

to do that, but I think the member opposite would know that members of

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing are not the only ones in similar situations.

We have been trying to do the best we can. In fact, our employment numbers are

the highest they have ever been in St. John's, particularly in this area, and

across the Province. We have been doing very well in our economic growth. We

will continue to work with the members of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

They know they have the recall rights, and as soon as we are able to bring them

back into the workforce we will do that. In fact, I have told them that

personally.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister agree with her colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs, who said on March 27 in this House, that one of the things we have to

do is to try to persuade employers, "...to try to find ways to extend the

period of employment for people who are not able to work enough to make a decent

living."

As the employer of these 150 workers whose job it is to maintain the 5,600

housing units owned by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, is this minister, in

addition to seeking an early date to reinstate these workers, going to extend

their employment long enough to make up for the deficiencies of the UI system

that her cousins in Ottawa have imposed on the people of Canada? Will the

minister, in addition to bringing them back to work early, agree with her

colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and extend their period of

employment as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

I am only too happy to make reference to our first cousins as opposed to our

fifth cousins - your fifth cousins.

I will say again that I have met with these people and in fact we have

already extended work where it was possible to do so. We have done that a number

of weeks back, and if you have spoken to many of the people at Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing you will know that we have been able to do that where work

existed and we were able to do it. We are only too happy to do it, and in fact

we have done it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services, and

they concern respite care workers. The government has a program where it

provides money to the families of individuals who are severely mentally and

physically disabled, to hire respite care workers. Many of the clients who are

hired are severely challenged, many of them are not mobile, and their conditions

pose a definite risk to the physical health of the respite care workers. What I

want to ask the minister today is: Who will be responsible? Who is responsible,

because they are not covered under workers compensation, if one of the respite

care workers is injured on the job as a result of taking care of one of the

clients? Who will be responsible for the respite worker if he or she is then off

work or possibly injured for the rest of their life?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe the hon. member already knows the answer to the question. We have

been struggling with the whole issue of trying to provide coverage for

individuals who provide such services, similar to workers compensation or

through private insurance plan. We have been actually wrestling and grappling

with the issue for a couple of years now and we cannot find - as a matter of

fact, we even put $1 million into the budget just a couple of years ago to try

to provide some insurance coverage for these otherwise uninsured workers.

There is no easy or ready resolution, or somebody would have found a

resolution a long time ago, maybe even ten or twelve or fifteen years ago when

they used to be the government, because this is not a brand new issue. Lot of

people have struggled with the issue over the years. The fact of the matter is

that if the individuals do not have some kind of private insurance coverage,

which many of them do not because the wages and benefits are not very high or

great, then in fact they are at risk themselves and nobody is going to take

responsibility for them other than they, themselves, which is unfortunate, which

is why many people have been trying to find a better resolution than that for

many years but we have not arrived at one yet.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: If one of the respite workers are injured on the job,

Minister, who would you suggest they sue in the event of an injury?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question that I can answer. I don't

give people advice as to who they can or cannot sue, or should or should not

sue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, a social assistance recipient has to carry his disabled wife

upstairs and downstairs because there are no accessible housing units available

in the area. In another community, an elderly man and his disabled wife are

finding it nearly impossible to live in a home with narrow doors and an

inaccessible washroom. Government is not doing anything for these people, and

the problem is not unique to my district. Hundreds are waiting for five, six and

even eight years on a waiting list for home repairs and accessible housing

units, and the backlog just keeps growing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister: When is this government going

to clear up the backlog for home repairs and accessible housing units so people

can live in decent, accessible accommodations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As the member opposite knows, in addition to providing social housing for the

Province, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest percentage of home ownership

in the country, and many people residing in their own homes do seek help to

upgrade their homes and to put them in a situation where they are able to stay

there.

We do have a waiting list. It is done on an urgent basis, and we are right

now in the process - in fact, we have just looked at putting forward a pilot of

combing all the programs to create a new program where we would only look at our

urgent repairs.

Mr. Speaker, the list is long and certainly, as I said, when you have the

highest home ownership in the country, you can expect the list will continue to

grow as people want to upgrade their homes. We will do the best we can, keeping

in mind that we have committed over $10 million to do that this year, as we have

done last year.

I heard a member opposite saying it is not enough. Well, you have priorities

and we obviously, as a government, chose health care as our number one priority.

We put a lot of money into education as well and we do, I think, a very fine job

on behalf of the staff who work very hard for the people of the Province. We

will be looking at trying to merge the lists as quickly as we can, keeping in

mind that we do have a finite amount of money to deal with these kinds of

requests.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, one of my constituents returned home from heart surgery to a house

whose roof is leaking and buckets are scattered all over the place. This is no

situation to leave a person in when they are trying to recover from such

surgery. Yet, housing has determined that this situation is not urgent. Another

family has nine or ten buckets throughout the house to catch water, but again

housing says it is not an urgent situation and there is no help available. I

doubt the minister would tolerate such conditions in her own home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister: When will she fix what is wrong with the

criteria for urgent repair so that people who are so obviously in need of urgent

repairs can get them? When, Minister?

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

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

As I mentioned in my previous question, we are currently looking at reviewing

our criteria and hope to pilot very soon.

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

Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, another family whose income is around $20,000 a year has been told

that they are too wealthy to qualify for housing repairs that they badly need.

Minister, something is wrong with the criteria, but you can't broaden the

criteria without additional funding. Have you had any success in getting

assurances from your federal counterparts that they are looking into the

seriousness of providing additional funding to work with the Province to clean

up this ridiculous backlog? How much longer will these desperate families have

to wait before the federal and provincial government get together and clean up

this backlog? How much longer, Minister?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to talk to my federal

first cousins about this at the first opportunity. In fact -

MR. TULK: Not the fifth cousins.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Not the fifth cousins, the first cousins.

Minister Bradshaw, in fact, was in town on Friday but unfortunately, due to

personal circumstances, I wasn't able to meet with her. We do have a follow-up

meeting planned because we want to address the homelessness initiative. In St.

John's it isn't a homelessness initiative and in the Province it isn't a

homelessness initiative, it is a hard-to-house initiative. We will be working

very soon with our federal first cousins to try to address this and work

collaboratively with both levels.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Public

Tender Act Exceptions for December of 1999, January and February of the year

2000, which brings everything up to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise again to present a petition on behalf of the

people in my district, with the following prayer:

WHEREAS the deplorable, unfit conditions of the La Scie Highway, Highway 414,

make travelling to and from school unsafe for our children; and

WHEREAS road conditions jeopardize the safety of the travelling public and

betray a lack of commitment to rural areas of our Province;

THEREFORE we, the undersigned residents of the La Scie area and the Baie

Verte district, do hereby petition the government to upgrade and pave this

highway.

Mr. Speaker, I did make a commitment to people on the protest lines that I

would continue to do this for today and tomorrow, until the House closes. I will

follow through with that commitment, but I am also glad to say today - an update

on that - that the protests were called off late yesterday afternoon with some

understanding that they would get a final word from the government in the very

near future. I forget the exact date. I think it is April 28, if that is

correct, but they will get some kind of an answer.

Those people, like many people in the Province and other districts that I

have had calls from, understand that everything is not going to be done at once;

but they also believe that when it gets to such a condition, as the La Scie Road

is in, that something has to be done. I believe - and I hope I am right in

believing - that officials in the minister's department, and the minister

himself, do realize that this particular road is probably one of the worst. I

see the Member for Bay of Islands nodding in agreement with me, that it is one

of the worst roads in the Province. There is no doubt about that. I don't

think anybody can argue that. That point was made, and it was made loud and

clear.

I say again, after talking to many people last night who continued to call,

who were on the protest lines, I want to reiterate the point that they certainly

did not want to take that route. They are not people who wanted to stand on a

line at 6:00 in the morning. One man was telling me he was there from 5:30 a.m.

and went home at 9:00 p.m. the first day of the protest. He certainly did not

want to be there. He never took

part in a protest before in his life and it is

not something he would normally do. Other people who were more frustrated and

more adamant continued to be there, but they did receive this commitment from

the minister that they would have an answer forthcoming very soon so that they

can get on with their lives.

They are not asking for some luxury here. They are just talking about

something half decent, a decent road that they can make their way over. There

are lots of times that people are asking for things that are out of touch but

this is not out of touch. It is the simple, straight, common decency of a road.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You might be talking about the MP for the area, not the MHA,

I would say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, they certainly made their statement loud and clear and I make it

loud and clear for them as their member in this House of Assembly, and I am

proud to do that. I am proud to support those people who made their own

statement in their own way. It is too bad it had to come to that. I am very glad

to say that people could get back to work today, and I am also even more happy

to say that students can go back to school today because nobody wants to see

that. I certainly do not. That is one of the reason I have problems with

protests, but at the same time you understand their statement. I understand that

the Member for Bay of Islands -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: - supports that also.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we now move to the private member's

resolution.

I believe it is the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to stand in my place today and speak to my private member's

resolution which has been basically discussed in the House of Assembly before. I

have brought it to the House of Assembly on a number of occasions and there has

been no action taken on it. Again, I hope to get support of both sides of the

House on this issue. I am not going to go into all the whereases' because

that is recorded in Hansard, but just for information purposes here I will just

read this part:

"THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to take whatever action is necessary, including

legislative action if deemed appropriate, to ensure that the University, without

further delay and promptly whenever requested, effectively gives the Auditor

General full access to all books, accounts and records of the University to

which the Auditor General is entitled access by law."

I am not going to take a long time this afternoon on that. There are a few

points I want to make and I will just proceed from there.

In 1994 the Auditor General did a review of Memorial University

accountability. At that time, she said the system of accountability for Memorial

University is not adequate by any stretch of the imagination. When she reviewed

the system in 1994, she said the Department of Education had no formal policies

or procedures in place to ensure proper supervision, control and direction of

all matters relating to the University. That was happening in 1994. Some of the

points that she brought up at the time were serious and I do not think they have

ever been addressed, because she went on in 1997 again to review it and she had

some concerns there.

Back in 1994 she said the University was required to submit an annual report

to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council for certain years, and the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council did not receive those reports. That was a problem

in itself. She said in the past there was no reconciliation between the annual

grant and actual expenditure, nor was there a requirement to reimburse grant

payments in excess of expenditures. Again, to me, I think the University needs

to be reviewed and also the system of accountability.

Also at that time she said the Department of Education did not perform any

audits or inspections on the University, and also that the report should be

coming to the House of Assembly and, of course, we are not getting up to date

information on that.

In 1997 she confirmed again and she reviewed again. She said that the matter

that she had brought up during the 1994 review had not changed. As a matter of

fact, she said that

section 17 of the Auditor General Act says: The Auditor

General is to be given access to all books, accounts, financial reports and

records necessary to the performance of the duties of the Auditor General.

The minutes of the Board of Regions, the management committee and the audit

committee have been refused her - she has requested them in the past - other

consultants' reports have been refused her, so in actual fact she really

cannot do the job that she is supposed to do when she goes into MUN. If in fact

an entity is to be reviewed and an audit is to be done and the people to be

audited can withhold certain information, then how can she do a proper and full

legislative audit? That is a concern of hers, and it is certainly a concern of

mine, and it should be a concern of this House.

With respect to the role of the University in relation to the committees of

the House, a point needs to be made here. If matters pertaining to the

University are referred to a committee of the House,

section 38(2) of the

Memorial University Act requires the committee to conduct its examination

through the Minister of Education. The problem we have here, again, is that the

Chancellor of the University, the President, the chairperson of the board, the

vice-presidents and other officers and employees of the University are not

compelled to appear before the committee of the House. The Premier, ministers of

the House, can be called before a committee of the House, yet these individuals

cannot be called. In actual fact, how can we do a proper audit? How can the

Auditor General be expected to do a proper audit if she cannot interview the

people that are responsible to run and control the University, and if she do not

have full access to all reports, documents, financial reports, or whatever?

The University hires private chartered accountants as their auditors. Now

there is some concern here - and I think the University has stated it in the

past, that the audit being done by these private auditors hired by MUN - the

Auditor General has access to their financial statements, but that is a

completely different role altogether than what I think what the Auditor General

can or cannot do. Of course, private auditors audit the financial statements of

the University for the sole purpose of expressing an opinion on those financial

statements. The Auditor General carries out legislative audits which are an

entirely different type of audit, as I just said. The Auditor General would

audit management systems and practices such as their budget process, their

travel policies, their compensation practices, their fleet of vehicles, and

their compliance with legislation such as the Public Tender Act.

A private auditor would not do that. All they would look at is basically the

budget and the expenditures to see that they comply, but they would not do a

full legislative audit with respect to the Public Tender Act and making sure the

University is following the Public Tender Act and all the other processes that

would be in the system.

There is distinction between the role of the private sector auditors and the

role of the Auditor General. For example, when the Auditor General went into the

Western Memorial Hospital they did a full legislative audit, and these people

have their auditors too. When the Western Memorial Hospital had their financial

auditors do their audit they gave them a clean bill of health, but when the

Auditor General went in there were many problems that she picked up on with

respect to numerous financial and other problems.

Of course, when the University has their private auditors do their audit,

they report to the University. When the Auditor General does hers she can report

directly to the House of Assembly. Members of this House then can see for

themselves if in fact the financial running of Memorial University is done in

accordance with the Public Tender Act and all laws, rules, procedures and what

have you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am going to keep bringing it here, I say to the

Government House Leader, until we get action. The last time we did it, Mr.

Speaker, we got full support on that side of the House, and I think they are

going to support it today, but we did not get any action. When you hear the

government talk - talk is cheap, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I just have that feeling.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am going to refer to Judge Noel

and his 1993 decision. In it he says: The Auditor General has a right to audit

Memorial University. The University submitted that upon appointment of an

independent auditor the powers and duties of the Auditor General with respect to

the University were restricted by provisions of

section 14. Okay?

Section 14

imposed duties upon the independent auditor. It permits the Auditor General to

accept the independent auditor's information, explanation and documents, but

it reserves the right of the Auditor General to exercise the powers and duties

imposed by the act. Justice Noel -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is the problem. See, you do not understand what is

going on.

Justice Noel continued on, stating: The Auditor General has attempted to

exercise her powers and duties under the act but the defendant has refused to

cooperate.

Section 17 of the act imposes an obligation upon the University which

is not being fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, what the University is saying is: Yes, you have access to the

financial records - which they give them - and the audit done by the private

auditor. Yet they are withholding reports and minutes of meetings of the Board

of Regents and what have you that the Auditor General can look at just to make

sure that the financial operations of MUN are running in a proper fashion and

meeting the Public Tender Act and what have you.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can, but no need. You can read it tomorrow in Hansard, I

say to the Government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, the University have always seemed to have a concern of the value

for money audit. They figure that the Auditor General will go into the

University and say: Listen, you should not be teaching this course, you should

not be teaching that course. That is completely irrelevant. The Auditor General

does not have the expertise in her office to do that. She has not done it when

she has gone into the health care boards or the different school boards or what

have you. It is moot, anyway. Even if they could, they wouldn't, but they do

not have the expertise to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who doesn't?

MR. J. BYRNE: Value for money auditing, I say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who doesn't?

MR. J. BYRNE: The Auditor General. The University has stated in the past

that their concern is if the Auditor General goes in and does a full legislative

audit, she would come back and say: Listen, you should not be teaching this

course, you should not teaching that course. What we are saying here is that the

Auditor General would not do that anyway. She do not have the expertise in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is saying?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are saying?

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is she saying (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I think she has been on record in the past as saying that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I've been on record. I believe the Auditor General has

been on record in the past as saying that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You believe. Are you sure?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ninety-nine per cent.

MR. TULK: Are you 100 per cent?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I'm never 100 per cent, I say to the Government House

Leader. I am never 100 per cent.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) sure means you are 100 per cent.

MR. J. BYRNE: Ninety-nine per cent, I say to the Government House Leader,

that the Auditor General does not have the expertise in her office to do a value

for money audit. For example, I have had experience with the Auditor General

from the PAC. She has done audits at the school boards. She has done audits of

the health care boards. She has not come back and said: You should not be given

this service, with the health care boards; and she has not said in the past: You

should not be teaching certain courses. Therefore -

MR. TULK: Read the last four or five words of your resolution and

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying -

MR. TULK: Read it out loud.

MR. J. BYRNE: Which part do you want me to start?

MR. TULK: The last two lines, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They read: "effectively gives the Auditor General full

access to all books, accounts and records of the University to which the Auditor

General is entitled access by law."

MR. TULK: In which she "is entitled access by law."

MR. J. BYRNE: Judge Noel in 1993 ruled that she has should have access to

this, but she has not been given them. She has not received it in the past.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

MR. TULK: Didn't the courts give her that right?

MR. J. BYRNE: She has gone and requested information in the past and has

not received it, I say to the Government House Leader. She has a right -

MR. TULK: Why doesn't she ask the law to enforce (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: She has gone into MUN before and asked for information -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying that the information has not been forwarded to

the minister.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: You get up and say if they are or not, I say to the

Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I am asking you.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am saying that she has not received information that was

requested by her.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) by law. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: What do you want us to do, (inaudible)? (Inaudible) law

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If there is a loophole there somewhere that MUN is hanging

their hat on, we should change it, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: What do they hang their hat on?

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: What are they hanging their hat on?

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know. She has not received the information that

is required.

MR. TULK: You sound like (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, right on. Anyway, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It is coming through. I am not going to be up here much

longer anyway.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a concern at MUN that the Auditor

General have a value for money audit done, and they have concerns about that

because they feel she is going to go in and say again that you should teach

certain courses or you should not. Yet, all the jurisdictions across the

country, every Auditor General in Canada has authority to conduct

value-for-money audits.

The Auditor General of Prince Edward Island -

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you explain this exception to (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I wouldn't go near that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go there, hey Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, Sir.

Let me repeat, every Auditor General in Canada has the authority to conduct

value-for-money audits and the Auditor General of Prince Edward Island has been

specifically requested in the past, by their House of Assembly, to conduct a

value-for-money audit of the University of Prince Edward Island. Again, as I

said, that is a moot point because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) moot point.

MR. J. BYRNE: It is a moot point, because she doesn't have the

expertise in her office to do it, I say, Mr. Speaker. You can confirm that. Go

and ask the Auditor General herself, because I have asked and she doesn't have

the expertise in her office to do it. Unless you want to give her another

$500,000, I say to the Government House Leader; then she might be able to do

what you are talking about. It is absolutely irrelevant, no need. It is a false

fear, I say to Memorial University, and I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I expect there are other people who want to

speak on this. I hope they do. I am finished. I have said what I wanted to say.

MR. TULK: Why don't you ask the government for (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I want to go on record now, in case the Auditor General

decides to read Hansard and see what was discussed here today. The Government

House Leader has stated here in the House, from my understanding: Why doesn't

the Auditor General enforce the law, if MUN is breaking it, to have access to

the records and books that she requires? Is the -

MR. TULK: No, no, you're wrong.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) ask the court to enforce the law.

MR. J. BYRNE: What the Government House Leader is saying is that the

Auditor General should ask the courts to enforce the law; she should have full

access to all records due her under the law.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that's right.

MR. TULK: Why doesn't the Auditor General go back to the court and say:

You enforce your judgement.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Government House Leader is asking a question: Why doesn't

the Auditor General go back to the court and say: Enforce the law?

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, maybe that

is the step the Auditor General should take.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to the private member's

motion before we - I assume we will vote in favour of the motion again, just as

we did a year-and-a-half ago. I believe maybe the hon. member was a little bit

unsure and uncertain as to the status of this particular resolution before,

because it was brought here in December of 1998.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services

made a statement that is not quite accurate. I said in my opening remarks that I

brought this to the House of Assembly before and it was discussed before. The

minister should understand that the last session of the House prorogued. This is

a new session. That is why it is before us again, because we want action taken.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Health has just said is that

the hon. gentleman was unsure. Just now, in a back and throw, he indicated that

he wasn't sure; that maybe what we should be asking the Auditor General to do

is to see that the courts enforce what the law says. That is what the hon.

gentleman is saying. He is saying that you are unsure about this whole thing,

and you already said you were.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe, just for clarification, from page 1901 of the December 2, 1998

Hansard, I am pretty certain if you checked, the motion that the hon. member

read into our record at that point in time is verbatim, absolutely verbatim,

word for word, the resolution that we are asked to debate here again today.

Mr. Speaker, I figured rather than risk some contradiction in the statements

that I made, maybe if I can take a couple of minutes I could refer to pages 1905

and 1906 of Hansard at the time and say that I would like to say the same thing

again now that I said then. To make sure, maybe I should read it out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: I understand we are not really to be reading in the

Legislature; we are to be making our points. We can use copious notes from time

to time to assist us.

It is pretty clear that the general nature of the debate has not changed

since that time. The government fully concurs with the notion that the Auditor

General should have full access to examine all of the financial records of the

University. We have always agreed with that position. We have always understood

that there has been a disagreement between the Auditor General and the

University as to how and under what circumstance the Auditor General of today

would get access, and that the Auditor General would actually like for the

Legislature to order the University to do some things that she thinks should be

done that they don't want to do.

We have examined the issue several times. We feel there is no legislative

intervention necessary. In terms of accountability, in looking at the funds that

are provided from the public treasury to the University, the accounting for them

through their own auditors and for any further examination that the Auditor

General wants to do, is fully and completely available now.

The government does not agree, and I believe I just heard the hon. member, in

putting forward his private member's motion, say that he doesn't agree

either that the Auditor General should go in and cast a judgement as to whether

or not there should be a music school at Memorial. That is not the role of the

Auditor General, to go in and second-guess whether or not there should be a

music school, or whether there should be a medical school, or whether there

should be an engineering degree offered and so on.

In fact, what we have is, we have a budget, a full, open budgetary process at

the University that is available for full scrutiny. We have a Board of Regents

in the Senate that handles affairs for the University. There is complete, open

system of financial accounting at the end.

As I understand it, the only question that the University has raised that has

sometimes been cited by the Auditor General as being problematic, is that they

are saying: Before you come in and look at all the stuff, can you give us some

idea of what it is you have a concern about? Is there any part of our annual

audited statements, is there any part of our public reports, is there any part

of anything we are doing that you have reason to believe we might not be doing

appropriately, so that we can assist you in getting the information? That is

where they come to loggerheads from time to time, where the Auditor General

says: No, I don't need to tell you that I have any concerns. I just want you

to pass everything over, and I will scour it all. I don't want your assistance

in looking at it.

If there was a problem - I used to do this when I was the Minister of

Education, and the current Minister of Education is doing the same thing, having

regular meetings with the administration of the University saying that it is in

everybody's best interest in Newfoundland and Labrador to have the public

assured that the monies that are voted for use in the University are used

appropriately and properly.

We are quite confident that there are enough public accounting and auditing

procedures today to do it, and that there is enough access to every single

financial record at the University that the Auditor General by law can have

today. The only thing the University has said is: If you really want it, tell us

what the problem is, if you think there is a problem, and we will help you get

it in more detail even than you could find yourself.

The Auditor doesn't seem to want that kind of assistance, doesn't want to

even suggest that there is a problem, because apparently there have been none

identified. That is where they are at loggerheads. Therefore the Auditor

General, as I understand it, has actually not insisted on exercising the rights

that she has under the law, but instead has reported back that she is not

satisfied. Because the only resolution that she has to report back to the

Legislature is, she has reported back that she is not satisfied with the level

of cooperation at the University and therefore is not going to do an audit. We

said: Well, that is her choice to do or not do the audit. We are not going to

order, and I don't think we should be ordering, the University to change any

of its procedures.

There is nothing that I know of that has been brought to the attention of

anyone in the Legislature to suggest there is any misuse or misappropriation or

misdirection of funds at the University, and that every publicly audited

statement that is available to everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, upon

request through the Web site and so on, to suggest that the money is being spent

appropriately for the headings for which it is voted at the University.

We are fully willing to support the intent and sentiment behind this motion

again that suggests that the University should be open to a full audit by the

Auditor General. I would suggest further

that we do not at this point because we have examined it repeatedly since it

was brought to the House a year and a half ago in December 1998. We have

examined repeatedly whether or not there needs to be a legislative change. We do

not think there needs to be, but certainly I am glad to have the issue debated

publicly again today as part of this private member's motion.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to speak for a few moments on this resolution before the

House. It is an important resolution because it does ask a question and give an

opportunity to speak for a few moments on the importance of the University and

its role in our society, and the importance of it having autonomy as an

education institution -this is something that goes back for centuries - and the

importance of their being, I think the phrase is, a community of scholars within

our midst.

I realize that is a pretty highfalutin term for an institution that we look

to train and educate our young people, not only for life but also for

employment. So there is a balance there between the practical expectations of a

university education and also the intellectual pursuits, the notion of academic

freedom, and that we have a community of scholars which is supported by the

public purse and therefore answerable to the public in terms of ensuring that

they spend their money in accordance with the law.

It is an important point, and I want to recognize that the member moving the

motion, the Member for Cape St. Francis, has recognized that in the last

whereas'

which says as follows, and I want to read it into the record because I think it

is most important, this:

"AND

WHEREAS imposing on the University the demand that the Auditor

General must have access to all of its books, accounts and records is reasonable

and does not compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the

University..."

I do not know if there is a word missing here. I guess it should be: as is

reasonable. I would submit there may be an error there, that it should read:

access to all books, accounts and records as is reasonable and does not

compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University.

I think it is clear. It should be clear that no motion of this House ought to

compromise the integrity or customary autonomy of the University. I would

certainly support any motion that fully recognizes and ensures that the

integrity and customary autonomy of the University to pursue its academic

freedom. You know, we have a system today of accounting and auditing that

presumes to comment on the value of a particular service or the value of a

particular activity. I do not think it is appropriate for the Auditor General or

any auditor to determine what the value of a religious studies department is

compared to a commerce program or a philosophy degree and philosophy program as

could always make an argument that one program serves the interests of the

Province better or less. That is not for this House to determine, and certainly

not for the Auditor General to determine. She or he, whoever is in that

position, does not have the proper role in our society to make those

determinations under our legislation. Under the Memorial University Act, that

power is given to the Board of Regents and, in the case of academic programs, to

the Senate to uphold academic freedom, uphold the autonomy of the University,

and I think that cannot be compromised in any way at all. It ought to be very

clear that there be a recognition that the integrity and customary autonomy of

the University must be protected and that there must be no compromise of that

particular role of the University.

I have to say one thing, though. Under the resolution itself, it seems to

suggest that the Auditor

General must have "full access to all books, accounts and records of the

University to which the Auditor General is entitled access by law." I am

just wondering whether the hon. member is suggesting that the University is

somehow in violation of the law. Is the university now breaking the law, and

that somehow this House has to enforce the law? Is that the role of this House,

to enforce the law, or is that the role of the courts?

If the Auditor General is not getting access to what she is entitled to by

law, is there not some other forum where the Auditor General ought to go?

Whether it be the court - I think the reference was to the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland ruling. I don't know. Is the member suggesting that the

University is in violation of the order of the Supreme Court? I don't know

whether or not that has been suggested, whether it has been suggested that the

University is in violation of the current law or not. Obviously, we would have

no trouble supporting a resolution that says that the University ought to pass

over whatever they are legally obliged to pass over. That would be certainly in

keeping with the role of this House, but the actual enforcement of these things

surely should go somewhere else. I don't want it to be said that this House is

taking the position that the University is somehow not in compliance with the

law. I don't know if that is what is being suggested by my colleague the

Member for Cape St. Francis. Perhaps in closing he will deal with that issue.

I just want to say two things. Obviously we support the University

maintaining its position of integrity and customary autonomy. The importance of

that has a value in our society, that the University is an independent

autonomous institution that we support publicly, that we need to have in order

to have a fully operating and vibrant society, one that is part of a community

of scholars, a community of ideas, a community of people who we pay to do our

thinking for us, in some respects. We don't have to agree with what they say

or do, but we think that we have an obligation to our society to support an

institution that is prepared to support the conduct of independent research,

scholarly activity, not dependent on the whims of this Legislature or the

political party in power -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I was on my way back into the House, I had to step

outside for a minute - and this is not strictly a point of order - but I would

like for the hon. gentleman to allow me to ask him to clarify something. Did he

say that one could draw the assumption from this resolution that maybe the

Member for Cape St. Francis believes that the University is somehow breaking the

law? Is that assumption left?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, there certainly appears to be that implication,

I say to the Government House Leader, because of the reference to the Supreme

Court and the Auditor General Act. Obviously there is no trouble agreeing that

the Auditor General get full access to whatever records whoever it is is

entitled to by law. That is sort of a given. There was also a Supreme Court

case. So it doesn't seem to me to be - I mean, I don't have trouble passing

it. I'm not sure what the affect of it is or why it is necessary to do this,

unless the University is in violation of the law, in which case I don't know

if this is going to make any difference.

I would hope that the member would explain himself when he gets up. I

certainly support the University abiding by the law, but I just wonder in what

respect the University is violating the law and whether or not somehow or other

the University's traditional and customary integrity and autonomy is somehow

threatened by this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you suggesting we shouldn't vote for the motion?

MR. HARRIS: It seems to be a redundant type of motion but I would have no

trouble supporting it if -

MR. TULK: Would you agree, as a lawyer, that if the courts ruled that she

have access to certain things at the University (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: It appears to me that the court has said that the only remedy

the Auditor General has is to report to the House of Assembly if the University

denied the Auditor General full access, and I don't see any reference in this

to such a report. I don't know where we stand, other than, once again, giving

an opportunity for members to decide, yes or no, whether they support the

autonomy of the University: its right to have control over its programs, what

programs it will offer, what programs it won't. Because that, I am afraid, has

always been what the University has felt has been threatened by the kind of

auditing that might take place.

Perhaps the mover of the motion can clarify these points before we are asked

to vote on it because I don't want to be on record - if the member is saying

that the University is in violation of the law and an affirmative vote in this

House will allow him or anyone else to go out and say that the House of Assembly

has declared the University is in violation of the law, I don't think we have

enough information to sit as judge and jury of that fact here today. I wouldn't

want to be associated with that, because that goes a lot further than the

evidence presented by the member to the House today. Perhaps if he would clarify

that, it would ease our conscience in supporting the resolution, provided he

supports, first of all, the autonomy of the University, academic freedom, and

the important role of the University in determining its own course of events;

and, secondly, that what he is doing here is urging cooperation, or something

like that.

MR. TULK: And that he is not asking us to declare that the University is

breaking the law.

MR. HARRIS: If he is not asking us to declare the University is in breach

of the law, then I can support the resolution.

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

If the hon. member speaks now, he closes debate.

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

I would like to thank the Minister of Health for his few comments in trying

to twist the words of the resolution put forward. I agreed with most of the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, up until he started trying to be the

lawyer in the House of Assembly again.

The resolution itself is quite straightforward. They voted for a similar

thing on the other side of the House once before. They are trying to be cute

today in trying to change the intent of this resolution.

Obviously, I explained myself when I spoke to the resolution when I was on my

feet earlier. I would advise the Members of the House of Assembly, when there

are people up speaking, they should pay closer attention to what is being said.

With that, I don't think there is any further explanation required on this so

I will sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favor of the resolution, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn, I wonder if I could have leave

to ask for first reading of some bills so I can pass them out tomorrow? I know

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would like to have some reading over the

Easter break, hopefully in some sunshiny climate.

Mr. Speaker, Motions 4 and 5. Motion 3 as well, I think. No.

Motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - I want to exempt Motion 9 because that is not quite

ready - Motions 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Of course, we just voted

on Motion 19, that somewhat confusing private member's resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Because you had me so confused.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could now ask for first reading on those Bills:

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Clerk have a copy of the numbers of those bills?

Is it the pleasure of the House that we deal with these bills in block order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the hon. the ministers

shall have leave to introduce Motions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,

17 and 18. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the ministers shall

have leave to introduce the bills?

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce the

following bills, carried: "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act," (Bill 5) and "An Act Respecting Environmental

Assessment." (Bill 12)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act,"

carried. (Bill 9)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to

introduce the following bills, carried: "An Act To Amend The City of St.

John's Act," (Bill 10); "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act,

1999," (Bill 17); "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act,"

(Bill 18); and "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act."

(Bill19)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands to introduce

the following bills, carried: "An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential

Premises," (Bill 11) and "An Act To Amend The Lands Act."

(Bill15)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce

the following bills, carried: "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family

Services Act," (Bill 6); "An Act to Amend The Pharmaceutical

Association Act, 1994," (Bill 7); and "An Act to Amend The

Psychologists Act." (Bill 8)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill 14)

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to introduce a bill, "An Act

Respecting The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments," carried. (Bill 16)

On motion, Bills 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14,15,16,17,18,19 read a first

time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, one other thing before we leave. Before you put

the motion to adjourn, I would like to inform hon. members that tomorrow we will

be doing concurrence, and I believe the two we have left are Government Services

and Resources Committees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Social services has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, that was introduced but the other two were done in

concurrence -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and we have

concluded our business, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.