The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the details of the 1996 silvicultural program in Newfoundland and Labrador as it is implemented on both Crown forest lands and pulp and paper industry-held forest lands. The primary focus of this over $11 million program is to enhance the productivity of our forest resources. The major thrust is on promoting the growth of trees by manually thinning the very dense forest stands that often occur with natural regeneration. Reducing competition provides the young trees with more space and light to grow.

The second major component is the reforestation of unstocked or understocked forest lands which can occur after harvesting or from natural causes such as insect infestation or fires. Mr. Speaker, both programs are very labour intensive; therefore, they provide immediate jobs as well as long-term increased productivity of our forests for future use.

Mr. Speaker, the Province will invest $2,251,528 in fifty-four projects on Crown land to carry out site preparation of about 1,600 hectares, planting of 1,800 hectares and tree thinning 1,900 hectares of forest land. This level of investment will generate 2,814 weeks of employment. In addition to this expenditure, the Province will; contribute $1,010,684 which includes seedlings to the value of $175,000 to the pulp and paper company; spend $814,000 to grow some 7,500,000 seedlings which will generate another 1,017 weeks of employment; and spend $1.7 million on research and development, monitoring of company and Crown projects, and program administration. Thus, Mr. Speaker, the Province's total expenditure on silviculture in 1996-'97 will be $5,776,212.

I would like to bring to the attention of my honourable colleagues that the industry itself will invest $6,249,850 in thirty-five projects on company limits to undertake site preparation of 668 hectares, planting of 103 hectares and thinning of 4,969 hectares of forest land.

In total, Mr. Speaker, some $11,015,400 will be invested on silviculture in the Province by the Provincial Government and the two pulp and paper companies in 1996. This investment will generate over 12,000 weeks of employment and improve forest productivity on over 11,000 hectares of prime forest lands.

Mr. Speaker, I have available a summary of projects on Crown forest lands for more details, which is attached to the end of the statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We, on this side of the House and the Party, have always felt that the investment in terms of renewable resource such as the forest industry plays an important and vital role, not only to the Province but to many communities within the Province. And while we congratulate the minister, certainly, for bringing forth and announcing this year the Silviculture Program for the Province, we also add a cautionary note - that is, it is fine, on the one hand, to insure the viability of our forest resources is maintained; but, on the other end, Mr. Speaker, in terms of practices in not only the companies but the introduction of new technologies into the forest industry that could have long-lasting negative impacts on the forestry, I would like to hear some statements from the minister in terms of the state of the forestry today and what plans the government has to look at those technologies, specifically dealing with harvesting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Does he have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are pleased to note that the Provincial Government has maintained a strong forest-regeneration program despite the cutbacks from the Government of Canada with respect to the Silviculture Program.

We are, however, concerned about the long-term problems with the forest, the looming wood shortage problem that hasn't been addressed, and we are not sure that this program is sufficient to address it. We would like to see the company who invest a heck of a lot more back into the forest resources that they harvest. When you compare the $5 million or $6 million we are spending here to the actual value of the forest resource that they extract, it is not a very large sum. So it is a step in the right direction but I don't think it is adequate to solve the wood shortage problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions, I would like to welcome to the gallery today, the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Walwin Blackmore and the Deputy Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, Mr. Bob King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have today, sitting in the Speaker's gallery, the former member of the House of Assembly for Conception Bay South, Ms Patt Cowan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

The minister said last week that three fish plants awarded crab licences submitted proposals that were miles ahead of all other proposals.

I ask the minister, will he confirm that there were no calls for proposals at all?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I said last week was exactly how it was. In the case of St. Lawrence, the proposals that were brought in to me, were brought by the Town of St. Lawrence, put forth by two companies. I looked at those proposals, worked with the Town, worked with the industry, worked with the labour, the union, everybody involved, until we were totally satisfied that the proposal we put forth was satisfactory and to the benefit of all those involved.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Is the minister saying that there were no proposals for others; it was just the two proposals on the St. Lawrence area?

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

MR. EFFORD: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is, in my meetings with the industry, that is FANL, the independents, and all those people involved, from day one I said that the fishery of the future must be a multi-species operation, that for anybody in any part of the Province, whether it be the region we are talking about, along the South, South-west Coast, the West Coast, where there were no existing crab licences, I would not entertain, as minister, giving out a crab licence to just go in and operate crab alone; it had to be based on multi-species operations.

In the case of Burgeo, the Burgeo Town Council and the people of Burgeo came to me to see if I, as minister, working with the Town, working with the company, working with the DFO people, could get a significant number of quotas, to set aside a resource that could guarantee full-time employment, or as near as we possibly could get to full-time employment, in that particular area, based on regional areas around the Province where there were no crab licences, and working with each town; this is the way we put the deal together.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister inform us how many proposals were received for crab licences? Could he tell us how many were received, specifically, and when?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot tell you how many but I can tell you I have literally dozens of applications and letters from just about every plant in the Province - not to say every plant, but a significant number of plants in the Province - requesting crab licences. My answer, very clearly, either in writing, or in conversation, or directly in meetings where a number of people were sitting around the tables, I am not, nor will I, entertain giving a crab licence to anybody who just wants to go in and make a few quick bucks off processing crab, and leave the communities as is already in existing areas. In my own home town where there is a crab licence, that is the only thing they process. When the crab is finished, then they look for make-work programs or whatever to try to get through the rest of the year. The only way I will entertain discussions with any industry is to look at, where possible, a multi-species operation.

How many letters do I have? I cannot tell you exactly, but I can bring in a stack of letters requesting simply a crab licence with nothing else in it saying; this is what we will do. We will look at other species, we will look at underutilized species, we will work with fishermen. Absolutely nothing in most of the letters whatsoever.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister: In the three areas where crab licences were issued were there proposals submitted by at least these three and others for licences to be awarded in those areas?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've already answered that. Yes, there were proposals submitted. In the case of Burgeo a proposal was submitted. First it was submitted to DFO. In fact I went to Ottawa talking to the national minister Mifflin on Burgeo and he had agreed at that meeting to send his deputy minister and his assistant deputy minister to St. John's for a meeting with the town of Burgeo, with the owner of the plant, with the union and myself and all other interested parties, to discuss the proposal that had been put forth to DFO in regards to species other than crab. Crab was what you came to the provincial minister for because we hold the processing licence for crab. We knew the resource was there, so yes, the proposals were submitted.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I asked him were the three that were awarded to the three companies that received crab licences, did those three companies submit proposals to the minister for a crab licence?

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

MR. EFFORD: What I have said to the member very clearly, what I have said to this House, Mr. Speaker. The proposals and the discussions between myself and all parties concerned were based on the proposal put forth by the company based on a multi-species operation only. No other issue or no other concern would have been given, or no talking about an operation of a crab licence would have been considered, unless it went hand in hand with a multi-species operation. The decision was made on the regions where there were no existing licences.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The minister promised full industry consultation before any decision would be entertained on awarding crab licences. I ask the minister: Was there full industry consultation as you promised?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say unequivocally in this House, and I will boast in this way if it is to be taken that way: There is no other minister who has held as much consultation with industry on every level - not only in the crab licencing but in all other things, in the species of capelin and all other species - since I became minister. It has been day after day and at all times. It was DFO, it was the industry, the independents, the FANL groups, the union, everybody involved and a full consultation process day after day, even as early as last week, phone calls coming in for meetings. Would you meet me? Yes, I will. Meetings began at 7:00 a.m. and usually ended around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the past month-and-a-half or two, since you promised to open a full consultation with the industry, whom have you consulted with representing the industry in this last month-and-a-half prior to your announcement?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I could spell it out. I cannot name all of the plants individually. I would have to go back to my office and get the names of all the plants. I consulted with FANL on a number of occasions. In fact, at one particular meeting I did not know if I was going to get in or out of the meeting with all of my body in place. The anger was displayed at the meeting because I was moving forward in doing something that they were against. If that is where the hon. member is coming from we can get into the full details of that meeting which I am sure he is quite familiar with. Full consultation with independents, with individuals, separately, together with sometimes two and three people, with the union and with everybody else concerned, town councils and people interested in going into communities and operating a multi-species operation. Mr. Speaker, I could not have held any more consultation meetings than I have held in the last two or three months. I think it was three months Friday past that I became minister on March 14. It has been a continuous ongoing consultation basis, as much as possibly could be held.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Now the minister said in his statement last week that we have an imbalance in regional distribution of snow crab processing licenses. Will the minister confirm that his department had received a request a transfer a license to a region which does not have one?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will hold up the map and where there is a regional imbalance of crab licenses in this Province - look at this, it is all along the northeast coast. Look from the Burin Peninsula right around the south-south west coast, right up to St. Anthony, there is not a crab license. I have had one request to transfer a license - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Leader of the Opposition against (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Apparently so.

I have had one request to transfer a license and I have not granted that request of transferring a crab license and it is not to a region where there are no existing crab licenses. One was to transfer up to the Baie Verte Peninsula and where there is one now in Little Bay Islands, in that area and in Jackson's Arm. So we have not transferred or given any crab licenses in the area from Englee right down to Cape St. Mary's where there are now seventeen crab licenses and down to the southwest coast there are absolutely no crab licenses whatsoever.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister stated that awarding three new licences will result in less transportation and better quality because the plants will be located closer to the supply. Now, the minister just made reference to the South Coast and, since he has made reference to it, will the minister confirm that there has been no crab fishery on the South Coast in the Burgeo area, only 1,500 pounds landed there last year, and the crab that is processed there would have to be trucked in from all over the Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't have, and probably if I took some time to look through I could find out, the exact amount of crab that was landed on the South Coast last year and that more will be landed this year.

What the hon. member is saying is one of the reasons why the trucking of crab long distances, from the West Coast right out to the Northeast Coast, that is one of the reason. The other reason, the main reason, is a regional imbalance of where crab was harvested, where it had to be trucked, and where it was processed.

People living on the South Coast, nothing happening in Burgeo whatsoever, people living on the Burin Peninsula, no employment in St. Lawrence, people out on the West Coast catching crab, and it being transported several hundred miles somewhere else. Those people deserve a working opportunity also. But the key factor, along with those two reasons, is multi-species operation.

Any one of the 200 plants, or the 200 plus plants on the Island, could use a crab licence, a quick dollar for the owner, a quick dollar to make, get in and get out, but based on long-term employment for the people living in that community was the main reason, and no licences in the existing areas were the main reasons why I, as minister, recommended to the government and got approval to look at a regional imbalance of what was happening in the industry now and put some security into communities of employment for the future where there has been none for a lot of years.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister confirm that scientific evidence indicates recruitment is declining, and this trend is likely to continue for the next two years in 3L, and that catch declines indicate a decline in commercial biomass may already have occurred in 2J and 3K?

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

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. In fact, there are areas now out in 3L, and other areas around the Province, where the crab has never been so abundant. Not only that, the DFO, the federal government, just made a decision to increase the quota from last year, which was 30,000 tons, to this year 37,000 metric tons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am referring to DFO's stock status report, and I am referring to the snow crab management plan released just recently that indicates catch rates in 2J have been declining for the past five years, catch rates in 3K have been declining since 1993, and while they may be increased in 3L, pre-recruit crab began declining in 1992 or 1993, and have generally remained low in 1995. This suggests, in the scientific assessment, that the recruitment is declining in 3L and the trend is expected to continue for at least the next two years.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I never knew better I would say the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to protect his buddies in the so-called monopoly industry that is out there.

Is the hon. member suggesting that 37,000 metric ton of crab being harvested this year, that we should continue on with seventeen Island processing licences to process that amount of crab, and two on the Labrador? No, that is not the way for people to get the best gains out of the industry, to put a quality product into the market where last year FANL themselves reported to me, in one of the consultation meetings, that 40 per cent of the crab processed last year was processed dead because the plants could not handle the amount of crab that was coming in.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just reading the scientific assessment, and the crab management plan that is released by fisheries is my source of information, I say to the minister. In case he has not read it, I will give him a copy.

Two of the major problems with our industry is that there are too many fishers chasing too few fish, and there is an overcapacity generally in the processing sector. Does the minister feel that reactivating closed plants and increasing processing capacity in an already crippled industry flies in the face of efforts to put some common sense in the industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely amazing, given the absolutely excellent work of the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of the people of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

- it is absolutely amazing to hear the Leader of the Opposition, whose Party promised, as the main plank in the last election campaign to open seventy-five new fish plants in the Province, to complain today that there are too many fish plants operating in the Province. Mr. Speaker, you would have to have the logistical abilities of a mental gymnast to hold true to the logic implicit in that argument.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, there are another 6,000 metric tons of crab this year; the fact of the matter is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has provided for a number of extra licences, a very few, in areas where there are absolutely no licences whatsoever, but the Leader of the Opposition really has to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is whose interest is he trying to protect, the public's interest or some private interests, and if it is private interests, name them.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: It is the responsibility of government to protect the public's interests, I say to the Premier, and I am glad the Premier is back.

We have increased harvesting capacity for years when the stocks were declining. My concern is that the same thing doesn't happen with other fisheries here in this Province.

I say to the minister, the provincial government I understand is now hiring sixteen new fishery inspectors. Now inspections have traditionally been done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, so I ask the minister: Is it his intention to replace federal fishery inspectors or will we be adding new inspection services, duplicating services that are already there?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the one basis on which we are going to operate the fisheries of the future in this Province is based on regions, based on sustainability to communities involved. No longer are we going to tolerate companies who want to make a quick buck, a fast dollar, to go into the communities at the expense of those people living in the communities, walk away with $2 million or $3 million in the bank and not worry what happens afterwards. Multi-species operations is the way it is going to work in the future. Wherever that can be, given in a sound proposal to me as minister, I will entertain looking at other species not only snow crab, shrimp, king crab, porcupine crab whatever else, Mr. Speaker, but, let us get to the quality. The one thing that I am going to insist on - and look at the news conference tomorrow, attend the news conference is probably what you should do.

We are going to insist that if Newfoundland is going to carve out its place in the future, the fisheries of the future in the market, it better earn it; and one of the ways we are going to earn it, is on making a quality product happen from the time it comes out of the water until it hits the consumers table, and if that means putting more people out there to do inspections, yes, that is what we will do.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he supports vertical integration in the fishing industry?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I support in the fisheries of the future, is people who believe in the industry in this Province. What I believe and what I support in the fisheries of the future are those people who take not only the interest of their personal pocket books, which I don't mind a businessman making lots of money because, when he or she makes lots of money we all benefit from it if they have the interest of a fisheries of the future and an interest of the community and all those involved at heart; not the fact that we can go away and carve out a certain quota for ourselves or a certain dollar of a specie that they can generate from the fishery, working with the people, working with all the species available, utilizing everything that is in that ocean, even the marine cucumber. Yes, we will even turn the cucumbers in the ocean if that means it is satisfactory to the industry and development of the species of the future.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture as well.

Will the minister confirm that the new crab processing license issued to re-activate the government's plant at St. Lawrence under the name of Grand Atlantic Incorporated, is owned by a group of people, most of whom are from his own district and one of whom is the minister's chief financial campaign fund-raiser?

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

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister also confirm, will he stand and admit that the new crab processing license issued in Benoit's Cove was awarded to the brother-in-law of the Premier's executive assistant, and the crab licence issued in Burgeo was a constituent living in the Premier's district?

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

MR. EFFORD: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My information tells me directly opposite from what the minister is saying. I ask the minister: Is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador going to give us a fishery rebuilt on sound economic decision making, or will it once again be an industry on political pay-off and patronage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say on behalf of the government that we have absolute confidence in the way in which the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has carried out his responsibilities and gone about the process of creating new jobs and new job opportunities in this Province. Even if one of the licences has gone to a company, one of whose principals is the brother of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Carl Sullivan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Has the minister yet made a recommendation to Cabinet on the next course of action in response to the Newfoundland Supreme Court of Appeal decision on the Trans City health centre contract, or have the minister and his officials yet completed their deliberations on the judgement?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we aren't in a position yet to make a recommendation. We are keeping our option open to apply to the Supreme Court.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given the seriousness of the questions about conduct of a part of the public business that remain unanswered in the Trans City scandal, officials in the Minister of Justice's department may feel an inquiry is expedient under the terms of the public inquiries act. Isn't the minister putting his officials in a precarious position by forcing them to relay their recommendations to Cabinet directly through him, given the minister's own involvement in the Trans City affair? Will he concede he is in a gross conflict of interest, functioning as Attorney General in this matter, and will he ask the Premier to appoint an alternate Attorney General for the purposes of bringing forth recommendations on this particular matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is absolute nonsense, the proposition being put by the member opposite. The fact of the matter is the Minister of Justice will report in this matter to the whole Cabinet, the Cabinet will take a decision, and the Cabinet and Premier will stand together with the Minister of Justice behind that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Minister of Environment and Labour through Newfoundland and Labrador Information Services released some information dealing with the Star Lake power development project. Can the minister confirm or make aware to the House today and the people of the Province that Cabinet is about to make a decision on whether Star Lake will proceed? Can he confirm when he sees Cabinet making that decision, and the following timetable after for construction?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for the member that the Star Lake hydro electric proposal has gone through the environmental process and that the documents have been submitted to the department, have been assessed, and have been completed. A response has been give to the company and they have been released from environmental assessment, but the project has to go to Cabinet for final release and final approval. That will happen in the next short period of time. When that happens, and whatever the decision is, that will be communicated to the company and to the public.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the answer but I would like to be a little more specific. Obviously there are many concerns associated with the development of this project, certainly from an environmentalist point of view in terms of the migratory caribou herd, the affect upon the pine marten. There are other people within industry and business who see it as an absolute necessity. Can he be more specific in making aware today when Cabinet will make the decision? Will it be next week? Does he see it? Will it be the week after? When does he see that project going ahead, and can he inform the House what the construction timetable will be thereafter?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it has taken two years so far for this project to go through the environmental assessment process. It is not fully through the process. The Cabinet will make a decision in short order in due course when the documents come to Cabinet but I cannot give a decision on a time frame. That will come in short order, in due course. When we do have a decision though, we will communicate it to the company and then to the public.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

We are now seeing the effects of this government's budget in rural Newfoundland. As predicted, town councils are now starting to resign because of the downloading by this provincial government. The town of Englee has a total population of 800, which is down from 1,000 and a total budget of $600,000. This year they seen their assessments go up by $3,200 and their municipal operating grants being cut by $30,000. How does the minister expect the town of Englee to deal with this situation with a declining population?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to stand in the House and talk about a particular community but I have to I suppose in this case. The town of Englee, Mr. Speaker, has not been operating now for some time. The difficulty we were having with the town of Englee late last year was that council was not meeting on a regular basis and a number of councillors gave up the ghost for obvious reasons - or their obvious reasons, not ours - and there were only a small number of councillors left to operate. They had not conducted any meetings. We were in contact almost on a weekly basis with the town clerk and the town clerk was telling us that they had lost interest, the council had lost interest and she was finding it difficult to try to convince the council in Englee to actually have a meeting. This has been going on for over a year.

The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, makes reference to the fact that they resigned because of a cut in the municipal operating grants for a number of other reasons. Mr. Speaker, that council was not operating long before cuts to municipal operating grants were even announced in this House or to the public. I don't accept and my department does not accept the argument that they resigned because of municipal operating grant cuts. As far as we were concerned, in my department, they had resigned over a year ago.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister confirm that his department has had representation from other towns in similar situations? Are we to see more towns resigning and administrators appointed? How is the minister planning to deal with this looming crisis?

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

MR. A. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not had any other representatives or representations made to me by other towns. I had one made to me by his hon. colleague, sitting to his right, last week but that was not from a council in particular. That is a case where a council does not exist either. I don't know of any other communities in the Province that have resigned or there has not been any communities in the Province threaten me that they will resign. These stories are coming from the Federation of Municipalities and maybe if the hon. member asked the President of the Federation of Municipalities or the Vice-President of the Federation of Municipalities who are putting the stories out there then he may get an answer to his question.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has set aside $1 million in this year's budget as an emergency fund. Will the minister dip into this fund to help the town of Englee? What is government specifically planning to do to help financially strapped towns in this Province as a result of the downloading?

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

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I hate to say no to his question but then I guess the answer is no. Englee has not asked me for any assistance. Until the town of Englee, which now is being operated by the town clerk, until the town clerk, the lady comes and asks for assistance, until that particular point in time I am really not in a position to say whether I will help them or not. I have had representations from other MHAs in this hon. House to help communities and I am considering those requests. Yes, there is a fund to help communities. Municipalities have been written and told that if they find themselves strapped for money, for dollars to help them over a hurdle than I will look at the possibility of providing them money.

Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to allow communities to go under - for want of a better word - because they are in financial trouble. There are no communities in this Province going to sink because they are in financial trouble. We are here. I would like for those communities to come in, meet with me and sit down and talk to me about their problems, and give me a chance to try to solve the problems before they go to other members of the House not representing the riding, or possibly hon. members in the House stop reading The Evening Telegram and coming up with questions for Question Period and wasting the time of this House, and my time along with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery, the Mayor of Pasadena, Mr. David Osmond, on behalf of all members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the Speaker's Gallery, the hon. Eleanor Norrie, Minister of Natural Resources, from Nova Scotia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The minister is in St. John's today as a speaker at the Oil and Gas Conference.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present to this hon. House the final report with the accompanying transcripts of the official public proceedings of the Select Committee on Children's Interests.

Mr. Speaker, as you and other hon. members would be aware, this report has been some eighteen months in the making, and has been finalized after a comprehensive consultation process where this committee travelled throughout the Province, heard from some 600 people and received 215 written submissions.

At the outset, I would like to recognize and acknowledge those people who were instrumental in generating this report. First of all, Ms Pat Cowan, the former MHA for Conception Bay South, who was the original Chairperson of this Select Committee, and indeed was the person who was the driving force behind its being created initially, and undertaking this very important work.

The Member for Waterford Valley, my colleague in the House, Mr. Harvey Hodder, served as Vice-Chair on the original committee and subsequently on the committee that was stuck by the forty-third General Assembly, to complete the work left over from the previous committee. Also, my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, graciously accepted appointment to the committee to complete the task of finalizing a report, and certainly brought to the committee a quality that we really appreciated. We had heard from all the people throughout the Province, and the member, not having been part of the original process, came with a totally unbiased approach. She was able, therefore, in responding to myself and the Vice-Chairman, to give us an objective appraisal and opinion on what we were considering and what we were proposing, and for that we are most grateful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Also, Mr. Speaker, to complete a report of this nature certainly requires the assistance of support staff, able people, and these I would like to acknowledge as well: Elizabeth Murphy from the Clerk's office, Mr. Jack Oates who looked after a lot of the recording for us, Mr. Bert Riggs, who works with the Centre for Newfoundland Studies at MUN, and especially Mr. Richard Abraham, our researcher, who did the bulk of the work for the committee, certainly all of the organization, all of the co-ordinating, all of the research and the follow-up, and any other responsibilities that we assigned to him. As a matter of fact, as late as this weekend, Richard was out in Grand Falls attending a conference representing the committee, and this he has done whenever asked to do so, and certainly has risen and performed beyond the call of duty, and for that we are extremely grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express thanks on behalf of the committee to the hundreds of people who came out to our public sessions and shared their views with us. They placed a tremendous trust in this committee, and we, in turn, have tried to live up to that trust. Now that the report has been completed, I leave it to them to determine as to how successful we have been in carrying out our mandate.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, this was indeed a very intensive process, and during the course of our proceedings, the committee heard some very emotional presentations as the people of the Province, in all areas of the Province, put forward their views on the problems they saw facing our children today. This committee has tried to approach its challenge in a responsible fashion, ever conscious of the fiscal reality of our Province, but yet, keeping in mind the many needs of the children of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in this report we have tried to mirror and reflect the reality which exists within our Province as it was presented to us during this process, and let there be no doubt that many problems do indeed exist. Where possible, we have tried to make recommendations in response to identified concerns; however, the most important thing which I feel that we have attempted to do is to develop a plan for a structure which, when put in place, will in the future ensure that all government departments are aware and are responsive to the concerns of children. Further to this, this structure will ensure that in the future, the lines of communication will remain open between the bureaucracy and the people it serves, so that as problems develop, the means will exist to respond to them.

Mr. Speaker, members of this committee were very encouraged as they travelled the Province and heard of the many examples of initiatives undertaken by the community to respond to the problems which they recognize as existing, and I reference here, in particular, preschools and school lunch programs as two initiatives which have been developed in our Province, driven by the community, and very often without any active support from government. Indeed, we heard, in some instances, that it could be said that these initiatives have actually been discouraged.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I can speak from personal experience, having been involved a number of years ago in establishing preschool programs in the district of Port au Port, that I now have the privilege to represent, and at which time I was an employee of the school board there. We were trying to develop preschool programs as a means of trying to get at the underlying problems facing us dealing with under education with a large segment of our population. I will always remember the first contact that was made - and I am going back some seven or eight years - by the school board with the Department of Education to outline what we were considering, and the response that came back, and this was from a senior bureaucrat in the department; we were talking about wanting to create preschool programs. The response was, `What if it works?'

That, to me, spoke volumes of what the thinking was at that time, and it was clear to me that unless somehow, some time, we would be able to change that attitude, then nothing would really change in this Province. I am pleased that this report has provided an opportunity to address that very concern, because, indeed, I was dismayed to find, in our most recent consultation process, that attitude is still all too prevalent.

Mr. Speaker, the broader community has recognized the needs, and they have expressed a willingness to build new partnerships with government so that a more comprehensive approach may be adopted.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this House, we have all heard the children of this Province at various times describe as our most precious resource the key to our future. Unfortunately, the reality we found, in many instances, makes a whole other statement. As the people's representatives, we cannot and we must not be content if there is but one child who goes to school hungry. As the people's representatives, we cannot be content if there is but one child who lives in an abusive situation and doesn't know where to turn. As the people's representatives, we cannot be content if there is but one child who requires the services of a specialist but finds that that service is not available. As the people's representatives, we cannot be happy and content if there is but one child whose potential is lost and whose opportunities for later success in life are seriously restricted by his or her family circumstances.

Can we solve all of the problems immediately? Clearly, the answer is no. However, today we are presented with an excellent opportunity to recommit ourselves to the process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: If I could quote from the report. This is a quote which is found at the very beginning of the report, at the end of the acknowledgements. It is one that, as a matter of fact, I had picked up just this past winter in reading The Newfoundland Ancestor, and that is where it is quoted from. It goes as follows: Children are the messages that we send to a time when we will not be there.

It is my wish today, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this House, that history will record of those of us who sit in this Chamber today that while we may not have solved all of the problems related to children's issues, we were determined that we would make a difference.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

It is with a great sense of pride and a great deal of reflection that I join in the comments made by my colleague and good friend, the Member for Port au Port.

Mr. Speaker, as we journeyed across the Province and met with parents, with school teachers, social workers, people within the bureaucracy, people outside the bureaucracy, and we consulted with people from Scotland, from all the Canadian provinces and the territories, we have come to a sense of where we are in our dealings with children and to some kind of an idea as to where we would like to go.

Mr. Speaker, all is not wrong, but all is not right. The report that my colleague has just tabled provides a beginning of a process to renew our approach to children and youth issues. The creation of a child and youth and family secretariat, and the creation of the office of a child and youth advocate, signal the beginning of a journey to reform and to renewal that all members of this House should listen to and then should act upon. Because, indeed, the report is entitled: Listening and Acting.

We have tried, together with the members that the Chair has already identified, to listen to what people of this Province are saying about children. We have tried to listen to their cries for help. We have heard parents say on many occasions: Would you help us, would you tell us how to be better parents? We have heard schoolchildren say that they themselves wanted to do better. We have had children come before the Committee with great learning difficulties and could not process information like you, I and others in this House take for granted. There were moving moments, very emotional moments and hours when we left the committee when some of us did not quite know how to cope with it. We met with foster children and foster parents and we met with those who have been in group homes. We wanted to meet with real people to discuss real issues. So the structures which we have included in the report provide a strategy for government to approach its new thinking towards children, youth and family. We see evolving from this an approach that is client centred and that is community responsive.

Mr. Speaker, too many of our initiatives in the past have tended to be crisis interventionist. So therefore we want to change the thought processes to make us change to prevention and intervention and to do it at the earliest possible age. I am going to tell you in words of Dr. Julia O'Sullivan of Memorial University who told us that the optimum time for intervention, if we are to achieve success or have the maximum potential for success, is between the ages of eighteen months and thirty-six months. What a message that sends to us. What a message it sends to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we also believe that we can integrate our services. We can bring together and look at the total child - there is only one child and whether that child is interacted through the Department of Health or interacted through the Department of Social Services, Education or Justice, there is one child. Mr. Speaker, we found examples of where there were more than thirty professionals interacting with one child. After two years of interacting it is sad to say the condition of that child was not positively affected. That is the kind of thing that exists in our Province. So we say to all hon. members, this is not the answer. This approach we have here, we do believe, will cause us to change the paradigms of our thought processes to reflect. We have done the listening. We ask all hon. members if they would try to do the reading and the thinking. The challenge here is for the political process to place emphasis on action. We know that there will be people who will say that this cannot be done but we say to you in all honesty, in all sincerity, before you say that it cannot be done, think about it, the consequences of not acting. The consequences of not acting is to continue to have services which don't really address the needs of children. This report has a vision for progress. It is community responsive, client centred, interventionist at the earliest age.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud as a member of that committee who listened to the needs of children and have tried to reflect in the report here what we have heard and what we think the action should be. Mr. Speaker, the last page of the report it says, `It is time for the process to begin.' That's the last sentence. We say to all hon. members to reflect on it and think about it. As we begin to evolve our social policy towards children, family and youth we believe there is a great deal of information here that demands our attention and we commend it to you. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to move the following private members' resolution,

WHEREAS the current automobile insurance rate structure in Newfoundland and Labrador is unfair and the rates are unacceptably high; and

WHEREAS the statistical (inaudible) used as guides in setting insurance rates do not reflect fairly the risk to motorists in different areas of the Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House express its disapproval of the current automobile insurance rate structure and insurance rates; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take appropriate action to produce an improved automobile insurance rate structure that is fair and that gives consumers insurance rates that are more reasonable.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of approximately ninety-eight residents of the community of Cormac in the District of Humber Valley.

I never checked with the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I have added what was normally the proper petition heading and had it signed by three of my colleagues here in the House, so as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, my years spent in the House looking at this particular petition, it is in order but in case you can look at that after.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is such that it refers to the petition and the request by Newfoundland Light and Power for a rate increase. I will just read a particular, one part of the prayer, Mr. Speaker, because if I read it all, it takes away from some of the comments that you have to make:

We, the undersigned residents of the community of Cormac in the District of Humber Valley, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to protest the proposed increased in electricity rates and that wood-burning citizens not be penalized for same.

That, they have this particular wood-burning citizens quote there, Mr. Speaker, because really, in essence that is what Newfoundland Light and Power referred to in a part of their request for increases.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I rose here in this House some time ago and spoke on a petition by one of my colleagues referring to this particular request by Newfoundland Light and Power. I have heard members in the last few weeks rise, on the other side of the House and I think on this side of the House, referring to this particular request for increase by Newfoundland Light and Power.

Different comments were made but we did not come up with a solution. We always said in the past and I go back to when I served on the Federation of Municipalities, when we had one representative for consumers in the Province, funded primarily by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs with regards to rate increases in the Province for pretty well everyone, Newfoundland Telephone used to come under it then, now they are under the CRTC.

PUB, the hon. Member for Bonavista South mentioned today insurance rates; they govern insurance rates as well and they look after the increases by Newfoundland Light and Newfoundland Hydro. In this case, I said it before and I will say it again, as far as I am concerned, it is unjustified, it is unjustified but the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, in this whole process, we could stand in the House, each and every one of us, every day of the week and take up the full three hours of debate on whether Newfoundland Light and Power or Newfoundland Hydro should have an increase, we can stand here every day of the week, every day of the year, Mr. Speaker, and do just that. We are not going to change a thing.

We are not going to change a thing, until and unless, we make some changes to the Public Utilities Board. There have been no changes to the PUB from what I have been told for the past - I don't know -probably thirty-five, forty years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty years.

MR. WOODFORD: Forty years. Now, they are governed, they have rules and regulations by which they are governed, and it is incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that that is done. I have had colleagues on the other side of the House appear last year to the PUB and they know full well what it is like appearing there with their lawyers and everything else and all the work that has to be done, whether it is insurance companies, Light and Power or what have you, they have their homework done, they have a monopoly as far as I am concerned on electricity rates in the Province. They are no different as far as I am concerned from insurance companies or anyone else. Then they are guaranteed, what is it, 12.5 to 13 per cent rate of return.

MR. E. BYRNE: Guaranteed.

MR. WOODFORD: Guaranteed.

I was reading just the other day that in Nova Scotia it is 10.5 per cent, and then I read an article in The Evening Telegram the other day by the head of Newfoundland Light and Power, I think it was Mr. Marshall, on some of the things that the Province is doing, and some of the things that the Province is not doing, whether they are doing them right or wrong. What other business in this Province, and who in this Province, can go out and start a business and be guaranteed a 13 per cent rate of return? What other business?

We cannot get at the books. You have to make a judgement call, whether it is the PUB board, or whoever it is. I had a personal experience just this past month - the audacity, as far as I am concerned. I had a letter from Newfoundland Light and Power saying that there was a street light outside my home in the community of Cormack that, as far as they are concerned, it has been there since 1975, but -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a minute to relate this story.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WOODFORD: And I am sure other members of the House can relate to it when I am finished.

They said it was there since 1975 and they were not charging me for it - twenty-one years and they were not charging me for it. A few days after that I met another person in the same community, and a few days after that another person in another part of the valley, who said they had letters, had called me about it. Now, how many other people...

This particular light was paid for by the community council - there are so many lights along the streets in the communities that the council pay for - but when I checked it out, the council had it paid up to 1985, so they were eleven years and never had a cent on that one light - eleven years. They had not tracked the council on it, and they had not contacted me, so whose fault is that? And how many more are out there? And now they are looking for an increase. That is another example. You make that up across this Province and it could add up to hundreds; it could add up to thousands across this Province, the way street lights are distributed around this Province. You talk about an example of incompetency!

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up any more of the time of the House on this particular subject, except to say that I think the intervenor in this case is doing an excellent job, and whether I appear at those hearings, which I have no problem with - absolutely none - I have done it before, but as far as I am concerned you have an intervenor there who is doing an excellent job, and I think that if anybody is going to do a job at those hearings to deny Newfoundland Light and Power an increase, it will be that particular gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise to speak to the petition and to support the petition presented by the Member for Humber Valley and to say that, just in referring to a couple of his points, he is right. There have not been changes made to the PUB in about thirty-five to forty years. Secondly, there is no company in this Province that I know of in the private sector that is guaranteed a 12.5 per cent rate of return. It is very easy for those who live in the ivory towers of the corporate world in this Province to make assumptions about government, and to say that we need a bigger rate of return when, in fact, the people of this Province, and through this Legislature, through the PUB, has guaranteed the rate of return.

I support the hon. member in saying that we need to make changes to the PUB, and we need to make them expeditiously; however, I also want to say to the hon. the Member for Humber Valley that he has an opportunity as well to directly influence what people will pay in an increase in electricity rates. Because, on the one hand, Newfoundland Power has asked for a 2.9 per cent increase, and on the other hand, while we let that process go through, and if that increase will go through it will be determined by the PUB, it will be judged at arm's length, and the people in this Legislature, and government, have advocated and have given the Consumer Advocate all of the necessary resources, both financial and otherwise, that he requires. But the reality is that the biggest increase in electricity rates that is going to occur in this Province will be a result directly of this government's action when it comes to the harmonization of the GST and PST. That is what the reality is, an 8 per cent increase across the board on each and every ratepayer and user of electricity as a result of the harmonization of PST and GST. Now, Newfoundland Power's request of 2.9 per cent pales in comparison to what government's action, or lack of action in this regard, on this issue, has caused. It is very easy, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Mines and Energy last week announced a two-tier system, a basic royalty regime for the oil companies in this Province. One of the characteristics of that regime was a complete and utter exemption from RST for the corporate community as it deals with offshore oil.

While I'm not voicing any disrespect or disregard for that royalty regime, I want to make the point that government has, and Cabinet has within its ability, to exempt the increase, or to exempt electrical power increases from the harmonization of the GST-PST. It is a basic commodity, it is a necessity. It is something the people of this Province cannot do without. Where does government see the 40,000 families on Social Services coming up with an extra 8 per cent? Where does government see the 60,000 people who are in direct receipt of Social Services coming up with the extra 8 per cent? Where does government see those elderly people who are living on fixed incomes of $1,000 or less per month coming up with the extra 8 per cent?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask the hon. member that in his own work, in representing the constituents he talked about today and the petition he presented, while he implored changes be made in the Public Utilities Board, that he implore his government, at the same time, and he do it today and continue to do it until they change it, that electricity rates and home heating fuel which are basic necessities, which are basic commodities, be exempted from the GST-PST harmonization. We do not need to see changes to the Public Utilities Board for that to take effect. All we need to see is the political will within government, and thus, within Cabinet, for that to happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, with pleasure I support the petition presented by the hon. member. Not to let this get away from us here, of course - we do have to realize that we are awaiting the results of the analysis being done currently by the Public Utilities Board. Also, we know there are changes that are required, and the overall way in which the Public Utilities Board does make assessments. There is a lot of room for improvement, I'm sure with some of the people who have taken office down there lately, over the last year or so. I am sure that some of these changes will be implemented in order that the concerns brought forward by the hon. member and members of the Opposition may be addressed.

MR. E. BYRNE: How do you feel about the extra 8 per cent as a result of the GST-PST harmonization going (inaudible)?

MR. RAMSAY: Hopefully a lot of this - from my understanding of that, and it isn't for me to respond to questions, to speak to the petition, it would be that the understanding of the GST and PST situation as it relates to electricity rates is part of the overall expenditures that the average consumer will make. In general, from what we are told, the consumer will have more money overall through the whole of their expenditures made on all goods and services over the course of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member's petition, and, along with the other members of the House, hope that the responding issues that have been raised will be addressed by the Public Utilities Board and that Newfoundland Power are diligent in making sure that they lower their overhead and expenditures to bring the lowest possible electricity rates to the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 597 people from the Yes Means Yes Committee, and as well, of course, concerning education reform in this Province. This marks the second petition, I guess, that we, as an Opposition, have presented. I am very pleased to stand today and present this petition on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, these people voted `yes' quite some time ago, and I guess they are very fearful in this Province that we could be one of the only provinces in Canada where `yes' means `no', and `no' means `yes', which makes for a very interesting scenario.

These people, Mr. Speaker, asked for their points, and again I would like to read them into the record so that people are again reminded that they are here: 1) The establishment of interdenominational schools open to all children without regard to their religion; 2) the right of all children to attend their neighbourhood school; 3) provision for uni-denominational schools where parents prefer and numbers warrant; 4) the appointment of teachers to be solely on the basis of merit and qualifications except in uni-denominational schools, and 5) church influence confined to religious education and pastoral care except in uni-denominational schools.

I think we cannot emphasize this position enough on behalf of these people. I have attended one of their meetings where their church leaders were present, and these people were very concerned about what may or may not have been in the so-called framework of agreement, so much so that I guess some of their religious leaders went through quite a bit of questioning from the floor, and there was no doubt in anybody's mind, certainly not in mine, as I sat and listened to speaker after speaker let their respective clergy know exactly how they felt with regard to education reform in this Province.

I am very pleased today to present this petition, and would certainly ask that maybe there just might be somebody on the other side who would like to get up and support this one. We presented one the other day with 74,000 names on it and nobody moved, and today we have one with ninety-eight and we actually had a government member get up, so I guess somebody is getting the message, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the message is well delivered from the Yes Means Yes Committee.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I stand to make a few comments with respect to the petition that was just presented by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South. Unfortunately, in this Province today, the education issue is perhaps the single one issue which has caused significant confusion amongst Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and this is largely brought about by public statements which have been made and the infamous framework agreement which has been made public in recent months, and the response, of course, to this agreement by all stakeholders in education, and particularly, church representatives themselves.

As a result of the confusion and complexity of issues, Mr. Speaker, various stakeholders in education have seen fit to become perhaps more vocal with respect to their particular stance and position on the whole issue of education reform. What we hear perhaps most loudly from most Newfoundlanders today is that people in this Province expect education reform will translate into what the majority of people understood they were voting for during the referendum of September 5, 1995.

That being the case, Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on this government that when education reform is finalized, when the fine tuning is complete, and when this government has had a chance to put in place all aspects of education reform, that it reflect essentially what Newfoundlanders understood they were voting for in September 1995, and as indicated by my colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, that essentially means that most students will attend schools nearest their home, that most schools will expect to have students of all denominations, or interdenominational schools, that parents may chose schools of their own denomination where numbers warrant, that there be interdenominational school boards, that there be a reduced involvement of churches in school governance and that there be hiring on the basis of qualifications. That is essentially what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying today that reflects what they understood they were voting for during the referendum.

I believe wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker, that parents who prefer to have a uni-denominational school will have a uni-denominational school. It is important that we, as Newfoundlanders, believe that that be the case and that perhaps that be reflected in the actual wording of legislation which is brought forward. However, the majority of Newfoundlanders have spoken clearly and loudly that what they understood they were voting for should be in fact what the end result will be. So perhaps a combination of both arguments is ultimately what people will be seeking in the end result when education reform and the legislation concerning that is finalized.

I support the petition, Mr. Speaker, simply because it is important that Newfoundlanders who voted in the referendum of September of 1995, in fact have, as education reform in this Province, what they understood they were voting for and supporting during that referendum. At the same time, in saying that, I look forward to seeing the legislation to ensure that special classes, uni-denominational groups and parents who want to support a uni-denominational school have the ability and the ease, Mr. Speaker, to seek that school and to have their children placed in the school which meets their particular desires and interests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to add a few comments again in response to the petition. The facts are outlined in the petition by the, `Yes Means Yes Committee.' With respect to schools being interdenominational, again, I think everybody in this Legislature understands that the schools for the next school year 1996-'97, will operate as they are today. Reform at the school level was never scheduled to occur until September 1997. I say that for the record because there are some media, particularly The Evening Telegram, in some of its editorial comments, want to keep suggesting: `Are we ever going to get to actual reform at the school?' Reform at the school was always slated, Mr. Speaker, for September of 1997. Reform at the school board office will occur shortly after the passage of Term 17 through the Senate and we certainly hope that will happen quickly.

So the idea of whether schools will be inter-denominational or not, Mr. Speaker, we will debate that in the Fall, because the viability criteria will be in the legislation next Fall, not in the interim legislation. The selection of parental choice - the exercise of parental choice as to what schools will be of which description, will occur in the next school year before the doors open again for September of 1997. The idea of neighbourhood schools, Mr. Speaker - children in the neighbourhoods have access to the schools now except that they cannot, by virtue of exercising their right to go to a neighbourhood school, turn it into a different kind of school. Here in St. John's, for example, children in the neighbourhood of Gonzaga cannot go to Gonzaga and say, because I am here and I am not Catholic I want to go to Gonzaga because it is the neighbourhood, but I also want it no longer to be Catholic. They can have part one, Mr. Speaker, but they cannot have part two. Part two will be determined by parental choice and so on sometime during the next school year and we will see what the schools will be for September of 1997.

The uni-denominational schools, Mr. Speaker, where parents prefer and numbers warrant, that is what the legislation will draft and follow the viability criteria and the exercise of parental choice. That will be in the legislation in the Fall. The hiring of teachers on merit, except in uni-denominational schools, there was nothing other than that ever contemplated. Where anybody ever got the idea that it would happen - if it happens like that today, that is provided for in the new Term 17; that is what will be provided for, Mr. Speaker, after reform is complete, that in uni-denominational schools, the teachers will go through a different selection criteria than in inter-denominational schools but teachers will be hired on merit in all schools, and denominational consideration will only come into play in uni-denominational schools. The provision of religious education and pastoral care, those are the only roles that the denominational representatives have to play, except in uni-denominational schools where they will have further rights. That is what is in the current Term and that will be put there.

Mr. Speaker, again the phrase was used, in talking about the petition, as the `ill-fated framework agreement,' or something of that nature. There was nothing in the framework agreement other than the fact that there would be ten boards instead of twenty-seven, and that there was going to be a single construction board instead of giving the money out by denomination. The leaders of the churches were indicating they were willing to do that a couple of months ago by agreement, but people kicked up so much fuss over some other things that the agreement, of course, evaporated. Now we will wait until August 1 or so to get those two things done, and that will occur. Again, the rest of it will be resolved in due course with most of the debate occurring next Fall.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present another petition, yet again, on the Crown lands issue. As many people in the House are aware, we had a public meeting that the minister attended, as well as myself and two of my colleagues.

I think the message now is quite clear. Most of the people in the general public are not discontent with the new pricing policy; it has boiled down to the fact they are discontented with the time allotted to come up with the funds. They have to make application by October 31 and then they would have to pay off the full amount remaining in one lump sum owing on their property. If they don't make application by October 31, the monies that they have paid in over the number of years will be lost. So if they want to take advantage of the monies they have already paid in, they have to make application by October 31 and pay their land off in full.

This is the only real problem that I perceive people out there have with the new pricing policy on Crown lands. I think most people are quite content to pay off the Crown land and own their land and have it freehold as opposed to leasehold. But I think what most people are asking of the government, and I think it is quite reasonable, is that we give them a time period of three or four or even five years to pay off their Crown land while taking advantage of the monies that they have paid in since they first took out the lease on the land.

Again, I am proud to present this petition. I think that is a minor change to make. The government will still reap the rewards of the income over a five-year period while giving the leaseholders the right to maintain the savings of what they have paid in. In doing this, Mr. Speaker, again, I'm proud to present this petition, and I thank you for the time in the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support the petition presented by the Member for St. John's South. He is talking about a group of people who aren't in a position - many of them, if not most of them - to dip into their pockets or dip into their savings or dip into their bank credit to pay the kind of money that the government is asking on a very short notice period and a very short time frame to acquire the freehold of their cottage lot.

This issue has been around for a couple of weeks now since the minister has made the announcement. He quite graciously, and perhaps bravely, attended a public meeting where everyone who was there, aside from him and his officials, was opposed to his program to require people to pay up front a very large sum of money to them, for property that they had bought under one set of leasing arrangements and that they had worked over a long period of time, using their limited resources, in many cases, to build a cottage.

Some of the things that these people said were kind of interesting. One individual said to me: Look, I don't know why the government is picking on us. I have a brother who isn't really into having a cottage, and every year he goes down to Florida and spends a couple of thousand dollars or $2,500 on a vacation in Florida. He takes a plane out of St. John's, rents hotels or motels in Florida and rents a car down there and he spends his money there.

He said: I don't go to Florida but every time I go to my cabin, I put a tank of gas in the car and I pay tax on that. I buy building materials; I buy food at the local stores, I am contributing my vacation money or my recreational money within this Province. I am spending my money here - my vacation time and effort and recreational funds are being spent in the Province.

The member may not have been listening, but he was comparing himself to his brother who spent all his money in Florida. He spends about $2,500 a year going to Florida, or every two years, and this fellow was saying, you know, I don't believe in that; I spend my money on my cabin and every time I go to the cabin I buy a tank of gas and all of that is to the good of the local merchants or the local vendors of gas bars, and the taxpayers of this Province, by putting money back into the economy.

What the petitioners here are asking for, Mr. Speaker, is not a free ride by any means. What they are asking for is a bit of a break from a fairly draconian policy, apparently made by Cabinet ministers who think everybody is as well-off as they are. That seems to be the problem, that the people in the Cabinet seem to think that everybody in this Province is as well-off as they are and can respond very quickly to the kind of initiative that they have laid down.

Now, what they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is hanging over the heads of these people that if they don't apply for the Crown land by the end of October and make themselves in a position to pay the balance, they will lose whatever they have already paid by way of rent, and that is the gun to the head that this government has. I know the minister responsible has promised to bring it back to Cabinet; he has not told us what recommendation he is going to make and I don't know if it has been back to Cabinet yet or not, but the petitioners here have a very simple request and a very reasonable one, a very sensible one. They are asking for the support of members of the House to urge the Cabinet to change this policy.

I hope someone on the other side will speak to this petition and perhaps give some indication of whether he or she, within the Liberal caucus or within the Cabinet, is prepared to support the petitioners in this effort to try to change this government policy. Perhaps someone on the other side will get up and address the issue and respond to the very real and modest request of the petitioners to ameliorate this policy by changing it to allow a five-year period during which people can pay the balance on the property, and give them an opportunity to acquire the freehold title to this land into which they have put so much time and effort and money.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition as brought forward by some residents of the District of Bonavista South, and it reads:

To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the delivery of an essential commodity in this Province is not at risk of becoming non-competitive; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, having made some $27. 8 million in profit last year, is not in need of extra revenue from consumers:

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador do whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity rates, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that has been brought forward to my attention to present it here to the House of Assembly, and is another situation where rural Newfoundlanders are speaking out and asking the government of the day, if they would be sympathetic to their needs and if they would be sympathetic to their desires to maintain, at least, a status quo in Newfoundland Power electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, when you consider the rate increase that has been applied for by this particular utility, coupled with the combination of the harmonization of the GST and the PST, it won't be unexpected for those people to see a rate increase in their light bills or on their hydro bills of some $65 to $75 a month. It won't be uncommon to see the people in rural Newfoundland who can least afford it, having to pay the highest electricity rates. We might say: Well, Newfoundland Power must need the rate increase in order for it to justify going looking for the 4.5 per cent increase.

I say that the $28 million that this particular utility made last year, just last year, is certainly, to me, a reasonable and an ample profit to make when you consider the economy of today. Not only does this particular utility just go out and charge you the rate for the services that you use - not only do they charge you for the consumption of electricity - but many, many times you will find that if they have to do any extra work in reaching your house, or reaching any particular industry to supply you with a service, which is a service they have a monopoly on, they also charge you for that as well.

It is not uncommon for anybody starting a new business today to have a projection done of what consumption they expect that particular utility, that particular industry, to consume in electricity. It is not uncommon for Newfoundland Power to want and to demand three months of a hydro bill up front. I know if you go and purchase a business today, the first thing they will do is go back over the records of what that particular business consumed in electricity over the past three months, and then they come looking for three months in advance for their electricity charges. Now, you will get it back. Sure, you will get it back over a period of time, but many, many times when you start business today you will find that the few dollars to get into that business, and your cash flow, is taxed to the limit as it is, and not many people can come up with three months of a utility bill in advance in order to access this particular service.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest Newfoundland Power take a lesson from the largest Crown corporation in Atlantic Canada, which is New Brunswick Hydro. This particular company offers the same services, and now I understand they are probably going to receive competition from Quebec Hydro, but they are not going out and looking for rate increases, and they are not going out to try to privatize that particular utility. What they are going to do is provide a service of choice rather than go out and demand higher utility rates, and show people that what they are selling is service, and to give people another avenue, if you will. This particular utility here does not have to worry about that. They do not have any competition - no competition whatsoever - and the service that they are offering is certainly an essential service; it is not a luxury any more because all of us today, no matter where we live -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - certainly, in order to function, have to have electrical appliances, and need electricity in order to survive.

Mr. Speaker, since my time is up, I ask the government if they would consider intervening to the Public Utilities Board to make sure that this rate increase is not granted.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the petition as presented by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South. As we have heard in the last week or so - certainly within the last three or four days in this House - we have perhaps in the range of 75,000 names by Newfoundlanders who voluntarily signed names to petitions, who are voicing their objections to the proposed increases being sought by Newfoundland Power before the Public Utilities Board.

I believe it is clear that Newfoundlanders have spoken loudly, and when we see the tens and tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders who, as I indicated just a moment ago, have voluntarily signed these petitions, clearly this is reflective of the anger and the dissatisfaction and the frustration which is out there in the public when just the idea is presented that a company such as Newfoundland Power has the gall to proceed to the Public Utilities Board to seek an approval for an increase in electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, we have to consider that this company has a monopoly in the delivery of this commodity in the Province, and last year made in excess of $27 million, almost $28 million, in profit. So the question has to be asked: What more does it take? What does this company want? How much more difficulty has to be inflicted upon ordinary Newfoundlanders before the Public Utilities Board can come to what we feel is a logical conclusion, and hopefully will deny the request and the requisition which is before it. Mr. Speaker, again this petition is indicative of the fact that Newfoundlanders have had enough, and they are, in a very loud way, voicing their concern, their disgust, their dissatisfaction with what Newfoundland Power is seeking before the Public Utilities Board.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the petition as presented by my colleague and indicate to this House that there are indeed more petitions of a similar vein which will be brought forward in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 1, Order No. 2.

Before moving Order No. 2, I move that this House do not adjourn at 5:00 o'clock, carried.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law To Give Effect To Certain Recommendations Of The Commissioner For Regulatory Reform." (Bill No. 1)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, one of the major complaints that we hear from time to time is that there is too much regulation, too much bureaucracy, and it has been a major concern with people around the Province for years. Some years ago the Wells administration put a process in place whereby a committee chaired by Judge Nathaniel Noel would examine every single regulation that government had. In some cases it was recommended that these regulations would disappear, and in some places they would be modified and would be replaced. What we have here today is the omnibus bill which is the sum total of all these recommendations, which will in many cases abolish regulations and in other places modify them.

I should also say that it was our hope that we would have had this exercise completed by June 30 of this year, but unfortunately there are still a few regulations that we do not have recommendations on yet, and we will be looking for an extension of the June 30 deadline.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. minister just indicated this bill presumably is designed to deal with the fact that in the ordinary government process there is significant regulation, and in the words of the minister, significant red tape which accompanies most legislation with respect to regulations which are enforced and any regulatory aspect of law which usually accompanies all acts before this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that some of the particulars of the proposed legislation perhaps does a little bit more than just ease the burden with respect to the regulatory process, and does more, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, than just simply reduce the red tape which is found, as I indicated, in most acts and in most pieces of legislation.

For example, we find under Clause 2 that this bill amends The Adoption of Children Act. The minister would be authorized to set procedures with respect to making an application for an adoption order and to approve forms for the purpose of this act. At present it states that regulations are required for this purpose. I wonder if the minister is in a position to respond very briefly to that? I am referring to Clause 2 of the act where it specifically refers to the Adoption of Children Act, and indicates that procedures would be set by the minister with respect to making applications for an adoption order.

I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything new in this, or is this something which just now gives the minister the ability to make this determination? In other words does he now have the discretion to deal with that or simply to replace the regulations which are now before the Legislature or is this a new power that is given to the minister? I wonder if the minister may wish to comment on that briefly, Mr. Speaker?

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to my understanding -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. minister just answering a question or closing the debate?

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, no just answering the question, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: It is my understanding there is no new power there, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a process whereby we can have - instead of having all the regulations, the minister will be given some discretion there. There are no new powers.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Clause 8 of the bill, under the Bills of Sale Act, it removes the time limit within which a bill of sale must be registered and extends the registration period from three years to five years. The amendments also remove, Mr. Speaker, the need to have the approval of a judge of the trial division to renew a registration after it had expired. This is something which personally I welcome, Mr. Speaker, because all to often it was necessary - and it was only just a procedural exercise whereby it was necessary for representatives of companies or representatives of individuals who had an interest under the Bills of Sale Act to make basically just a pro forma appearance, Mr. Speaker, before the judge of the trial division of the Supreme Court and I am not aware of any incidence when such a request would have been denied. So this sort of particular amendment is welcomed and perhaps it is consistent with what the hon. minister's opening remarks were in that it helps cut the red tape and in the long run makes it easier and in essence cheaper on an applicant before a court.

I would just like to go to the conditional sales act where Clause 15 of this Bill No. 1 states much the same, where a conditional sale must be registered and it now extends the registration period from three to five years. Similarly to the provision under the Bills of Sale Act, the amendments also remove the need to have the approval of a judge of the trial division to renew a registration after it had expired. So I think the same logic, Mr. Speaker, is found in Clause 15 as it is in Clause 8 with respect to amendment to both the Bills of Sale Act and to the conditional sales act.

With respect to Clause 9, Mr. Speaker, there is reference to the change of name act and it states that the amendments would clarify who was a resident of the Province for the purpose of applying for a change of name and would permit the minister to set fees. We notice throughout most of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I would say the majority of the various provisions found in this legislation has to do with the setting of fees. Therefore the act, I would add, is essentially administrated in nature and it empowers the minister to set fees when indeed the ministry finds it appropriate to do so.

Under the Child Welfare Act, under Clause 10, it moves the powers of the minister to administer the act from regulations to the policy level. That one I question to some extent because I am not sure if I see the distinction, Mr. Speaker, between the discretionary power that the minister would ordinarily have to administer the act from regulations to the policy level. It seems to me that the minister could have equal discretion and certainly be in a position of influence, as minister, to deal with any amendment, whether it be with respect to regulations or indeed the policy of the department.

An interesting one, Mr. Speaker, under Clause 11 gives the power to the City of St. John's to authorize the city to make by-laws in the regulation and control of the use of skateboards. Interestingly, it is only in the last several days that this issue has become a public one and indeed the city was able to deal with it in some respect.

Mr. Speaker, one which caught my attention as well is with respect to Clause 26 of the bill. It is an amendment to the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Act and it ensures that crematoria are operated by only licensed funeral directors. My first response to that is, well who other than funeral directors would be the appropriate individuals to operate crematoria in this Province? It also indicates that an embalmer and a funeral director maintain the records required by the minister. I guess, too, that is only perhaps reinforcing the obvious, that obviously, a licensed funeral director and a person in this line of business would be appropriate with the necessary record keeping, which is required by law in any event.

Mr. Speaker, one area of concern is clause 33 of the act. It refers directly to freedom of information. It removes the need to enact regulations to create forms and set fees for the purpose of the act. The Minister of Justice is now authorized to set fees for information provided under the act. I find that it is perhaps an area of some concern, that again, where it is in the discretion of the minister to set fees and, I suppose, he, in his own discretion would be able to create the policy or the regulations with respect to how the Freedom of Information Act is governed, in my view, this gives significant power to the minister. The minister is in a position to essentially set up the rules or the restrictions or the limitations as to how the public or members on this side of the House or the media or whatever other body it might be - how they are to access information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

It is a particular area on which I wish to voice my concern, having reviewed this act in the last little while. I raise this concern simply to ask: How far can the minister go, if, in fact, the minister should choose in any way to limit or restrict access to information under the Freedom of Information Act?

Clause 60 is an amendment to the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 and it indicates that there is a repealing of a provision authorizing the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the operation of the act. This particular section as well -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That is clause 60 of the bill. We can just have a quick look at it, Mr. Speaker. It indicates that section 33 of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 is repealed. Section 33, I would just like to refer to it briefly. It is essentially the appeal provision of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.

It states that: A contributor or other person who is aggrieved by a decision of the minister or of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council in a matter related to, connected with or arising out of his or her entitlement to or the award to him or her of a pension or other money under this Act, may appeal from the decision to a judge of the Trial Division.

Subsection (2) states: Where a contributor or other person proposes to appeal under subsection (1), he or she shall, within sixty days after he or she has received the decision of the minister or of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, serve on the minister a written notice of his or her intention to appeal to a judge of the Trial Division.

Subsection (3) says: The notice of appeal served under subsection (2) shall be signed by the contributor or other person or by his or her solicitor or agent, (unquote). It just carries that it then shall be filed in the registry of the Supreme Court of this Province.

Again, it is just a question, I suppose, that I pose having reviewed this particular section of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991. This section 33 now having been repealed, my question is: What replaces this? What will substitute for this provision? How will the public, in fact, or anybody who is aggrieved under this particular act, have now the necessary recourse that ordinarily would have been found in section 33? But as indicated by clause 60 of Bill No. 1, section 33 of the Public Service Pensions Act, 1991 is now repealed.

Mr. Speaker, clause 73 is a clause of which the intent, I would submit, is certainly worthy and one that I have no difficulty supporting. It states that the Tobacco Control Act, under an amendment, would now allow the minister to direct the posting of signs under the Act and would more clearly state that those signs are to be visible. Presently, provisions for signs are made by regulation.

Again, I think this is more, Mr. Speaker, of an administrative change and now the minister has the discretion to deal with this as opposed to regulation, but the spirit of this amendment is one which I can support when it is certainly under the Tobacco Control Act; it is certainly the wish and the spirit of the legislation that young people not engage in smoking as an habitual practice.

Mr. Speaker, what I have attempted to do is just review some of the provisions which concern me to some extent, and other provisions which I have no difficulty supporting as it relates to Bill No. 1, "An Act To Amend The Law To Give Effect To Certain Recommendations Of The Commissioner For Regulatory Reform." It is largely a piece of legislation which is administrative, which eases the administrative burden and shifts some of the responsibility from a regulatory nature to that of the discretion of the minister.

Ny only concern is that the minister, in using his or her discretion, will, rather than going the regulatory route, Mr. Speaker, or pursuant to any statute, use discretion which is consistent with what the spirit of the legislation is all about. And the one act that comes to my mind, which perhaps is a source of some concern, is the Freedom to Information act, to which I referred earlier and which is found under clause 33 of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, is also going to make a few comments and I will now allow him to do so.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The presentation of this bill at this time, with some eighty-five clauses in it, is a rather complex piece of legislation and requires a fair bit of study, actually, to find out exactly what the government is doing here.

We have had a number of debates on this issue in the past couple of sessions in the House, because government at that time passed legislation which would have the effect of doing away with all regulations that weren't re-promulgated by a certain date and I think that date is June 30. And we were promised at that time, by the former Minister of Justice and Government House Leader that, before we were being asked to deal with all of this, we would have in our hands, a copy available of the regulations that were left and the regulations that were gone so that we would know exactly what government is doing.

Now, we do not have a really good idea of what government is doing. Some of the things, obviously, in this Bill 1, are quite desirable and reasonable; any number of provisions and clauses in the bill which allow the doing away with, or the repealing of regulations that require or pieces of legislation that require certain forms to be issued by regulation or fees, that you can't change the form that is used by a particular government department without having it go to the Cabinet and issue a new Order in Council and change the regulation; in fact, we even see that in some legislation, the forms attached to the legislation, but certainly, in regulations, forms have to be approved by Cabinet.

Obviously, a lot of that is unnecessary. On the fees side, I say for the most part as well, when fees change on something, as they might from time to time, we don't see any particular problem with the minister setting fees, although I suppose, in certain areas, there are some problems. The Freedom of Information Act was mentioned by the Member for St. John's East as an area where perhaps the minister should have less power and the Cabinet should have more.

Essentially, most of the content of the legislation is to give the ministers more power and the Cabinet less. That is what is happening here, that the ministers are given more responsibility and the Cabinet is given less. If you change something, take it out of the requirement for regulation which must be passed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which everyone knows is the Cabinet, and give that to the minister by ministerial directive or ministerial policy, then essentially, you are giving the Cabinet minister more authority over his or her department, and that may be a good thing.

I understand certain Cabinet ministers in the previous government were concerned about what authority they actually had, and were quite hesitant in doing things without the right approval from the right person on high. So I think it is, generally speaking, a good thing to give Cabinet ministers more authority and responsibility. With that authority, of course, goes the responsibility of answering in the House and in public for what is done. Here in this legislation are a number of instances where that happens. For example, clause 58 amends the Public Examinations Act so it removes the need for the Cabinet to make regulations to fix the remuneration of persons employed in connection with holding public examinations. So we are going to amend that, and we are going to allow the minister to decide who he is going to pay, and how much, to correct the public examinations. He tried to fix it a little while ago by suggesting that he pay nobody to correct them because they were already on salary, but that did not work out very well and the minister is taking flak and responsibility for that.

What I worry about is that in this bill there are, in fact, some policy changes - policy changes in a sense that it gives a lot of ministerial discretion in areas which were, in fact, policy-related. Clause 47 is a good example, where the Memorial University Pensions Act is changed by repealing a provision which authorized the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the operation of the pension plan. It says here that the same result can be achieved by ministerial directive.

Mr. Speaker, when we are dealing with the operation of a pensions plan, the important aspect of that has to do with the rights of individuals to collect the pension in particular circumstances, and when these rights, or when these interpretations, or when these application of rules are contained in regulations, they are published, they are available, they are under the Subordinate Legislation and Regulations Act, they are published in The Newfoundland Gazette, they are available in indexes - people can look them up - and they have the force of law. They can be changed, of course, by Cabinet, but they have the force of law.

If you are dealing with a ministerial directive, or a policy that comes from the minister's office, well, if the minister does not like the fact that someone is coming in with an interpretation of the ministerial directive or his or her rights under, say, in this case, the Memorial University pension plan, all the minister has to do is sit down with some official and say: Oh, well, we will get him. We will make sure he does not qualify. We will change the directive. We will just simply issue a new ministerial directive, or the minister will just sign a new policy statement saying this is how the legislation is to be followed, implemented, or interpreted.

That is a very different set of circumstances when someone is relying on the interpretation of a regulation which may be in his or her favour, and in order to overcome the particular right or obligation that the government has to this individual, they would have to go back to the Cabinet with all that is involved in that: The preparation of a Cabinet paper, the consideration of all sides of the issue, perhaps obtaining a legal opinion, perhaps a little bit of consultation and thought going into the change. To go before one's Cabinet colleagues and justify a change to a regulation, that involves a reasonable amount of effort.

The public or the citizen has a certain amount of security knowing that what is in the regulations is good and will work for them, or work against them as the case may be, but at least they know where they stand and can rely on the regulations in order to pursue a course of action. Whether it be to make a decision on some option that they might have under a pension plan, to make a decision as to what to do with a particular circumstance, they can rely on it because they know that to change it requires a fair bit of effort. Unless there is some policy review under way the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim.

On the other hand, if it is merely a ministerial directive or policy statement from the minister's office, then that is something the minister can change with the stroke of a pen. I know the Minister of Education is anxious to have more power so he can change policy with the stroke of a pen, like he tried to do with public examinations and got himself in hot water. If I were the Minister of Education I would want less power, not more, because it might keep me out of trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: He was going to collect up the books and now he has changed his mind. He is only going to collect up some of them, or it is going to be a voluntary program. If I were the Minister of Education I would say: Look, give the Cabinet more power so that I can share this responsibility, I don't have to take the blame. If I were the Minister of Education I would want to have the Minister of Justice, for example, to share some of the blame rather than have to hold it on my own shoulders as the minister responsible.

This act gives the ministers a lot more power and a lot more authority and lot more responsibility. I don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether some of these ministers are going to be able to handle the power and responsibility and authority that they are being given. There are a lot of changes in here that cause a little bit of concern.

It was mentioned that the freedom of information in fact is being changed to allow the minister to set forms and fees for information provided under the act. This is a pretty touchy area. Forms? I don't have a problem with forms, unless you can devise a form - I suppose you could devise a form that makes it difficult for people to ask for information because it might require them to identify with a great amount of specificity what exactly it is they are looking for. If they want to find out information that government may have on a particular issue or individual, if it is themselves, they might make a form so difficult that it enables government to hide behind the form.

The provision of fees becomes an issue. I know before the Freedom of Information Act and regulations were passed the government changed the regulations in fact to change the fees substantially, some thought in an effort to prevent the news media from getting access to it. I believe the previous government was involved in that. I don't know if the Minister of Justice remembers that, when a newspaper called The Sunday Express was very anxious to get certain information from the previous government. One of the responses of that government was to jack up the fees for freedom of information requests so that it became an expensive proposition. I guess they made Harry Steele pay for his information. (Inaudible) if he is going to get any mileage out of this newspaper politically he is going to have to pay for it. So they jacked up the fees. In the process of doing that, of course, it made access to information by all members of the public a little harder to get hold of.

I think the temptation, by giving authority to ministers in certain circumstances to merely issue a ministerial directive rather than to have to go to Cabinet and convince his or her colleagues that a certain move is not only justifiable but is also good public policy and good practice, I think acts as a certain amount of a brake on rash judgements and rash moves. We have seen a fair number of rash judgements and rash moves by ministers in the past few months and I don't know if it comes with the new government, the new administration, the freeing up of ministers from the old regime. I don't know if it is the freeing up of ministers from the old regime where they never had an opportunity to do much on their own judgement but now since the new regime is under way they have an opportunity to take some judgements and show their lack of judgement in certain areas.

I have a number of concerns resulting from these regulations. The second major problem I have with this legislation is that regulations are available - any member of the public can go to a law library, to a public library or to the Queen's Printer and request copies of regulations made under legislation. The Newfoundland Gazette has an index. There is an index of subordinate legislation that is published by the Queen's Printer on a regular basis which gives people access to the information contained in - the availability of regulations is there for the public, Mr. Speaker, through The Newfoundland Gazette and they know exactly what the regulations are. Now what the public has to do is go to each individual minister and ask for copies of all their policy directives. I would be surprised, Mr. Speaker, if they are going to be that easily accessible. One can go to the library and say, okay, under the Election Act, where are all the regulations or under the Employers Liability Act or the Environmental Assessment Act and ask for all of the regulations. One can very quickly get copies of all the regulations that apply to the legislation under that act.

Now, Mr. Speaker, when all of these regulations or opportunity for regulation is being moved and given to the minister, I would have to go over to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and say: Mr. Minister, could you give me a list of all your policy directives and all of your policies under this act? He would tell me: Well what are you talking about? Are you talking about anything in particular?... well no, I just want to know how you are running your department and what your policy directives are? The act leaves it in your hands to issue policy directives on any number of issues and I would like to know what they are?' He probably would tell me to come back when I know what I am looking for and maybe I will be able to get it.

I know with the Department of Social Services it has been an ongoing struggle for years to get your hands on a policy manual. They give various excuses. I used to ask regularly in the Estimates Committee for a copy of the policy manual and was told it would be taken under advisement and given various excuses from time to time. I know when the Member for Bonavista North was Minister of Social Services he readily agreed to make it available but that was after a struggle with previous ministers to try and get hold of the policy manual. The various reasons that were given was that well we cannot give you a policy manual because we change our policies from time to time. Well that is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker, when things are left to policy you don't know what the policy is unless you are on top of it all. In regulations the regulations are specific and they are there. They are there, Mr. Speaker, for all to see because they are published in The Newfoundland Gazette and they are required to be available to the public through these provisions. So if we are going to pass this legislation in principle there ought to be another principle that is contained in the legislation which makes it certain that all policy directives or ministerial policies under any piece of legislation ought to be available to the public, that these policy manuals in fact form a substance of government that is very important to the operations of government. In fact the report that was tabled in the House today by the Committee on Children's Interests had this to say about policy manuals as public documents: Policy manuals in government are the means to which laws passed by the House of Assembly are interpreted so that civil servants can have a framework on which to make their decisions. In many ways then a policy manual is the legislation, and by keeping policy manuals as private documents it can be argued that citizens are being barred from seeing the laws under which they are governed, therefore the Select Committee on Children's Interests made in recommendation number two - they were very upfront at the beginning of their report, made a recommendation that all policy manuals of government that control the type and quality of service received by clients of government be made public documents.

That is a significant recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and one that if we are dealing with legislation here that is changing the obligation of regulations to be published, and changing the obligation of certain policies to be included in regulation and given to ministers for policy and policy directives, then there ought to be a requirement that those policy directives be public documents as well and open for inspection at the minister's office.

I would urge members to consider that this legislation before us today be amended to provide for public disclosure and public availability of all policy directives issued under legislation of government, and any particular policy manuals that would indicate to public servants as to how to interpret legislation and how to act, because people do not know what the policies are in terms of the operation of legislation.

I think the House was told last fall that there are over 400 individual acts or pieces of legislation that are currently enforced in this Province today, and under those acts there was some 2000 and some odd different sets of regulations. Now, Mr. Speaker, all of that will not disappear merely because certain regulations are repealed. They will not just go away. Government is still going to be interpreting legislation. There is still going to be policy as to how certain pieces of legislation are implemented, and if the public does not have access to that information I do not think from an administrative law point of view, or even from an administration point of view it is necessary for all of these individual items to be covered by regulation. No doubt there are many regulations that may have outlived their usefulness and are no longer appropriate to the operation of government, and this type of house cleaning is certainly appropriate.

But, and it is a very big but, what about those things that will still be going on in government in terms of the implementation and operation of legislation that are going to be governed by policy but then that policy is not widely available to the public? That is the concern I have, that not only would it not be widely available to the public but is policy that could be changed by the minister at some ministerial whim, or based on the coming across the circumstance that the minister or his department does not like to have to deal with under the current policy framework and decide they will change it to deal with a particular circumstance.

I have those concerns about the legislation at this stage of second reading which is approval in principle. Obviously there are some details we might discuss at third reading, but the general principle here of giving ministers more power is probably a good one, although certain ministers may not be able to deal with it without getting in trouble, but the question of public knowledge of government policies and the access to policies, access to knowledge about government, which is there as a regulation now because anyone can go and read them and get access to them, may not make it so available if these things are left to policy or ministerial directive.

The example of course that I used of the Department of Social Services being one, and one of the most important ones, where individuals cannot find out what they are actually entitled to except by asking a social worker. Then, if they don't accept that, having to go through a review process rather than having access to the policy manuals themselves.

I think this legislation could probably use a general amendment which would see to it that ministerial directives or policies be available to the public in line with the recommendation number two of the Committee on Children's Interests, which was tabled in the House today, which indicates the importance of policy as it reflects the operation of legislation that is passed in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess back in the fall I guess when the previous government introduced legislation that empowered government to repeal all of the rules and regulations associated with every act -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? That is a good question. Where is the list of new ones? One of the major concerns that was expressed at that time was that while we, as legislators, pass legislation and deal with it, the real implications of any piece of legislation is set forth in the rules and regulations associated with it. There are many.

This is a pretty large bill. It may be administratively certainly the minister - it is a way that government, in terms of dealing with its own regulatory reform and trying to speed up the process of government for not only ourselves, I guess, but more importantly for the public and the way that they interact with government, and also seems to provide more power within the ministries to go ahead and act upon whatever policy initiatives or directives there are.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Ministers by virtue have really control over their departments anyway. It may streamline a minister's ability to review regulations and get it done quickly, as opposed to bringing it forth to Cabinet, and Cabinet giving the minister authority to go ahead and deal with regulations. The real debate on this bill for me will take place in the Committee stage. Because there are specific clauses there that I have some concerns about. It is not necessarily the right time in second reading to get into the specifics of the clause by clause debate on it because that isn't the purpose of second reading, I submit to the Speaker. If I did get into it I suspect the Speaker would inform me that my comments would be out of line because it would better be held for Committee stage.

I voiced some concerns in terms that this Legislature did not, and still really did not know, what we were repealing and what would be coming back to our attention to deal with. Again, as we get into the clause by clause debate I will certainly have a number of comments on a whole variety of clauses that are in this pretty thick piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to this debate, especially the Member for St. John's South, who obviously read the bill. One of the other members piggy-backed on to some of the comments that the hon. member made, and I appreciate that too, of course. All these observations will be taken. Having said that I will move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Law To Give Effect To Certain Recommendations Of The Commissioner For Regulatory Reform," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No.1)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 7, Bill No. 12.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act." (Bill No. 12)

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this bill does two things. First, it will amend The Legal Aid Act to make staff solicitors of the Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission exempt from paying insurance premiums to the Law Society.

As hon. members will know, there are some seventy-five or eighty lawyers who are employed with the Legal Aid Commission, and they are required to pay insurance to the Law Society, and that insurance premium is somewhere in the vicinity of $6,000 or $7,000, so what we are doing is arranging for the Province to provide for some indemnification for the staff solicitors and not pay the legal fee, for a substantial saving to the Crown.

One of the concerns that we had was the impact that this would have on the insurance premiums of other lawyers acting in the Province. We have been advised that it will not have any impact whatsoever on the premiums because apparently it is rated nation wide as opposed to just the Newfoundland branch, so (inaudible).

The second clause that we are amending, at the present time if a person is accused of some offence, legal aid will make available a lawyer when a person cannot afford to have his own lawyer, and meets certain tests. What we have been doing for the past few years is using staff lawyers to represent practically everybody except a person who is accused of some offence which could result in a lifetime imprisonment - usually we are talking about a murder charge or whatever - and in cases like that up until now the accused had the right to choose his own lawyer from the private Bar in the Province. This act will change that so that people who are accused will no longer have the right to choose outside the legal aid lawyers.

I see the Member for St. John's East is looking at this bill. No doubt he will suggest that there might be some potential for conflict where you essentially have employees at the same commission acting against each other in court, and to deal with that we plan to set up a separate branch so that lawyers will be acting out of different branches so they will not be accused of working for the same commission.

These are two minor changes, and it is certainly one way that we want to make some savings there, no doubt about that. It will make it less expensive to operate the legal aid, and we believe it is a smarter way to spend, and hopefully will help us maintain the Legal Aid Commission so that we can make sure that accused who need legal aid, and who need the services of a lawyer, will still be able to get them.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments with respect to essentially the second component that was referred to by the hon. minister, and I am referring briefly to Bill 12, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act", section 2.(2), where the following is now under subsection (7), and is now the new provision which, of course, this bill hopes to accomplish: Where a person applying for legal aid is a party to a dispute or case which involves a client for whom a solicitor employed by the commission acts as counsel, the applicant, if found eligible, may be assigned either to another solicitor who is employed by the commission or to a solicitor who is a member of the appropriate panel in an area.

The obvious area of concern, and again it was alluded to by the minister but I don't think has been thoroughly thought out, is this whole area of conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker, a legal aid office, particularly a small legal aid office, operates in many respects the same as any typical law firm. There is a sharing of files; there is conversation, obviously, among solicitors who work in that office; there is consultation; there is a sharing of ideas and the gaining of opinions from a solicitor who shares the office next door. This is quite common and a legal aid office presumably, whether it is small or large and the one here in St. John's is quite large, I don't know how many staff solicitors, probably close to twenty is my guess here at the St. John's legal aid office on Church Hill but, the fact that it is a legal aid office does not take it away, Mr. Speaker, from the mechanics and the day-to-day business of any other law firm and, there is where the problem lies, Mr. Speaker, because if in fact, you have -

For example, let us take the case of a custody application: a mother goes to a legal aid office, retains the services of a legal aid solicitor to represent her in a custody application with respect to her two children, the father is of no means to retain legal counsel, he too, now goes to the legal aid office and if we, according to the wording, Mr. Speaker, of this Section 2, subsection (2), of this proposed legislation, that father may very well avail of the legal aid services that are provided with respect to that office, and there, Mr. Speaker, is where I perceive a real problem.

How can the one office, you know, independently, act for opposing positions, conflicting positions, very sensitive, in this case personal matters when dealing with custody of children when one lawyer in office A is acting for the mother and a second lawyer in office B, just three or four feet away from him, is acting for the father. Clearly, I do not see how the conflict of interest regulations and rules can be overcome when we see this sort of situation happening.

Now granted, it was perceived by the drafters of legislation that this was a problem and the fact, when we look at subsection ( 8), it says: Notwithstanding the Law Society Act, a solicitor employed by the commission does not commit a breach of a rule or code of legal ethics of the Law Society of Newfoundland relating to conflict of interest, by reason only of advising or representing a person in a dispute or case where another party involved in that dispute or case is being advised or represented by another solicitor employed by the commission.

So clearly, it was foreseen by the drafters of this legislation that there was a problem and the way to overcome the problem, Mr. Speaker, was to address specifically that provision of the legal Code of Ethics of the Law Society and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that same provision exists in the Canadian Bar Code of Ethics and this amendment does not even refer to the Canadian Bar Association's Guidelines, as it relates to conflict of interest in its Code of Ethics, so clearly the issue was one which was of concern to the drafters of this legislation but I would suggest in this House, this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, that the problem is not overcome, and it has the potential of being a real problem amongst litigants who feel that their interests are not being protected.

It is a dilemma which I believe is found and it is a provision which is found in this legislation which has a potential of really becoming a problem for those lawyers who practise as legal aid staff solicitors at any legal aid office here in the Province, and perhaps, it may be more evident in the larger offices, but I can see problems even in smaller offices.

You take an office for example, in Marystown, where there are perhaps - and I am only guessing - my guess, maybe two staff solicitors, Mr. Speaker, the wife goes in and speaks to staff solicitor A to represent her; husband goes in and speaks to staff solicitor B to represent him and in accordance with what we find here, in this amendment, you could have both lawyers in the same office representing opposite sides.

That clearly, I would suggest is unacceptable, and I can understand, Mr. Speaker, obviously it is done -

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you saying about lawyers?...that you can't trust them? Are you saying to me that you can't trust lawyers (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No, I am not saying that at all.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is essential that when two people are involved in a court case, that they have no reason whatsoever, no reason, whether it is true or whether it is just a matter of perception, to believe that their interests are being compromised. It may very well be that those two staff solicitors never had any occasion to discuss the case and in fact did not discuss the case, however, the potential is, that when this matter goes to court, Mr. Speaker, and the father who loses the custody battle, the first matter that is going to be raised is, whether or not his lawyer was in a conflict of interest position, and that is what is going to happen. There is no question in my mind.

It is going to be the first recourse that is taken by a defendant or an applicant who happens to be on the losing end of a court decision to raise the issue of conflict of interest. In any sort of legal representation, the sanctity of conflict of interest must be maintained, Mr. Speaker, and in response to a comment that was made by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the point is well taken, from the point of view that in an actual situation it may not occur. But perception is largely what conflict of interest is all about.

I predict that the moment this situation arises and you have two lawyers representing two opponents in any sort of litigation, once the matter goes to court, once a judge has had an opportunity to determine the issues and render a decision, that the party who is unsuccessful is going to raise the issue of conflict. Therefore, the legislation is potentially quite dangerous. What it may end up resulting in, is the fact that no justice is being served, no matter can reasonably be determined by a court of law, because an unsuccessful litigant will raise this issue at the end of the day. Then we are back to square one.

The issue is obviously of concern, simply because there is reference to the code of ethics in the Law Society Act. However, I would suggest that it has not been completely thought through. It has a potential for devastating what I'm sure all parties in this House in good faith want to accomplish, but I would suggest it isn't going to be accomplished. Because in sensitive issues, particularly in family law matters - and 50 per cent of the cases handled by Legal Aid staff solicitors are family law cases. You have criminal law matters. It will be less an issue in criminal matters, of course, because you have a Crown prosecutor on one side. It would only be an issue if you have two co-accused. If you have an issue where you have the Crown obviously representing the Crown, and co-accused represented by two Legal Aid solicitors, and those two co-accused interests are competing interests, I would suggest we have the same problem.

This legislation, in my view, is questionable. It has a potential for backfiring. It has a potential, from a cost point of view, of defeating the very purpose of it in the first place. Because it could end up again with an unhappy litigant saying that this is unacceptable. The whole area of conflict would have to be reviewed, the legislation would have to be repealed, and these cases, particularly in family law matters, would have to go back before the courts and be reheard.

So, I would suggest that there be serious thought given to what this provision attempts to do. This amendment, in my view, is potentially dangerous. It does not accomplish what in fact the drafters of the legislation have sought to do, and I would strongly suggest that this particular provision be reviewed very carefully in view of the potential that, in my view, it holds.

Just a brief comment on the fact that Legal Aid solicitors are no longer required to pay the necessary Law Society fees. I have no particular difficulty with that. Legal Aid solicitors, I suppose, are no different from anybody else. The $6,000 required by the Law Society, that each person in the practice of law must pay on an annual basis, is a considerable amount of money. They are, in a sense, solicitors of the Crown, in that they are hired by Legal Aid and that they are staff solicitors. And it is my understanding that civil lawyers who are hired in the civil department do not pay at the present time. That is my understanding. Therefore, it would seem unfair that you have those solicitors hired by the Legal Aid Commission now being required or in the past being required to pay the $6,000. So this particular provision I have no difficulty with, but I do sincerely request the minister to have a second look at what he is hoping to accomplish with respect to Section 2 of Bill No. 12, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak at second reading on Bill 12, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act."

The three principle issues here are ones of significance. The first one, which I understand will save the government a considerable amount of money in terms of the funding of Legal Aid having to do with the insurance of Legal Aid solicitors - I don't have a serious difficulty with most of the things that Legal Aid lawyers are involved in and don't give rise to claims for negligence. They don't get involved in real estate and they don't get involved in personal injury claims. There are limitations, periods, that they deal with, but they are few, and mostly in family law areas where, as a matter of course, one commences an action for property damage as well as a child custody or divorce proceeding at the same time. So I don't have a particular difficulty there and whatever problems that would arise are answered by the indemnity that is being given by the government to the actions of the solicitor. So I am not terribly concerned about that, although perhaps the Law Society would be, because they don't have access to the funds to spread the loss under the insurance claims.

I do have a problem with both of the other measures, Mr. Speaker. The previous speaker did not address the issue of a defendant accused in a criminal matter where the minimum sentence is life imprisonment. There is a right now to be represented by the lawyer of your choice when the matter is of such seriousness that the minimum sentence is life imprisonment. We could be talking about a serious murder charge. This is not a reflection on the competency of Legal Aid counsel. Some of the most experienced criminal lawyers in the Province work for Legal Aid and represent individuals in all types of criminal activities involving incarceration. I don't think they do breathalysers or drunk driving charges but some of them are the most experienced criminal lawyers in the Province. It has been the tradition to allow an individual charged with murder to have the right to choose a lawyer outside of Legal Aid to represent him or her and I think that ought to be continued to give people that choice.

The other issue here is one I think is probably the most important and hon. members here should seriously consider whether this is an appropriate piece of legislation. What Clause 2 of the bill proposes to do is to prevent a person really from complaining about a conflict of interest by virtue of being represented by a Legal Aid solicitor when a party opposing him or her or a party at odds with him or her is also represented by a Legal Aid lawyer. I think it is a principle that is as old as codes of ethics in the law,that you ought not to have a conflict of interest in representing someone as an advocate in court. That principle is very old and well- respected and enshrined in the codes of professional conduct of the Canadian Bar Association,as adopted by the Newfoundland Law Society. And it is one which is designed to protect the public and protect litigants from knowing that their representation, the person who is engaged to advocate on their behalf, is not somehow or other involved in a conflict because of a close association with the other party.

In this case, when both the plaintiff and defendant, I suppose you would say, in a case involving Legal Aid representation, if both lawyers are employed by the same operation, the Legal Aid Commission, there is a potential for conflict, and an even greater potential for the perception of conflict by the people involved. As the Member for St. John's East has said in his submission to the House, this is almost as great a problem, from a public policy perspective, as the potential for actual conflict itself.

Litigants, particularly in sensitive matters involving family disputes having to do with custody of children, or the amount of money one has to pay, are constantly concerned about the quality of legal representation that they get, whether it is from the private Bar or from Legal Aid, and are always very, very adamant about having good and proper representation.

One of the ways that the Legal Aid Commission has ensured that people would not have to be concerned about the lawyers working together, as it were, to resolve a case against the interest of one or the other litigants, is by having a system whereby if one of the parties to the litigation, if the dispute is represented by a Legal Aid counsel, then the other party can obtain a lawyer outside of the Legal Aid Commission to represent his or her interest, and that makes the system work and be fair, and be seen to be fair, because there is no one going to suggest that the two Legal Aid lawyers are following some Legal Aid policy to streamline a case, or to avoid a battle between two lawyers who happen to work together. They are working together, if not in the same office then for the same employer. I do not know how it is going to be avoided, the actual sharing of approach or of knowledge, or friendship, within the Legal Aid Commission. Although friendship is not something that one really needs to worry about because you could always be involved in that kind of a situation in the legal practice, where a litigant or a lawyer is trained to act in a professional capacity as an advocate on behalf of his or her client regardless of the circumstances.

The fact of the matter is that this is a conflict and is seen to be a conflict. It is contrary to the rules of the legal ethics of the legal profession to do this, and I think that fact is recognized by government when it purports to overrule the Law Society Act by saying that notwithstanding the Law Society Act the solicitor employed by the commission does not commit a breach of a rule or a code of legal ethics of the Law Society of Newfoundland relating to conflict of interest by reason only of as advising or representing a person in a dispute or a case is being advised or represented by another solicitor employed by the commission.

The minister has not outlined anything other than perhaps there would be other branches of legal aid who would handle other cases. He has not given any detail on that. I do not really know how it can be avoided in a small office, particularly where you have only one or two staff lawyers operating. I suppose it is conceivable that could divide a large office into two, have two different sets of administration, two different filing systems, two different offices in different parts of the city, two different sets of staff. I think it is possible to do that but it seems to be highly impractical to do that, and I think the principle involved here is too important to be breached for the purpose of saving the few dollars that would be saved by this particular measure.

I know there is a cost factor involved and I know government is trying to find ways of saving money, but I think it ought not to be done by diluting or watering down the strong rules that law societies have adopted for the protection of the public in the issue of conflict of interest. I think it is important that people not only know but have faith in the fact that the person representing them does not share an interest with someone who is representing their opposite litigant. The examples are numerous, Mr. Speaker.

The one that is most obvious in the legal aid case is the family law situation where people are fighting over what to them is a most significant matter, and in fact it is in the long-term a very significant matter, over who for example shall have custody of a child and what is the best interest of a child in the particular circumstances. The advocates in the private Bar or in the legal aid system are constantly battling one another with respect to this issue. Litigants involved in a fight over custody are terribly sensitive to the hoped-for independence of their own counsel.

It arises as well in criminal law matters, in particular where you have two people, both who are co-accused of the same crime, and independent representation is very important to ensure that each of them gets separately represented because their interests may well be very different. They may well be very different. Often there is a decision made by one co-accused to take a course of action which is totally at odds to the other co-accused by either testifying against him in court in circumstances where there are grave consequences to the other person who may end up as a result of this decision going to jail and doing time for a crime that he or she has been co-accused with another person. The independence of both counsel involved is most desirable and most important.

People bandy around the phrase conflict of interest quite readily in this House, I know, but quite often they don't fully appreciate the nature of the conflict of interest. This is a circumstance where those people who have been involved in conflict of interest issues far longer than they have been in vogue on the political front, in the legal profession, have set down rules which define how the public can be protected from conflict of interest in these circumstances.

So I am asking hon. members opposite to consider the seriousness of what is being done here, being proposed here, and seek a change from the government with respect to this regulation to make sure that individuals who require legal aid because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer get a level of representation based on the same code of professional conduct as people who are using their own resources to hire a lawyer to defend them. I don't think there should be one code of ethics for people represented privately by private lawyers, and another code of ethics for people who are legal aid clients. That is not what legal aid is designed to do. It is designed to provide the same level and quality of representation to the same standards as is provided to the public, to people who can afford to pay, for their legal representation.

Those are my comments at this stage, and I do urge members opposite to give consideration to these important principles.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for St. John's East for raising these points, and I also thank the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi for elaborating on the points that the hon. Member for St. John's East made. The points, I should tell the House, were already considered in the Department of Justice before we brought this bill forward. We have explored all of the different areas.

You talk about this conflict of interest, and I don't know how far members want to spread that when they spread that brush. If you are going to follow the concept of conflict of interest to its logical conclusion then you would have to say that a Crown prosecutor who is prosecuting an accused, and the lawyer who is representing that accused, who is being paid for by legal aid, if you are going to file the argument that those two hon. gentlemen put forward, then you could never prosecute a case, because the Crown prosecutor being paid for by government is in conflict because the lawyer representing the defendant is being paid for by government.

Of course, both hon. members would be quick to point out: Oh, but the Legal Aid Commission is a separate entity. Yes, it is a separate entity. It is funded by government, and we propose to get around the problem with two lawyers working in the same entity by having a separate branch, a separate office, so we can make sure that the case that the hon. member talked about with the wife versus husband, the husband representing one person and the wife representing another, that could only happen if every judge in the Province totally ignored what was going on, that the wife and husband team had no ethics of their own. It is such a far-fetched suggestion that it is totally ludicrous.

The Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi made the point that when a person is accused of murder there seems to be some unfairness there when the accused could not go outside of legal aid and look for a lawyer. I tell the hon. member that I had the same feelings myself. When you talk about a major crime and you are saying to John Doe, who cannot afford a lawyer, that you have to choose from this group of people, it caused me some concern until it was explained to me that in reality the legal aid lawyers don't have to take second place to anybody in this Province. They have quite a bit of experience, they are in court day after day. They are involved in all kinds of charges, criminal and whatever, Mr. Speaker, so I have come to the conclusion, after discussions with my department, that a person will be well represented by having an experienced lawyer from legal aid. So I stand by the bill and I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 12)

June 17, 1996            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLIII  No. 30A

[Continuation of sitting]

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, Bill No. 13, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act". (Bill No. 13).

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, I wish to point out that this is just a little bit of housekeeping. At the present time, members of the government pension plans - teachers, the public service, and what have you - can change from one fund to the other, and up until now any shortfall which may have occurred was being paid for out of the consolidated revenue fund. As a result of the proposed change here, persons who now change from one pension fund to the other will be required to pay the extra money.

I should point out, for anyone who finds themselves in that situation, that this change will not come into effect until October 1, 1996. So, if any member knows someone, it will be made public so that people who would be caught by this legislation would have until October 1 to make sure that they change from one pension to the other. It is just a little bit of housekeeping.

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

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

We on this side have very few comments to make on this particular bill. We recognize the intent of the government is to make the pensions more portable than they have been, and we also recognize that the intent here is that the people who are in receipt of benefits will be able to pay the extra premiums and then they can access the higher rates. They pay in the appropriate amount, and then they can upgrade their pensions to get a better pension benefit. For example, if somebody were to be elected to the House of Assembly and they had previously been, say, a health care worker, they would have the opportunity, if the House of Assembly pensions were better or different, they could then upgrade their pension premiums to be able to go and get a future benefit for them. On the other hand, if they had a job where the pension premiums were higher than they were, say, for example, as an MHA, they could then take half of that money back on the basis that the employer previously paid in half anyway. I do believe that is the intention.

We on this side of the House will support that initiative if the minister, when he speaks, can confirm that is the intent.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will take as notice the question that the hon. member raised and will address it, no doubt, during the committee stage. I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 13)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 8, Bill No. 16, "An Act To Establish The Memorial University Foundation".

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish The Memorial University Foundation". (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few brief comments with respect to Bill 16.

Mr. Speaker, we have distributed some additional information to the Opposition critic and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I think everybody understands the concept of an opportunity to raise some additional funds for Memorial University to deal with three aspects of their programming: some capital expenditures that they need in the next little while, an increase in the scholarship funds, and also some endowments at the university. It is a cost-shared program, and this legislation in Bill No. 16 actually extends the limits, because they are already having some early successes in getting some rather significant corporate donations. This gives them a different tax treatment to encourage charitable donations so that the net tax credit effect to the donor on the business side is a little greater than is currently available, so that it encourages donors to make large contributions to the University.

That is the gist of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm certainly interested in terms of listening to the debate. Through second reading, or in the Committee stage, we can deal with any questions relating to the bill in this case.

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

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

I've been in the House two and a half years, well, three years now (inaudible) -

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

The Chair recognized the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. E. BYRNE: Sorry about that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I didn't think Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi had two representatives but I'm sure they will welcome whatever representation they can get.

I would like to speak briefly in support of the legislation to establish the Memorial University Foundation. I want to take a couple of moments, despite the anxiety of hon. members to move on to something else for some reason. There must be something even better coming up from the Government House Leader after this bill that the hon. members are anxious to get to.

I will spend my time talking about this one and maybe other people can talk about other legislation, because I think that hon. members should be interested in this legislation because of its importance to the young people of this Province of today and the young people of the future. We aren't going to have the level of education and opportunity for our young people if we don't do everything we can to make Memorial University of Newfoundland the best university that we can possibly make it.

I was reminded, when I saw this legislation, and in my discussion with the Minister of Education the other day, of a statement made by the former president of the University to me a number of years ago when they first started seriously raising funds through the alumni. He said he had just been on a visit up to Mount Allison University. The president of the university there was showing him around the music school, and a big new huge auditorium that they had just recently constructed, state-of-the-art, costing $8 million or $9 million, put in place in a very small university. Mount Allison University only has a couple of thousand students. It is the kind of place which has a good reputation across this country. I think it usually comes up in the first one or two or three - or perhaps the best small university in Canada. Lots of people from this Province go to Mount Allison University; I know from the area of Grand Bank. It seems to be a very popular place for people to go up to university; and also on the West Coast.

The point, Mr. Speaker, was that the president of Mount Allison said: Oh yes, this is a wonderful building, it is totally paid for out of endowments to the university. They didn't have to go to the government for a cent to put that there because perhaps they wouldn't have gotten the money anyway. They were able to have a first-class facility for their music program because of endowments they had received from private industry, from alumni of the university who are asked to contribute from time to time.

I know Memorial University was a bit slow off the mark on raising money from alumni, although it is a very, very popular and long-standing method of raising money for universities throughout Canada, the United States, and the world. In addition to graduating from Memorial, I have a degree from the University of Alberta and from the London School of Economics, and I constantly get appeals from those universities for alumni scholarship funds, for contributions to specific fund-raising activities that they have. I also get them from Memorial University, but I would say that I probably get them more assiduously and more assertively, I suppose, from the other universities than I do from Memorial.

We want to encourage Memorial University to be as aggressive as possible in pursuing fund-raising activities, both in the business, financial and industrial community as well as from its alumni. I notice from the material that the University has produced as part of this program, the statement that there are between 40,000 and 50,000 graduates of Memorial University in the time that it has been a university. That is a very significant contribution to the knowledge base and to the capabilities of our Province to produce well-educated people, many of whom, unfortunately, leave and go elsewhere; but they have made fantastic careers for themselves in other Provinces, in other parts of the world as well as here. Obviously, not every graduate of our university should be expected or should expect to stay in Newfoundland. It is a big world, I say to the Government House Leader, and there is no reason why our graduates from Memorial should not play a role; they don't all have to stay here and work, they can make a contribution to Canada and other provinces. As I think is noted from time to time, four graduates of Memorial are presidents of universities in Canada right now.

We do have a first-class university, Mr. Speaker, but what we need to do is provide opportunities for more of our students to get scholarships. I spoke to a young person the other day who graduated from Acadia, a Newfoundlander, and I said: Why did you go to Acadia? He said: Well, I went to Acadia because they gave me the biggest scholarships. I could go to Acadia and get scholarships, and I didn't even think of going to MUN because they didn't have a scholarship for me.

If this bill can help - there ought to be strong support for the building up of a scholarship fund, in particular, so that more of our students have access to funds so they can go to university. It is becoming an increasing burden on students to find the funds for university. The student grants have been changed into loans, Mr. Speaker. The cost of university has been considerably increased and most recently by the Senate of Memorial University in increasing fees. We are getting to the point, Mr. Speaker, where people are not going to have access to university unless they have substantial funds, and they are not going to have substantial funds. Only the wealthy will be able to go unless we can find a way to ensure that university students at Memorial have the same access to scholarships and proper learning as they do in other universities. Until we can do that, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bonavista South got you the other day.

So I say to hon. members that this bill is worthy of support. It has my wholehearted support and I hope that it is successful in facilitating the raising of a tremendous amount of funds for Memorial University.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised today by the Government House Leader, I am surprised he can speak at all. Rumour has it he was drinking out of a PC wineglass on Friday night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Really!

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, honest to God, Mr. Speaker. Friday night, at a function, the hon. the Government House Leader, the man who epitomizes Liberalism in the Province, was drinking out of a PC wineglass. There can't be any truth to that. Is that true?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) and a glass of PC (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And drank wine out of it, Mr. Speaker. I am surprised today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am surprised that he can utter any comments today, Mr. Speaker, that his lips are still right under his nose.

But more to the point, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: You threw the glass away after, didn't you?

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, there have been a number of instances of late in this House where he has been very kind, which is unbecoming your character. You have tossed some remarks to your hon. colleague. I suggest you take him outside and have a long talk with him.

Mr. Speaker, more to the point, in terms of Bill No. 16, "An Act To Establish The Memorial University Foundation." This is an idea that has been around for some time. It is a concept that is alive and well in many other universities across the country. The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi referred to Mount Allison University. Mount Allison University, if I'm not mistaken, raises about 35 per cent to 40 per cent of its budget from solicitations and donations made to the university from its old established alumni.

In terms of Memorial, Memorial is a young university in terms of comparing it to other universities across the country. It is right now in a position where many of its alumni are reaching a status where they want to leave or donate things to the University. This act provides for a more effective administration of it, provides for more incentives in terms of tax purposes.

I will reserve my comments for the Committee stage, for the clause by clause, because there are some there. I say that it is timely, it is an idea that is long overdue, and I suspect the community at large and the University community itself certainly are waiting for and applaud this piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We appreciate the support and we will deal with the questions in Committee.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Establish The Memorial University Foundation," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 16)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 5, Bill No. 7, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act."

In the absence of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal will open and close debate on that.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act". (Bill No. 7)

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, essentially the Provincial Parks Act is being amended to ensure that the government would be exempt from any liability from users of the T'Railway. Cabinet directed that the abandoned CN rail bed from Port aux Basques to St. John's be proclaimed a provincial park under the Provincial Parks Act. That means all of the former rail bed has now been transferred from Canadian National to the Province. Justice officials have advised that a liability exemption clause to the Provincial Parks Act is needed because the park will not be maintained by staff to the degree other provincial parks are.

Without such an exception, a reasonable maintenance system must be instituted for the park and the park would have to be maintained to an appropriate standard, costing millions of dollars. Therefore government is proposing that we develop and manage this park in management with local committees, development associations, et cetera.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 7)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," Bill No. 18.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act". (Bill No. 18.)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill, actually, and I think it has the agreement of all sides. What it enables us to do is to take care of members' needs and not be stuck solely to what a commission that I believe is some eight or nine years old, the Morgan Commission, recommended, but allows the Internal Economy Commission which is responsible for running the affairs of the House to see that the appropriate actions are taken to take care of members' needs. I move second reading.

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

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

We on this side agree with the intent. I believe it is incumbent upon members to note that this makes it possible for the members of this House to have a net saving to the treasury this year of about $198,000. It is a way in which members of this House are acting responsibly. I am pleased to say that from this side of the House and as a member of the Internal Economy Commission. We have done our part as members of the House to try and help the government address its financial position. So on behalf of the Internal Economy Commission and speaking for members on this side, we want all members to know that this is the amendment that will legitimize the changes to the constituency allowances and the members' travel benefits. From that package there have been net changes from last year of about $198 and so many dollars, and it is the part that we all play in helping the government meet its budgetary shortfalls.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak briefly on this issue. The considerations that are important here in terms of the specific changes that were being contemplated by the Internal Economy commission, as I understand them as communicated to me, I support them. I think it is to be noted here that the only provision that is being changed is that the travel and constituency allowances can be changed but anything else is as written as in the Morgan Report. I think it is important to note, for anybody who thinks that the Internal Economy Commission is now going to be in charge of salaries, indemnities, and allowances, that that is not what is in this bill; that it is only the travel and constituency allowance portion of it.

I think there is one thing that I would ask someone on behalf of the Internal Economy Commission to assure the House of, and that is right now members are operating under the Morgan Commission Report which is public, available to the public, available to the media, and available to all hon. members, and what I am asking someone to confirm, or someone to assure the House in public of, is that the new rules, as they apply to travel and constituency allowances, be published and be as available as the Morgan Commission Report is.

It is one of those areas, Mr. Speaker - certain members in the last House had trouble with the rules. They were criticized publicly and privately, and in this House, over the application of the rules, and that may well be rightly so, but if the rules are not published and public, then the public does not have an opportunity to understand what the rules are and how they are to apply.

I don't have a problem with the amendment but I would want some assurance that the new rules will be as public as the Morgan Commission rules so that everybody understands what they are, how they apply, and whether members are complying with them, and not just when the Internal Economy Commission reports a year or so from now. If someone can assure me of that I have no trouble supporting the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader. If he speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of this bill, and if there are some question that the hon. gentleman wants answered we will answer him in committee.

On motion, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 18)

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

MR. TULK: Order No. 10, Bill No. 17, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act." (Bill No. 17)

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

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

This amendment is an amendment to the Packaging Waste Materials Act and is an amendment which is enabling legislation. It is an enabling amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think that should be withdrawn.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think I'm getting pretty good at this stuff, as a matter of fact; enabling amendment. It is an enabling amendment that would allow for the establishment of a multi-materials stewardship board for the Province. As the government is now reviewing the options as to dealing with packaging waste, this would allow for government to establish a multi-materials stewardship board for the Province when it sees fit to do so. It would be legislation which would allow for this -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is enabling legislation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, it is enabling legislation. It would allow for the establishment of, at the direction of government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, it doesn't mean we are doing it. It just means that it would allow for the potential of this to occur.

The bill goes on to describe, Mr. Speaker, how the board will be made up. It also goes on to describe the regulations that would have to be brought forward. They would have to come to government for final consideration. The status, the functions, duties, powers, and purposes of the board, including regulations. It talks about the appointment of members to the board, it talks about the election or appointment of officers, the appointment and hiring of employees, reports and disclosures of information to the minister. It also talks about how a deposit refund system could be administered. It also would allow, under the act, for the option of a levy system to be legislated and brought forward under regulation.

At the present time government is looking at both options, and this would allow for - the stewardship board would be set up to administer whichever option the government decides to approve. This stewardship board, we believe, would be very positive. We haven't finalized a decision on it but we think we should bring it forward as a possibility to develop. This amendment would allow, along with what exists now in the Packaging Material Act, to have this as an option for government to decide on. We expect to be doing so in very short order, and thus the amendment is required so that the government has the option to make a decision.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, maybe I'm confused - it probably wouldn't be the first time - but if I've heard the minister correctly it is that government really hasn't made a decision on proceeding with this stewardship board yet. Is that correct?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Officially.

MR. E. BYRNE: Officially. That government is looking at two options: Either a stewardship board with refund deposits, or a levy system.

MR. K. AYLWARD: A stewardship board would administer either option.

MR. E. BYRNE: Either option.

MR. K. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) looking at the whole question, either option A or B.

MR. E. BYRNE: I see. So if -

MR. K. AYLWARD: The board will still come - we would have to make a decision, yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: The stewardship board is something that is going to happen?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Overall, we are looking at it.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what the minister said.

MR. K. AYLWARD: We haven't officially announced it, we are looking at it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, you haven't officially announced it. You have unofficially talked about announcing it here then. We could say that.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: So the stewardship board is coming. Then either the stewardship board, given direction by Cabinet, by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, will either proceed with a refund depository system or will proceed with a levy system. I just want to make some comments. I want to be clear in terms of where government is coming from, first of all.

This, while maybe not a new concept to the minister or the Department of Environment and Labour, I suspect it may be a new concept to the general public at large. There hasn't been a lot of debate on this issue. I believe last week there were some comments and concerns raised in the media. The minister was interviewed a couple of times certainly on local radio, certainly on the t.v. as well.

I would like to know what industry is saying about this in terms of how it will impact upon industry, particularly those who are bottling soft drinks in the Province right now; what their views are on it. I would like to know where government sees - if they proceeds with a refund depository sort of system where these centres will be set up, what the cost will be, Mr. Speaker, associated with setting up these centres. While I guess this House shouldn't hold up unduly legislation coming before the House that could have a positive impact on the community as a whole and the Province as a whole, I think it is necessary that we probably have more discussion about what this piece of legislation will actually mean.

The opportunity I guess will arise in greater detail in terms of the clause by clause debate on the bill, but I would particularly like to hear the minister in his closing comments enlighten and inform the House of his discussions with industry, where they have taken place, how much consultation has taken place, how long this has been bantered around within the boardroom, so to speak, and not within the public domain, what reaction or response he has received from people who are interested on the other side of the coin in terms of protection of the environment, what will this mean in terms of lessening the amount of garbage that goes to landfill sites, et cetera?

I will sit down with those brief remarks, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to getting into the clause-by-clause debate on this particular piece of legislation, but I would like to ask the minister again to provide as much detail as he can without circumventing the Cabinet process on who he has talked to, what the industry's responses are, what the environmental movement's responses are to this particular piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour. If he speaks now he closes the debate.

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

I certainly would welcome the opportunity to let the Opposition know, and the House of Assembly know, where we are in our discussions as we have been in negotiations with the industry and with other groups looking at where we go with packaging waste. What this amendment does is enable the government, as does the other legislation that we have now with this act, allows us to go with the development of a levy or a deposit refund system. This amendment would allow us to set up a stewardship board if we deem it to be so, and if we deem that we want to carry forward with the policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 17)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we have leave to rise the House and move into Committee on those bills, and we will start with Bill No. 17 in Committee.

I move that we move into Committee of the Whole to discuss Bill No. 17 and others.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 17, "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act".

CHAIR: Bill No. 17.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I did not get a chance to speak on second reading of this bill, as I was engaged in an important conversation with another hon. member, but I do want to raise a few issues in relation to this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You got it the last time you raised that question.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us - the minister has made all kinds of promises from time to time about a policy coming from his department. We are seeing some enabling legislation here, and I have a lot of concerns that we do not know where we are going with this. A lot of concern, Mr. Speaker, because this is a controversial issue. This is not a matter of simply saying: Yes, we shall have a packaging material, or a multi-material stewardship board, and give the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the power to make regulations. That could lead us anywhere. We do not know where that is going. The minister wants the support of the House for the legislation, and for each and every clause and sub-clause of this here. Basically it looks like, at least from this point of view, that the minister is about to turn responsibility over to a board and wash his hands of it all, and say: Look what we have done. We have set up a board. Now, who are we going to put on the board? Well, of course, we have to put people from the industry on the board.

Are we going to have the industry setting the decisions for this the way they have managed to set the agenda for this government in the area of soft drink packages, so that there isn't one single returnable soft drink bottle in the Province right now. Are we going to have that kind of influence dominating this board?

We are all into the lingo of stewardship. The industry even talks about that at length, at length, at length, as long as it can possibly talk about it without doing anything. Now the government's response is to set up a board. We don't know who is going to be on that board. I'm sure the minister will talk about stakeholders when he talks about it, and obviously one of the biggest stakeholders are the people who are making all the mess, the people who are manufacturing the mess, the ones who are importing all the containers, who are involved in the goods handling sector. I'm sure there will be representatives from the environmental community. The make up of the board is probably the most important factor involved here, and we don't seem to have any clear policy directives coming from this government other than the fact that they have been studying this issue. Just you wait and see, one of these days we are going to have some announcements.

Mr. Speaker, the enabling legislation has preceded the announcements. We don't know where this government is going. I'm not sure it knows itself. The minister is also into the lingo. He knows all about words like sustainability and stewardship and this type of lingo which is part of the rhetoric in the environmental industry. What we find when we come across ideas of this nature that are kind of new to government, that government is very quick to grab on to the buzzwords. The Brund Hant commission on the environment and the international environmental scene developed this notion of sustainable development. Governments were very quick to catch on to the buzzword and talked about sustainable development, but in terms of the hard policies and the hard decisions that have to be made in order to enable that to happen, we don't see them.

We see the continuation, for example - a couple of years ago we had a report on forestry that talked with the great foreboding about the shortage of wood projected into the future. We haven't seen any concrete plans to deal with that. Some hard decisions have to be made. Industry has to be forced to respond to the need.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) million dollars worth of work (inaudible) silviculture and you stand over there and say: There has been no concrete action (inaudible) of wood.

MR. HARRIS: What I'm saying is that there is no concrete action to deal with the problem from the problem's perspective. What the minister is doing is spending money on silviculture. Governments have been spending money on silviculture for the last ten years and yet the amount of money being spent on silviculture has not increased and the problem has not been solved, I say to the minister. The minister feels that he can get away with public relation statements, and saying: Well, we are spending $11 million, so therefore the problem must be solved. The concrete action that solves the problem of sustainability of the forests has not been taken because the problem is still there. The long-term wood supply problem is still there and has not been comprehensively addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the minister plans to handle this Committee stage. Perhaps we can hear from the Minister of Environment and Labour to tell us some specific plans as to how this multi-materials stewardship board is going to handle this issue, and what kinds of policy directives are going to be contained in the minister's regulations. This is essentially enabling legislation. That is exactly what it is, enabling legislation, allowing the government to set up a board and allowing the Cabinet to make regulations "relating to the status, functions, duties, powers, objects and purposes of the board, including regulations..." that lay out the appointment of members, the appointing of officers, hiring employees, and setting up a little bureaucracy, Mr. Chairman. It seems, you know, as if there is going to be another arm's-length board, where government is going to be able to say: well, we are dealing with the issue because we had given this board the responsibility and now government is going to have to sit back and see, give them two or three years to do their job. Mr. Chairman, that seems to me, to be government avoiding its responsibilities and not taking them on. If they don't have a very clear set of guidelines with targets and goals for operations and recycling and some good examples from government - I mean, I have raised it numerous times in the House of Assembly. It is not just packaging that causes problems. The Workers' Compensation Commission sends shredded paper to the dump; after going through the trouble of shredding their documents, their bond papers and fine papers, they are all loaded onto a truck and brought to Robin Hood Bay and dumped in the landfill; not recycled.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you made representation to the Minister of Lands?

MR. HARRIS: No, I haven't. I made them in the House the other day. I don't know if the minister was listening; sometimes ministers don't listen and they ask questions after you make a speech. There are a lot of examples in government.

I said the other day, and one of these days I am going to trace it down, I would be very surprised if the material that we are throwing in these garbage buckets here in the House don't go to Robin Hood Bay. So there has to be policy by example within government itself, not just voluntary goodwill of government employees, doing it on a voluntary basis. I understand there is some sort of fund-raising activity going on, and there is nothing wrong with that, but if government as a whole does not have adopted as part of its operation, the use and reuse of materials within government and the recycling of materials within the government as a means of setting an example for the public, then we are not going to get very far.

So I call on the minister, if he wants the support of members of this House for this legislation, that he give us some details as to what are his plans. Is he just going to fob off responsibility for these issues onto a creative board at arm's length from the government? Whom does he plan to put on this board? Does he have his plans in mind already? How is he going to set guidelines? Who is going to, for example, force the Newfoundland Liquor Commission to start recycling and reusing their bottles and putting a deposit on things? Who is going to do it?

Is it going to be the Materials Management Stewardship Board? Are they going to be given that responsibility? Or is the minister responsible for Newfoundland Liquor Corporation going to tell them that you cannot go to New Brunswick and buy thousands and hundreds of thousands of bottles every year, bring them to Newfoundland and fill them up with liquor and have them end up in the Robin Hood Bay or in the waste dumps across this Province?

You are going to have to, Mr. Chairman, take on this as a bit of a campaign within government and within government departments and agencies to find ways, and find every way, that is possible to use and reuse packages to reduce the amount of money that is spent on solid waste management, on landfill sites, by setting the example in government and government agencies, in liquor stores, liquor corporation, Workers' Compensation Commission, every corporation and agency that government has to have as part of its operation. It is a cost-saving measure too. It will save money, Mr. Chairman, for government and it will also create jobs.

I heard someone say the other day - this person is involved in one of the recycling programs - how many jobs are buried in Robin Hood Bay? How many jobs are being carted to the landfill every day and dumped in Robin Hood Bay? That is one way of thinking about recycling, Mr. Chairman; how many jobs do we dump in the landfill. When provinces like Nova Scotia which is not that much bigger than Newfoundland, can have a whole paper mill devoted solely to using recycled papers as the feed for a paper mill with a $27 million capital investment that is going to make money for industry, then, Mr. Chairman, there are things that should be able to be done in this Province, too. Government has the responsibility to promote that and find ways of making the system of recycling, of reusing materials, one that is profitable and that encourages people who have the initiative to get involved in these programs and do something with them.

I know the minister is sincere but I have not heard the substance from this minister about what exactly he plans to do. The Government House Leader hopes to get legislation through but all he does is heckle and it does not exactly encourage me. When the minister says, sit down, I find another reason to keep going. I do not know why the minister is doing it because all he is doing is encouraging me to continue, and I thank him for the encouragement because I need it from time to time. I do not have many members in my party here, in my caucus, to support me, so I need the encourage from members opposite from time to time to continue with my speeches.

I am hoping that the minister will enlighten us further if he expects to have support from this side of the House. I am sure there are other hon. members who wish to speak, so I will sit down and give them an opportunity.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

As I said in my opening remarks when we went through second reading, the general public is really not informed as to what this particular piece of legislation is. I think government knows where it is going but they have not make their intentions known. It seems to me that within the department in dealing with industry out there that maybe the minister and government are dealing somewhat with the carrot and the stick, and in passing this legislation before we leave this House can say to industry: Look, we have this. This is the law of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: A hidden agenda.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I am not suggesting a hidden agenda, not at all. I have not even said that this is a bad piece of legislation. There are merits in this legislation, no question.

The point I want to make to the minister is that, in passing this legislation here today, or tomorrow, whenever we pass it, next week or however long we are here, where is government going specifically I ask the minister? On this particular clause, what has industry been saying, both on the positive and negative side, in dealing with this particular piece of legislation? Are they in favour of a levy, or are they in favour of the deposit system? Which is it?

If government has not really made a positive statement on which way it is going with this piece of legislation, then way have we introduced the legislation at this point?

I will sit down on this clause and let the minister answer a few questions on it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the questions and the thoughts from both members who are sincerely interested in this topic, and who always ask very competent questions when it comes to this issue.

The rationale or reasoning for introducing the amendment which is an enabling amendment at this point in time is because if we make a decision, and we expect to make a decision in very short order, we want to be able to implement, if we chose to go in a certain direction, be it a levy system or a deposit return system, whichever way we go, we would like to have the legislation that allows us to establish what we need to establish to have the system up and running.

In order words, the Packaging Waste Materials Act right now allows us to go with a levy or deposit return system right now. We have had that ability for three or four years within the department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why did you not do it?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Why did we not do it? Is he on this side of the House or on that side of the House?

So, in due course, and in very short order, the detailed policy of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will be announced, which will give vivid detail of exactly how the changes we are bringing in, and the policy changes that we may bring - the detail will be announced at the same time. What this is here, is an enabling piece of legislation which allows us to go in a certain direction. That is what it does. So the government will have to be held totally accountable anyway in whatever we do. We will have to announce exactly what regulations we would have. We will have to announce the policy direction we are going in, be it a levy system.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say we have a levy system in place right now which is a one cent levy which the industry has brought forward. That has been the industry's solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry it.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is almost carried. That is the industry's solution to dealing with waste management for that particular industry. What we are saying is - and we have been in negotiations with, and we have discussed with the industry in particular, the fact that the rates of return are not high enough and that we don't have a stable recycling system. We are trying to get a stable recycling system in this Province. This amendment will help us decide our options. When we bring our policy forward it will help us and allow us to move forward.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, it sets the stage. This legislation sets the stage for us to bring forward a more comprehensive policy to deal with packaging waste in this Province. That is all the amendment does. It allows us to bring forward, it sets the stage for us to do so, and it allows us to bring forward the detailed announcements we are going to bring forward in very short order as to policy initiative in this area. It is an enabling piece of legislation which would allow for the development of a multi-materials collection board which would deal with packaging waste materials in this Province and would set the stage for us to decide which direction we are going in.

Mr. Chairman, we are going in a direction. We are going to go in a direction very shortly and we will announce that direction very shortly. In order to do that I would like to see if we can get this amendment brought forward which would set the stage, allow us then to announce which direction we are going to go.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the minister is interested in solving this problem that he has, but I'm really not sure who he is talking to. I know he has to deal with the packaging industry, and I know they have a very big lobby and they have been lobbying hard and long in this Province for the last fifteen years. But I don't have a lot of confidence at this point, if the minister, after all this time, is still not able to say how he is about to go and resolve this problem.

I'm a little suspicious, Mr. Chairman, when the minister continues negotiations, discussions and consultations and all of this, because all those negotiations and consultations are going on behind closed doors with very powerful people who are not the public. I know the minister is supposed to represent the public interest, but the public is not having a lot of direct input on this except in the forum such as this where we are given a chance to ask questions or make comments about the need for action.

While I'm on my feet, I want to say that I'm very disappointed with the results of the levy system that we have had on soft drink containers over the last couple of years. Because what we have actually done is given the industry a fund to propagandize the public about the issue, and to really put the blame back on the people instead of on the industry that has caused the problem in the first place.

We don't have to solve all the problems at once. We can in fact have an attack on one part of the problem without having all of the problem solved at once. I mean, this is not a new issue. When I lived in the Province of Alberta in 1976 there was a deposit and return system in place forced on the industry by government, particularly for bottles. It included liquor and wine bottles, bottles that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it working?

MR. HARRIS: Working? It was working then, Mr. Speaker, and it is still working today.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Manitoba?

MR. HARRIS: I don't know about Manitoba. I'm talking about my experience living in Alberta when it was a regular feature to bring materials to these bottle depots. No matter what kind of bottle or container it was, you could get a refund on it. It made it worth your while to recycle these or bring these bottles to the depot.

I think that is the kind of system that is going to generate an awful lot of activity outside of the industry itself for individuals who will get involved in the recycling business, Mr. Chairman; hundreds of jobs throughout this Province of people engaging in the collection of packaging materials, bottles, containers, and bringing them to these depots and centres, because it will generate that kind of activity which is more or less self-selective. You don't have to set up a big bureaucracy to do it. You don't have to have a big decision about how you are going to allocate funds from the levy, who you are going to give them back to, all kinds of toing and froing and lobbying within industry for influence with this board, lobbying particular members of the board, dangers of conflicts of interest of people involved in the board and also involved in one or the other of the industries, all of these things that you will have if you have a levy system that then has to be managed. So it is almost like a little separate tax system where there is a levy collected, and it is all at the disposal of this board, and the board has to then decide how to use it. I think that would be a very retrogressive and dangerous step because it will be out of public control.

If we are going to have a choice of systems, a deposit system seems to me to offer the most opportunity for as many people as possible to get involved in the effort to recycle containers and to clean up the environment and make a few dollars while doing it. It seems to me that is a way that more people can get involved and the public can have a greater awareness of the need for getting involved in these environmental issues.

I guess the thing that is missing from the equation is any real public consultation on the proposed system. It seems the minister is continuing his negotiations inside, in-house. Can he put forth the proposal, at least a tentative proposal, and invite public discussion on it before he makes up his mind? My concern is that once this House closes tomorrow or the next day, some time over the course of the summer the minister is going to say" Well, I have finally made up my mind, folks. You might not like it, but here it is. It is July; there is not much you can do about it; instead of having some public consultation where people are invited to criticize and offer comments before the final decision is made. That way we could save ourselves a lot of trouble. We could save ourselves a lot of trouble if the minister would put forth his ideas tentatively and allow public comment and discussion before a final decision is made.

I appreciate that he needs legislation to provide a framework for operating any system, but I have concerns about this legislation without knowing what we are getting. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and saying we should pass this legislation and let the minister make his decisions afterwards.

I have misgivings, Mr. Chairman, about this without a definite opinion from the minister, and I would ask that he commit himself to some public consultation, aside from the industry consultation he is now having, before a final decision is made.

On motion, Clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some questions for the minister relating to clause 2, from (a) to (o) basically.

Clause (2)(a) says: "Respecting the appointment of members, including regulations which govern terms of appointment...", I wonder if the minister could indicate if those regulations are done, the terms of appointment, composition of the membership, qualifications and remuneration. Has any of that been decided, minister?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: We know all about that, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. There is no doubt we know all about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: To that question, Mr. Chairman:, no. Again this is enabling legislation that would allow us to do so, so there is no detail as to either (a) to (o) in that sense. It would allow us to do the following if we decide to go in that direction.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister: In terms of what you have put here, has industry had any input into the makeup of this legislation, what you have here in terms of hiring employees and membership of the board? Can you even give us any indication of what the board makeup would look like, how many people would be on the board? Again, it is not something that you can necessarily hold the minister to, but just to get some indication of government's thinking and the minister's thinking on this.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

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

This is very similar to what Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and other jurisdictions have already done. They call it in Nova Scotia a Resource Recovery Fund and in New Brunswick they call it the Stewardship Board. The Stewardship Board is set up at arm's length from government to look at the waste management initiatives, to negotiate and to work with industry to reduce waste in the Province. So in those jurisdictions, that is what the effort has been to do.

We would envision, if we decide to go in that direction, having the stewardship corporation do very much the same thing. The membership would be made up of stakeholders in industry, we would be looking at people in the environmental field being a makeup of the board, and we are also looking at government people who would be on such a board. So we are talking more of a tri-partite membership; it would be public/private sector. You know, in the focus of public and private sector partnerships these days, well this is very much similar to that.

If we go in this direction, the reasoning is because the industry which was asked to develop a system to collect their packaging waste have not done so. In other words, because they have not done it well enough or acceptable enough to government, we are saying we want enabling legislation to allow us to do something else if we are not satisfied.

CHAIR: Clause 2, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the minister expects the public to get excited about the whole idea of recycling and deposit and return, I mean, you would think he would come up with a better name than the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board. Sure, school kids are not even going to be able to pronounce that, let alone know what it means. Couldn't the minister come up with a better name than that? Did he have a brainstorming session with his ministers to come up with that or is this just something that rolled off the bureaucrats' rhetoric book, the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board? It sounds like somebody is inventing new words. Couldn't they come up with a sexier name than that? I ask the minister, where did he get this name? Is it intended to assist his marketing the idea of having recycling, or would he be prepared to consider better names than this one, Mr. Speaker?

On motion, clause 2, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill No. 17, "An Act To Amend the Packaging Material Act," without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think we have agreed basically that we will close at 6:00 p.m. and come back again at 7:00 p.m., so I would move that we adjourn the Committee until 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: We will just take a recess. No motion necessary.

The House resumed at 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think we adjourned debate on the Committee reading of "An Act To Amend The Packaging Material Act," Bill No. 17.

CHAIR: We passed it.

MR. TULK: It was passed?

CHAIR: Yes.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the following bills without amendment, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill No. 18); and,

A bill, "An Act To Establish The Memorial University Foundation." (Bill No. 16)

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: "An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act," Bill No. 12.

On motion, clause 1, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A question really for clarification more than anything. It has to do with section 2 of the proposed legislation dealing with when either "...another solicitor who is employed by the commission or to a solicitor who is a member of the appropriate panel in an area."

My question, and maybe this can be responded to by the Government House Leader if he is familiar with when the situation may arise, and it is: When is it? Clearly the legislation states it is a situation either/or, but when is it when there would be a solicitor who was employed by the Legal Aid Commission as opposed to a member of the appropriate panel in the area?

MR. TULK: I will get the answer for the hon. gentleman. I am sure the Minister of Justice will (inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Sure, that is fine, Mr. Chairman.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill No. 12 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Bill No. 7, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act."

On motion, clause 1, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill No. 7 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: "An Act To Amend The Portability of Pensions Act," Bill No. 13, Order No. 3.

On motion, clause 1, carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Bill No. 13 is amended by striking out in clause 2 the date "July 1, 1996" wherever it occurs and by substituting the date "August 1, 1996." So moved.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I think that is an error. That is supposed to be clause 3.

MR. TULK: Clause 2 it says here.

CHAIR: Yes, but that is wrong.

MR. TULK: Clause 3?

CHAIR: Clause 3.

MR. TULK: Okay, we will wait until we get to clause 3.

CHAIR: So the amendment is: Bill 13 is amended by striking out, in clause 3, the date "July 1, 1996" wherever it occurs, and by substituting the date "August 1, 1996."

AN HON. MEMBER: August 1?

CHAIR: Yes, 1996.

On motion, Clause 2, carried.

On motion, amendment, carried.

On motion, Clause 3 as amended, carried.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act." (Bill No. 13)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order No. 2, Bill No. 1.

CHAIR: Bill No. 1.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Law To Give Effect To Certain Recommendations Of The Commissioner For Regulatory Reform." (Bill No. 1)

On motion, clauses 1 through to 85, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Will I to do third readings?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I think we should probably leave them until tomorrow because we need to get His Honour in, and we need to open the House and get straightened away, so we won't be that long in dealing with it anyway tomorrow, if we can get the Opposition House Leader... We need some business on the Order Paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I would like to get it all done anyway, but I cannot. I don't think I should, really.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report considerable progress, and report Bills 1, 13, 7, 12, 16, 18 and 17 carried through Committee, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to it referred and has passed Bills 17, 18, 16, 12, 7 and 1 without amendment, and Bill 13 with amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, amendment to Bill No. 13 read a first and second time, ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: A bill that was amended has to be read a third time. Are we going to do third readings now on the bills?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, so they will be read a third time tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was just the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment and the bill will be read a third time tomorrow; that is the procedure as I understand it.

We have had the first and second readings of the amendments. Now the amendment with the bill will be read a third time as part of the bill tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.