April 7, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 13


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the galleries today twenty-five Grade VI students from Vanier Elementary in the District of St. John's East. They are accompanied by teacher, Gillian Blackmore and Teacher's Aid, Joanne Niles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I ask you, along with all members of the House, to join with us in celebrating a birthday. The hon. the Member for Bellevue is celebrating a birthday today, a milestone year for him, it is his fiftieth year - he may not want everyone to know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

Statements by Ministers

 

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that I have decided to reject the report of my commissioner on the Plan Amendment adopted by the St. John's City Council for the Mount Cashel property and to approve the Amendment as requested by the City of St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: The City amendment to its municipal plan went through the normal public hearing process. The commissioner appointed to report on the hearing recommended that the Amendment not be approved. However, City Council voted to request me to reject that recommendation and approve the amendment. I have acceded to that request. It is my responsibility under the Urban and Rural Planning Act to take a decision on municipal council's requests for approval of their plan amendments.

Several times in the past few years, I have taken similar action to reject reports from my hearing commissioners on municipal plan amendments. Although this does not happen in the typical case of a municipal plan amendment, from time to time, the circumstances are such that the commissioner and the council involved do not, in the end, agree on the wisdom of a particular amendment. Examples of situations where I have acceded to council requests, and approved plan amendments against recommendations of the commissioners involved include an amendment for Deer Lake [bars in Town Centre] in September, 1996; one for St. John's [commercial site on Hunts Lane] and another in July, 1995, for the City of Mount Pearl [art gallery].

It is not appropriate for me to hold in abeyance the City of St. John's amendment or others in the process while the amendment to the Urban and Rural Planning Act recently initiated by this government proceeds through consideration by this House. That amendment would enable all municipalities to approve changes in their plans without any ministerial or provincial approval.

Thank you very much, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time as the Member of the House of Assembly for the very part of the city which is in question, namely, the Mount Cashel property. I wish to acknowledge that certainly the minister has the right, the legal right and the legislative right to give the announcement that he has given today; however, I remind the minister that there have been two independent commissions and there has also been a procedural issue which was determined in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.

The people of the East End of St. John's have spoken loudly as to where their wishes are on this particular issue, so, therefore, the question has to be asked, Mr. Speaker, where is the procedural fairness, where is the integrity of the system when, in fact, there had been recommendation on behalf of two commissioners and we have had hundreds and hundreds of people of the Northeast Land Assembly in particular, who have spoken loudly and clearly on the issue.

I acknowledge the fact that the minister has the right to perhaps do what he is doing but I question the fact that we are abdicating the whole issue of procedural fairness and we are turning our backs towards the system that many people in this jurisdiction have placed their faith in. I find that, Mr. Speaker, most unfortunate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I do not support the minister's action in this matter. The people of that area had a great interest in what happened to that property and put their faith in a process that involved several stages. They put a lot of time and effort into it and have, as the previous speakers indicated, received two favourable commissioners reports. This is not a technical amendment, this is one that involves a fair amount of public participation, and while I agree that the new legislation being proposed by the minister will give the City of St. John's in the future, and I hope not every municipality in the Province but at least the City of St. John's and some others, the power to make amendments to their (inaudible) but the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: While I support that, Mr. Speaker, I do not support retroactively undoing a process in which the people have put their faith.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today it is with great pleasure that I announce this government's decision to implement hunting regulations which will benefit persons with disabilities in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: These regulations are specifically targeted at those with permanent mobility and vision impairments, who because of their disability are not able to participate in a big game hunting experience. The objective of these regulations will be to provide a mechanism whereby individuals with permanent mobility and vision impairments can meet the training prerequisite to big game licensing and participate to the greatest degree possible in hunting activity.

Mr. Speaker, my department is preparing regulations and they will be ready for the 1999-2000 big game draw. Because the application deadline has already passed for the upcoming season's big game draw and the regulations are not yet in place, these provisions cannot be implemented for this fall's season.

In making this announcement, I must recognize the sincere and committed efforts of the MHA for Grand Falls - Buchans, Ms Anna Thistle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: She deserves a great deal of credit, Mr. Speaker, who, along with the Central Newfoundland Coalition of Persons with Disabilities, officials from my department and others, worked on the development of these regulations. I would also like to recognize the efforts of Mr. Russell Rogers, who is present in the gallery today. Mr. Rogers has been a driving force behind the efforts to make provisions for disabled persons to take part in the annual big game hunt. Mr. Rogers is joined today with his family, and Garland and Linda Stuckless of the Exploits Disability Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Stuckless is also Chairman of the Central Newfoundland Coalition of Disability Organizations.

The first component of this new initiative will involve the mandatory provincial training program which is required by hunters as a prerequisite to licensing. Mr. Speaker, work will begin immediately to ensure that there are no barriers within the Firearm Safety/Hunter Education course that would prevent legally blind or mobility impaired persons from completing it as a prerequisite to applying for a big game licence as normal procedure.

Another significant provision of this initiative is a hunter assisted program which will allow a person with one of these disabilities to designate a shooter. In the case of persons with permanent mobility impairments, he or she may if they so wish, legally assign another qualified hunter to shoot a big game animal. In the case of persons who are legally blind, he or she must assign another qualified hunter to shoot a big game animal. Under both situations, the person with the disability must accompany the designated shooter to the greatest degree possible. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I refer to must and may. This distinction is made to recognize the fact that many permanently mobility impaired persons already can and do harvest their own big game animals. Further details on this hunter assisted program will be made available once officials from my department have had a chance to put the appropriate administrative process in place.

In developing these regulations, this government has had to be sensitive to the needs of the disabled communities without jeopardizing the integrity of our very successful wildlife management programs. This includes implications to the resource, human safety concerns, and the fair and equal treatment of all hunters. Mr. Speaker, I can say here today that these concerns have been considered and incorporated into this new initiative. These regulations recognize the desire of the Province's disabled groups for inclusion rather than exemption and in no way jeopardize the safety of existing hunters.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me with a copy of this Ministerial Statement prior to the opening of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is a happy day when we finally see the integration of those with disabilities with those with abilities. We are finally seeing some of the obstacles and some of the barriers taken down that people who are challenged today are continually faced with.

I compliment the people who the minister identified in his Ministerial Statement. I know that Mr. Rogers has made many trips into this House itself, into this building, trying to get those regulations changed. I, myself, take part in big game hunting and I see no reason why this could not have happened far sooner than today. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the minister and I would ask him to encourage his colleagues to make sure that not only those regulations are changed, but that other obstacles and barriers are removed.

It was only a couple of days ago that we saw a picture in The Evening Telegram of our own museum right here in St. John's, unaccessible to people who are handicapped. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Four years ago I asked the same question.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was asked four years ago by the Opposition House Leader.

I would ask the minister to make sure that we not only look at licensing people with disabilities, or allowing people with disabilities to hunt, but to make sure we remove all barriers that are existing here in this Province today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of his statement prior to Question Period. It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, a very positive move to finally find a way to accommodate the involvement of people with disabilities in our provincial hunting program.

Mr. Speaker, why does it take so long? I know Mr. Rogers has been fighting and working on this for many years. It has taken him until now for the government to come up with an agreement without even yet having the regulations in place, but at least they have agreed; it is not impossible, it is not hard to actually do something once you decide to do it.

Similarly, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, our own provincial museum can certainly be modified to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities. A way can be found, Mr. Speaker, if the willingness is there. And the minister here has demonstrated the willingness to accommodate hunters, and that is a very positive thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to stand in this House today and congratulate my colleague, the hon. Kevin Aylward, the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, for his statement today. I would like to add that this minister was only in that new portfolio for a few weeks before he gave me his written commitment on this very important file.

MR. TULK: Who was there before him? (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: In doing so, I must also thank the former Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the hon. Beaton Tulk, who began the initial process for change.

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased that the Premier, the Cabinet, the caucus, and indeed all members of this House of Assembly, are supporting this government's historical decision to implement hunting regulations that will benefit persons with disabilities in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to acknowledge the people in our gallery today - Russell Rogers and his family, Garland and Linda Stuckless - who have been instrumental in bringing about this wave of change, and also members of the disabled community who are seated in our gallery today as well.

Just two years ago, Mr. Speaker, a young visually impaired man by the name of Russell Rogers asked me to help him in his plight to be able to apply for an individual big game hunting licence. I told him I would and our journey began.

Mr. Speaker, Russell Rogers told me that he has spent over ten years pursuing that dream. In fact, his efforts resulted in numerous steps involving the Human Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which refused to hear his case, stating that this jurisdiction belonged in the Province.

We began that journey of change in our own home community of Grand Falls - Windsor some two years ago. The Central Coalition of Disabled Organizations designated Garland Stuckless - we call him Butch Stuckless in Grand Falls - Windsor - and his wife Linda to head up the working group. I have to commend them today for their tireless effort. They have written and revised several proposals, held meetings with disabled groups all over our Province, and have brought forward the concerns of Russell Rogers and many like him. They followed up the suggestions of these groups, and as a result these are regulations that you are seeing here today.

After countless meetings with, I would have to say, the two ministers and their officials, this group solicited the support of the community of disabled persons right across the Province. There was a questionnaire sent to every group throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to say that the response was overwhelming. We will now be able to implement hunting regulations that will allow a disabled person to take part in the mandatory provincial hunter education program, which will be a prerequisite to licensing, be it in a modified form where necessary, that will remove any existing barriers that would prevent a legally blind or mobility impaired person from participating.

This training program will be broad ranging to include hunter safety, conservation, wildlife values, and an overall appreciation for the actual hunting experience. Upon successful completion of the course, he or she can then apply for an individual big game licence. When I said she, I was thinking fondly about Linda Stuckless in the gallery. She is a hunter and co-partner on the licence right now.

He or she can then apply for an individual big game licence which will, in some cases, involve assigning a qualified licence hunter. This individual licence will allow the disabled person to be a part of the hunting experience to the greatest degree possible. For those who are unable to complete the actual kill and field dressing of the animal, the assigned qualified hunter will assume that responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I commend this government and all members of this hon. House for advancing the rights of disabled persons throughout our Province, in allowing the implementation of these significant and important hunting regulations to be brought forward today.

I say to you, Russell Rogers: Congratulations to you and your family and all the wonderful people who helped you and many other disabled persons to celebrate this great day. I thank you, Russell Rogers, and Butch and Linda and many more of you, for allowing me to be part of that journey. I wish you good luck with the draw for 1999.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last December, government amended the Shops' Closing Act to permit shops to open on Sundays.

At that time, Easter Sunday was not retained on the list of shops' closing days. It is government's intention to restore Easter Sunday as a shops' closing day. Accordingly, we are asking members of this House for unanimous agreement to amend today the Shops' Closing Act for the purpose of restoring Easter Sunday as a shops' closing day.

Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion was given yesterday. We are seeking the leave of the House to have all three stages of reading of the bill, and the committee stage, dealt with today. Our objective in doing so is to amend the Shops' Closing Act today so that Easter Sunday is immediately restored as a shops' closing day.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members opposite for their cooperation in bringing about a speedy resolution to this matter.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to respond to an admission by this government that opening stores on Sunday was a bad move.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have seen the first week out of fifty-two now, I might say, backtracking, coming back again trying to correct the mistake that they made last fall, in December, when they invoked closure and rammed Sunday shopping through. Now, here we are again with the minister standing up, just three months later, saying: We made a mistake. We now want to close the shops on Easter Sunday. Who knows, maybe before this session is out, Mr. Speaker, we might have another fifty-one Sundays added to this in piecemeal fashion.

I say to the minister: Why don't you do it all in one fell swoop, do it all the one time, get all fifty-two Sundays back in there again, and we will close the shops and allow people to stay with their families and enjoy Sunday as a day of rest and relaxation, and promote the families in Newfoundland and Labrador that we are finding are subject to breakdown by the pressures in society today which have been brought on by this government.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to give unanimous consent for the introduction of this legislation. It is one down and fifty-one more to go, Mr. Speaker. It is a belated start. We gave all the arguments in December and we will probably get a chance to give them all again this afternoon. We might even move a few amendments; change the word `Easter' to `each' Sunday.

MR. J. BYRNE: Each and...?

MR. HARRIS: Each and every Sunday. That is what we really want to be giving unanimous consent to today, Mr. Speaker, that each and every Sunday be considered a public holiday for the purpose of shops closing.

 

Oral Questions

 

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Surprise!

The Health Care Corporation of St. John's has recently added another management person, called a bed utilization coordinator, to deal with what the Health Care Corporation said are severe problems being experienced with bed shortages in the city, and to help reduce the backlog in emergency departments and the cancellation of elective surgery due to bed shortages.

Minister, don't you realize that the elimination over the past several years of almost 1,000 acute care beds in this Province here is the cause of the problem, and we now have the lowest number of acute care beds per capita of any province in this country in spite of an aging population now that will require more hospitalization? I ask the minister: will she admit that she has cut too far and that the solution is not a bed utilization co-ordinator but more acute care beds to deal with the waiting lists for admission and for treatment? Will the minister move today to open some of the dozens of empty beds that are in our hospitals so the sick can get the treatment that they need?

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

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

First of all, I would like to compliment the Health Care Corporation for putting in place the personnel to do the analysis, because I think it is also worth noting that this Province has one of the highest bed utilization rates in the country. One of the reasons that I am sure the Health Care Corporation has taken the lead, as perhaps many other boards will very shortly, is to look at ways where we can maximize the best use of our beds.

As you know also, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years we have increased our home support program from $500,000 to $30 million in the system and that really has added to our ability to allow people to stay in their own homes a lot longer instead of having to go into hospital. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, you know that we are focusing on this budget particularly a new direction of prevention and early intervention and we will be working very closely with the multi-disciplinary teaching and service units in addition with the boards as we move to address this problem. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in many other provinces we can learn from them in that they are delivering much more acute care in the home support programs and in people's homes. We will be looking to move towards providing that type of service in this Province, as have other provinces across the country.

So, Mr. Speaker, no, I will not admit to the comments and to the statements that the member made but what I will say is that our health care system is moving towards one of prevention and early intervention and in fact, we are leading the country in many initiatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not the question at all, I say to the minister, moving out into community health. Other provinces have moved and the minister admitted, in spite of moving out in other provinces, the centre for health information indicates that all other provinces in this country have more acute care beds per capita than this Province and they have built up strong community health programs in some of these areas. That weakens our case, minister, and does not support it as you are indicating. The president of the very union that you were president of stated just a short while ago that new positions - she went on to state that health care cutbacks in areas such as the number of hospital beds and reduction in nursing positions have resulted in unsafe conditions for patients and nurses. Debbie Forward stated that, and I quote here, in that particular article.

Now, Minister, if there is no shortage of beds - you do not do surgery in homes, in many cases, you need hospitalization for waiting lists for elective surgery. If there is no shortage of beds, why do people have to wait in emergency departments for hours at a time, up to twelve stretchers at a time in corridors with patients on these stretchers, waiting for services because there is no place to put them and the staff in these facilities are overworked.

We saw just recently the case of Mr. Jeff Blackwood. We saw the case there where people are overworked. My question, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I know Your Honour is well aware of what a supplementary question should be but I think at times it is necessary to draw to the attention of the House, and it is my duty to draw to the attention of the House that the hon. gentleman is really making a speech and not putting a supplementary question.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I was into my question. I will have to just repeat it again and take up the time of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to clue up his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I think the minister should advise his ministers that answers should be pertaining to the questions that are asked. Why, Minister, is not more staff provided when there are people waiting in pain for medical attention at our emergency departments?

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

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

This question certainly has been one that has been answered over time. I will take the opportunity, as the previous speaker has said, to speak to the preamble which the member just pointed to in his prelude to the question. First of all, I would like to explain how our health care system works so that he has an understanding of why we have waiting lists.

Mr. Speaker, in a publicly-funded system whereby we all contribute to the cost of our health care system, we work on the basis of triage, and I think it is important to understand what that means. It means that those who need the services the most will receive the services the fastest. I think, Mr. Speaker, this has been time and time again discussed, and even most recently, a prominent St. John's man came to the defence of this health care system in this Province and said: When the chips are down, you get the service that you need. Because they know in our health care system, in our emergency departments particularly, they deliver the services to the people who need it the most, and that is how we identify; and as long as we have a publicly-funded system, as long as we have to take turns and we do not go in with our twenty dollars and jump the line, we will always have to follow the system that the people who are the sickest, the people who need the services the most, will get the services first. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the way it should be and I hope we will always have a publicly-funded system to allow us to deliver health services in this country, this way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is not what the President of the Nurses' Union she represented has stated, in The Evening Telegram of January 18, and is not what people that I speak to on a daily basis are saying. If the minister thinks our system is fine, the minister is living in a world of her own. Just a couple of months ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is on a supplementary and ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: The St. John's Regional Fire Department was dispatched to the Emergency Department of a city hospital to provide emergency service when a person suffered respiratory failure. I ask the minister: Has our health care system deteriorated so much that a tertiary care hospital in this city has to call on the St. John's Regional Fire Department to deal with an emergency inside its walls, and I ask the minister, is that now part of departmental policy?

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

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

I would like again to speak to the preamble before the question, and since the member has quoted the information, I think it is important to know because, as of today, Mr. Speaker, there has not been one question on our budget that has been put forward on the extra $30 million we have put into acute care, and the $2 million that we put into preventative health care in our community boards, not to mention, Mr. Speaker, all of the other services around children and protection and all the other services around the school lunch foundation.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, and I think it is only fair to say, that in an emergency, those people who are there provide the services that are required. If somebody else provided the service, Mr. Speaker, and if there is something wrong or inaccurate about the type of service that was being delivered, I ask as I have previously, to make the case known to me, and I will follow through with Sister Elizabeth in the Health Care Corporation for the appropriate CEO - I have no difficulty doing it. If you are asking me about individuals on a case-by-case basis in this House, I am not prepared to speak about individual cases but I will, Mr. Speaker, follow up on any case, as I have in the past, and I extend the same opportunity to him today.

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

After listening to the minister admit some months ago that his government has permitted the schools in Newfoundland and Labrador to go through ten years of neglect through cuts and maintenance and operating grants, I want to ask the minister some questions relative to the air quality studies that are underway.

Of the 150 schools included in the first group to be studied under the air quality program, I want to ask the minister: How many of these reports has he received to date, and does the minister have any preliminary estimates as to the cost of the remediation program for the first 150 schools?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, and no estimates.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Neither the press nor the Opposition can believe the change in that minister in the last few days. The question is that we also have about another 150 schools that are ready to be assessed. I wanted to ask him when that assessment work will begin, and when he expects to have the assessment of the air quality done on the first 150, plus the 150 that are going to be on the second batch?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

As soon as possible. We expect the report soon, and we will continue on with the rest of the schools.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister if he anticipates that the specifications will be written in sufficient time for tenders to be called and work to be ready to begin at the end of this school year, so that all 300 schools that have been assessed for air quality will indeed have the work completed for school opening in September? What procedures are in place to make sure the testing is done, the tenders called, and the work completed so that children, when they go back to school in September, will be assured to have good air quality in the school system?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do appreciate the question. I know that the hon. Opposition critic for education would have liked to have asked a different question, instead of just focusing on air quality, which is only one small part of what the government is planning to do before next September.

While air quality is extremely important, and while we have acknowledged as the government that some of the issues that are in our schools today are related to the fact - we do not try to disguise things or hide things away, we are very open and frank and direct with the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the issue is this. Because of the fact that there are a number of needs in the physical structures in which the students attend school, in which teachers teach, and other school-related workers work, we have committed in this budget - I know that is the question he wanted to ask, the bigger question: What exactly are we planning on doing with the $50 million this government has decided to put in place -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are meeting now with the school boards and asking each of them, because it was a very good exercise, just as the school boards did with respect to air quality. They gave us a priority list of the schools they would like to have tested for air quality, in order. The same process is now being followed to find out the other issues with respect to maintenance and repairs and renovations that they would like to have addressed. Because this government came up with the biggest ever capital investment for school structures in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The plan, Mr. Speaker, quite clearly is to see exactly how many of the renovations, repairs, extreme maintenance work, including air quality issues that have to be addressed, can possibly be done from the time schools are vacated in June of this year until the students, teachers and school-based workers return to the schools in the fall. I am sure that when we get back here in the Legislature next fall, the hon. Opposition critic for education will be standing in his place applauding this government for the work that is done in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

I could have told the minister when the Corporation was set up, how much money was deposited in it, and all that kind of thing. I want to say to the minister, though, that of the $25 million allocated last year, you only spent about $10.5 million.

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

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

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

Given the fact that some of the schools that have been identified as having air quality studies are relatively new facilities, what steps has the minister taken to change the facility specifications to the school system? In other words, what went wrong with the engineering several years ago that permitted the schools that were built five or six years ago to have air quality difficulties now in these few short years, and have you made those changes to the specifications?

MR. FITZGERALD: A good question.

MR. SULLIVAN: A very good question.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the questions earlier related to: Have we received reports? Do we know what is recommended? The answers were no, we have not received any reports. We have no guess yet as to what it is going to cost.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that a school board put a school on the list to be tested, does not mean that there is an air quality problem in the school. It means that there have been some complaints, it means that there have been some concerns raised. The results of the testing will determine whether or not there is actually an air quality issue that needs addressing. So, to assume prematurely that because some of the schools that were put on the list for testing are five, six and seven years old, that it means, by virtue of the fact that they are being tested, that the tests will come back and there will be air quality problems identified, that is presumptuous.

If that happens, Mr. Speaker, then we will look at the issues raised by the hon. member. And besides, on a constant, ongoing basis in our discussions with the school boards themselves, with the School Board Association for the Province, we continually and constantly monitor and review our educational specifications and the building specifications to make sure that we are meeting the educational needs and that we are meeting accessibility needs and others in the new structures that we are putting up in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

So again, the member should have every confidence that when the results are received from the testing, which is the specific question, that will be shared with the public, the school council, the parents, the students and everyone else. If corrective measures are necessary, they will be taken, that is the commitment of this government, and we will do a lot more than that, Mr. Speaker; with the $50 million, we will try to have the best possible schools we can in the Province for next September.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I would like to ask the minister: If France is carrying on a commercial salmon fishery around the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and in the eighty-mile corridor that extends southwards from the Islands, Mr. Speaker, what is the quota that those islands, or that country, is allowed to catch?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the knowledge today of what quota of salmon they are allowed to catch, the total quota around the Islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon. I know that there was a Canada-France agreement back some years ago where the corridor and the Islands around St. Pierre gave them access to cod, redfish and other species, but I do not have the quota of salmon that they are allowed to catch around the Islands.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But the minister is aware that there is a commercial salmon fishery being carried on by those two Islands off the South Coast of Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, I would like say to the minister that our own Newfoundland fishermen living along the South Coast have not been able to fish salmon commercially for the past five years. The federal government closed this fishery because it was supposed to be interfering with salmon returning to the rivers in Newfoundland, the Maritimes and Quebec.

There is not one salmon river, Mr. Minister, in St. Pierre et Miquelon. I ask the minister: Why has he been so silent on this issue and why is he not demanding an immediate end to this commercial fishery, since our own Newfoundland fishermen are not allowed to take part?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member, my fisheries critic opposite. I can be accused in this Province for not doing certain things, but when it comes to being silent on fisheries matters, I will take second place to nobody on the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister would like to table the comments that he has made regarding the commercial salmon fishery on the South Coast and we can all see how vigilant he has been. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer also for one brief minute -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member, he is on a supplementary, and I ask him to get to his question.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to the East Coast report. The minister stood in this House and said, those figures regarding foreign fishing as put forward by the East Coast report committee, the Standing Committee in the House of Commons, have been inaccurate; they are not the correct figures. I ask the minister if he would table in this House the correct figures on foreign fishing, both inside the 200-mile limit, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, because I feel, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a right to know.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem tabling or telling, as I have many, many times before, about the amount of foreign activity inside the 200-mile limit, but I find it very despicable for anybody to stand in this Province or this country and try to mislead the people of this Province by saying that if all foreign fishing stopped inside the 200-mile limit it would be enough to employ the total of ten fish plants and hundreds of fisherman in this Province, and replace the lost income on the TAGS program, or replace the amount of food fishery that is lost by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is absolutely wrong information to give to anyone in this Province.

As far as the jurisdiction outside the 200-mile limit, I am on record. Your colleague, your former colleague, your former cousin in Ottawa, when I said we should extend the jurisdiction of the Nose and Tail of Grand Banks and take control, he laughed at it and said I was out of my mind to even to suggest such a thing.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on the final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that those figures are his cousin's figures put forward - Mr. George Baker's figures - right here in this report.

I ask the minister again if he would table in this House the correct figures of foreign fishing both inside the 200-mile limit and on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Bank. It is a simple question, if those figures are wrong.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I could very well say to the hon. member opposite that he can get that information any day he wishes under the Freedom of Information or write the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is responsible for federal jurisdiction.

I will say also that I have no problem whatsoever tabling the amount of foreign activity inside the 200-mile limit, telling also that the Canada-France agreement allowed 1,500 tons of cod inside the agreement which they gave last year to National Sea - the red fish which Japan have not caught in the last five years, the squid which Japan have not caught in the last five years - and Canadian vessels, Newfoundland vessels, have caught the allocation, not foreign ships. To say that those foreigners are catching that fish inside the 200-mile limit, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. It is being caught by Newfoundlanders and by Canadians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to stand up and talk about the fish that was caught by National Sea; there was an allocation to France caught by National Sea. I would like to ask the minister where this quota of fish that was caught by National Sea was processed.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: If the hon. member was truly serious about protecting the Newfoundland fishing industry, if the hon. member was truly serious about the future of this Province, he would not be talking about a Canada-France agreement; he would not be talking about a foreign ship off the Scotian Shelf catching hake, silver hake; he would be talking about six to seven to eight million seals eating fish every single day of the week!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: More fish eaten in one day than all the foreign ships that were ever on the Grand Banks could catch. So stop playing politics and be sensible about the Newfoundland fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education. It appears from news reports yesterday that the minister is finally acknowledging, or has acknowledged secretly but not admitted in this House, that he has problems with the operation of his government's policy with respect to private post-secondary education.

Will the minister tell the House the whole truth today, that there are problems with this policy? And will he tell us whether his review of this policy will be looking into why the student loan default rate appears to be two times the rate for public post-secondary systems, according to last August published reports? Will he be trying to find out why that is and why students cannot pay student loans because they do not have the jobs that they need in order to pay them back? Will that be part of his review of the consequences of his government's policy?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe in a supplementary question the member, who is also the Leader of the New Democratic Party, might finally articulate to the Province exactly what his party's view is with respect to post-secondary training; because as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the party's position is that there should be no private sector training at the post-secondary level in Newfoundland and Labrador. He has an opportunity, I am sure, today here in the Legislature, in Hansard, to clarify that.

With respect to what is happening at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, some people have either misunderstood or misrepresented what is happening at this point. We have, Mr. Speaker, hired a person in the Department of Education who is travelling throughout the Province doing a compliance audit with respect to the almost 100 campuses in the private training institutes that we have, because the government is always concerned with respect to whether or not institutions that have been granted a licence by the government are living up to the terms and conditions of that licence that was granted.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, while that person is travelling the Province - because contrary to what members opposite have been requesting, which is first and foremost, I think, an inquiry into how one particular school operated, or an inquiry into public sector private training in the broader sense - what we are looking at is having that same staff person, while he is travelling through each of these schools doing a compliance audit, following up on information that has been sampled twice in the Province - by the Indicators Report in '95 and the Indicators Report which will be released in a few weeks' time - to see what the level of student satisfaction is with respect to the offerings that are being provided for them in the private training institutions that they have selected. That information, Mr. Speaker, will be useful follow-up to information that will be released in the public document soon.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that his government has taken $25 million per year out of the public post-secondary system and has required students, if they want a place, to go to these private colleges that are approved by the government and give them access to student loans. Now will the minister's review include a rating of these programs and the success rate students have in getting jobs? Will the government be requiring these schools which are selling these courses to students to provide a verifiable success rate in getting jobs from these programs? Will that be part of the minister's review?

I don't know what we are going to see in this report that the minister has been sitting on for some months. Can he verify whether the report on the radio today was true, that the reason for the delay was printing problems? Or can he verify what his staff has been telling my office for some time, that it is revisions that are being made that are holding up the publishing of this report? Which is it, Mr. Speaker? Is it printing problems or is it revisions that are being made that are holding up the printing?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, in asking the question, there is some very telling information as to how certain people look at a situation. The hon. member suggested that we have been taking money or have taken money out of public post-secondary education. The reality, Mr. Speaker, is this: This government invests $140 million a year in public post-secondary education so that the maximum number of students in the Province can have a training option available to them at the most reasonable cost. However, Mr. Speaker, that has left some 11,000 students who want to avail of some training short of an opportunity, and we have not been able to come up with the other $50 million, $60 million or $70 million, to make sure that every student could go to a publicly funded post-secondary institution.

With respect to the review that he mentions, Mr. Speaker, the issues that he raised have been reviewed. They are in the report that is about to be released.

The other telling point that I mentioned yesterday in answer to a question is that members opposite - I know the member who just asked the question has never had an opportunity to be in government, to actually run anything, because he ran for mayor of the city on that basis, that he would like an opportunity to run something instead of just asking questions. The people of the city, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to clue up his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The people of the city saw through it and decided they didn't want him running anything, so he is back over there asking questions.

With respect to the whole issue, it is clear that members opposite do have some preconceived notions about the whole issue. Whether they have any justification or not will be seen when the report is released. The most telling thing, however, is that they would suggest - because it was suggested here yesterday and was echoed outside the Chamber by the hon. member - that staff at the Department of Education would take direction from a politician and would actually alter the information in a report.

I can understand that coming from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to clue up his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand it coming from members opposite, because they did have some experience in government, and maybe they were speaking from the fact that that is how it used to be done when they were there, but we will not do that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

 

Presenting Reports by
Standing and Special Committees

 

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the following list of guarantees paid out by the Province since the last report to this House. That last report was tabled April 23, 1997, and included payments made to April 22 of that year.

The first is James Doyle, Senior and Sons Limited. The principal amount guaranteed was $700,000. The principal and interest paid was $771,192.32. There were two Fisheries Loan Board guarantees, one to Lloyd and Grant Dyke in the amount of $106,000. The amount paid was $63,883.30. Mr. James Young was the second. That was in the amount guaranteed of $127,900. The principal and interest paid was $98,857.69. I just point out that the guaranteed program covers interest as well as loan.

The second report I have for tabling are the temporary loans raised under section 48 of the Financial Administration Act. This covers a period from March 13, 1997 to and including March 19, 1998. These are the Treasury Bills of the Province. They are in an amount each close to $30 million, depending on the discount rate. This has been a successful program for government in recent years since interest rates have been very low, particularly in the last year.

I as well have a statement of overdrafts for the period from March 11, 1997 to March 18, 1998, together with respective dates when the borrowings occurred and when they were paid. Generally they were paid within a day or so, unless there was a weekend intervening. We generally operate with either the cash on hand or overdrafts, as financial circumstances may require.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Under Section 39 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992, I hereby table the annual report of the Office of the RNC Public Complaints Commission for the fiscal year April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997.

 

Notices of Motion

 

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice and by leave move - and I have talked to the parties opposite - in accordance with the resolution unanimously adopted by this House on April 1, 1998, that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to travel to Ottawa to present the concerns of all the Members of the House of Assembly and the people of this Province to all federal political party caucuses with respect to the looming post-TAGS crisis.

I further move that the following members comprise this committee: the Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Port de Grave, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Torngat Mountains and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and that the Committee report to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask that that motion be put, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: All hon. members have heard the motion. All in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, `nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I give notice and by leave move the following:

A. That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Government Services Committee: Finance, Works, Services and Transportation; Government Services and Lands; Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation; Public Service Commission.

B. That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Social Services Committee: Human Resources and Employment; Education; Health and Community Services; Environment and Labour; Justice.

C. That the following Heads of Expenditure be referred to the Resource Committee: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forestry Resources and Agrifoods; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Industry, Trade and Technology; Mines and Energy; Development and Rural Renewal.

Mr. Speaker, I further move that the referral of the Heads of Expenditure to the Estimates Committees become effective on April 28, 1998 and, Mr. Speaker, I do that for the reason that if I move they become effective today, then by the time, I suspect, that we get back from the Easter holidays, the life of the Committees would have been run out. So I would move that and ask that the motion be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: All hon. members have heard the motion. All in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed, `nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I give notice of the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS appointing rather than electing people to serve as Senators in the Upper Chamber of the Parliament of Canada is an outdated practice which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want changed; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador can join with other provinces in signalling the desire to change this practice by electing its nominees for vacancies in our Senate seats; and

WHEREAS one of Newfoundland and Labrador's Senate seats is currently vacant;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House affirm its wish, that the Members of the Senate of Canada be elected to office; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House urge the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to hold an election as soon as possible to choose the individual to be nominated for the current vacancy in the Senate of Canada representing the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would bring to Your Honour's attention that I do not believe you called either Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given or Petitions, and I would love to move to Orders of the Day, but in fairness to everybody in the House, I believe we should do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader is half-correct. I did call Petitions but I inadvertently skipped Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

 

Answers to Questions
For which Notice has been Given

 

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly, my hon. critic, the Member for Bonavista South, asked a question about what time the crab season was going to open. He did not know the answer to that question and I gave him the answer. Today, he asked me a question about the salmon fishery which is taking place around the Island of St. Pierre et Miquelon and in the ten-mile corridor -

MR. FITZGERALD: Eighty-mile corridor.

MR. EFFORD: - and what representation - 80-mile corridor, ten miles wide - what representation I have made to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with regard to the salmon fishery in the France-Canada Agreement, the salmon quota. At the time, I hesitated, because I was not aware that there was a quota, so I said I would check. Mr. Speaker, there is no salmon fishery taking place around the Island of St. Pierre et Miquelon or in the corridor.

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order on that point raised by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Is the minister saying that his cousin up in Ottawa is lying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. TULK: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. TULK: I was asked by my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, when the hon. gentleman was asking the question, to stand up and remind him that he was asking a question that was out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. TULK: Because it refers to federal jurisdiction, and it is not the responsibility of this minister.

I hesitated to do that -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order. I listened to the hon. gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to do that because if he wants information I know that the provincial Minister of Fisheries is always willing and probably knows as much about federal fisheries as he does about provincial fisheries, and that is a great deal. I hesitated to stand up and tell him that really he was out of order. But now, Mr. Speaker, we find that he is not doing very good research and that yesterday he did not know the answer to a question before he asked it, and was reminded by CBC that he should. Today he stands and asks the provincial minister about a quota that does not exist and he is relying on a report put out by a Standing Committee of the House of Commons to say that indeed it does.

I say to the hon. gentleman, what he has to do, Mr. Speaker, is go check on his research. He has to do some research and get answers to the questions.

MR. FITZGERALD: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, to that point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government House Leader: Are you saying that we should not raise the issue of the seal fishery here? Are you saying that we should not raise the concerns? Is that what you are saying? That is a federal issue. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stood in his place and talked about seals, and rightfully so, Mr. Speaker. It is a problem that has to be dealt with. So, is the minister saying now that we should stifle that debate as well, that we should not ask questions, that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture should not raise that issue?

AN HON. MEMBER: And do not go to Ottawa, because TAGS is federal.

MR. FITZGERALD: Are you saying also, that we should not go to Ottawa because TAGS is a federal program? Is that what you are saying? Well, you better make yourself clear, because that is the point you are making, I say to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader, to the point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not saying any such nonsense. I just said to the hon. gentleman - but as usual he is not listening, he is not hearing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot have it both ways.

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

If the Speaker is expected to rule on the point of order, he must be given the opportunity to at least listen to the presentations that are being made.

MR. TULK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying to the hon. gentleman is quite clear. I said to the hon. gentleman, that while it is not within his jurisdiction, the minister obviously wants to answer all questions and he will answer all questions. I want to make myself perfectly clear to the hon. gentleman. For that reason, when he was asked a question that was really somebody else's responsibility, he stood up and answered the question and we did not interject.

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying to the hon. gentleman, all I want him to do is this: to do his research, do it thoroughly, so that when he comes into this House he does not have to have the Minister of Fisheries stand up and correct him every day of the week. That is all I am saying to him.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, to the same point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, that he cannot have it both ways. If the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is standing here in this House and saying to me, as the critic, ask me questions about seals - a federal matter, I say to the member. Then the Government House Leader says: You should not be asking questions if it falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

I say to the minister, that this research was done by a committee made up of his cousins who went around this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: And yours.

MR. FITZGERALD: And mine as well - that went around this Province, and those are the words of the fishermen and the fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Are you saying that they are lying?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do not put words in my mouth.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is where it came from, I say to the minister. That is where it came from, it came from the fishermen and the fish plant workers in this Province, and their information is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a final submission on this point of order.

MR. EFFORD: Just a final submission to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

There is a very important issue here. The people of this Province have to be told the truth about what is happening in the fishing industry. They have gone through such desperation over the last number of years, it is not right for anybody in any House of Assembly anywhere to give information out that is incorrect, that is misleading to the people of this Province. I am saying to the hon. member, check your information, find out the answer before you ask the question. You never asked one question on seals since I came into this House of Assembly this year, not one question!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The Speaker has heard all the submissions that he wishes to hear. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was responding to a question that had been asked on a previous occasion.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is terrible!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is attempting to make a ruling. The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was making an answer under the heading of Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given to a question that had been asked on a previous occasion. Whether, in fact, the question was dealing with federal jurisdiction or whether it was not, the question was asked and the question was answered. The hon. the Member for Bonavista South right now is attempting to ask another question. There will be another occasion on another day.

    Petitions

 

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents. They appear to be residents of the district of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the District of Port de Grave, those who live in Bay Roberts, Clarke's Beach to North River, Roaches Line, Cupids Crossing, Cupids, Georgetown.

These petitioners are asking the House of Assembly to direct the government to establish a universal comprehensive school lunch program for every school in Newfoundland and Labrador to help end child hunger and give our children a better chance to learn to participate fully in the benefits of education.

I know the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has spoken on previous occasions in the House on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Is Clarke's Beach in your district? Bay Roberts? Bay Roberts, oh, yes. I understand, Mr. Speaker, from previous speeches of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that he supports this particular petition, and I hope he will speak to it today, because it is a very important issue. It has to do with hungry children in this Province. I know there is a great deal of denial on behalf of society generally -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: There is a great deal of denial on the part of society generally, on the part of the leaders in our society, on the part of members of the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The minister is saying, for the record, that he brought the school lunch program in when he was Minister of Social Services, and I acknowledge his interest in this particular issue. He has spoken in the past in support of this program. What I am saying to him and to others is that there is a great deal of denial out there. People are denying that we have hungry children in this Province.

There is a very direct way of dealing with that problem, Mr. Speaker, and that is by having a universal program. Now, we do have a program. The minister started one, the government is supporting one through the Family School Foundation, but that, so far, has managed to reach 10 per cent of the schools. It is based on a voluntary system which requires a charitable contribution from the community in which the school lunch program is to operate. The reality is that those communities and those schools in most need of a school lunch program are the ones that are least able to come up with the resources from the community to make a program possible.

Mr. Speaker, there is a stigma-free program which has been developed by the school children's food foundation that has been in use in a number of schools. One of the very problematic things with the voluntary school lunch system was reported to me the other day. There was a school in some part of Newfoundland - I will not say where it was - there was a community in Newfoundland that was offered a school lunch program. Everything was in place, the arrangements had been made, money was made available, and when the community discovered that they would be identified as a community with a school lunch program, they turned it down. They did not want their children to be stigmatized as having need for a school lunch program. They would rather let their children go hungry.

That says an awful lot, Mr. Speaker, about the depth and the hidden nature of this problem. It says an awful lot when a community turns down a school lunch program because they do not want to be stigmatized by being known as a community with that program, rather than having a program that fed their own children.

I do not applauded that, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that as a reality of the problem when you are dealing with a voluntary system and not a universal system. We have to recognize that this is a pervasive problem. It has been identified as one-half of the school population, one-half of the children in this Province going to school hungry, one-half of the students of this Province at risk of poor school performance because of issues related to poverty. Mr. Speaker, the number one problem for children is hunger. I think we have to open our eyes to that and no longer regard it as a problem that we are not prepared to face up to. It is something that has to be faced, and I ask all hon. members to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

It is my pleasure to second that petition today. In the fall sitting of the House of Assembly I mentioned there were 40,000 children in this Province going to school hungry every day, and I was challenged after the sitting one day by a couple of members from the other side who said: You are inflating that number. Where are you getting that number? That cannot be true.

So, the next day I brought down Patricia Canning's report and there it was, for all to see, 40,000 children go to school hungry in Newfoundland every day.

What my colleague just said about a community having to turn down, or feeling the need to turn down, a school lunch program speaks volumes. Newfoundlanders are basically proud people. When they have to announce that their children are poor, or they are too poor to feed their children, they will not do it. They will take other measures. In the case of this community, we had a community of families whose children were hungry. They were offered a school lunch program and they turned it down because they did not want to be singled out.

This government has been asked over and over again to bring in a school lunch program - a universal school lunch program - so that no child would be different from the other. I wholeheartedly support the petition from the hon. member.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is a Notice of Motion on which I would like to do a bit of explanation, if I could, before I call Orders of the Day.

Yesterday we agreed that today I would call Motion No. 5, which is "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act". I hope the Opposition House Leader (inaudible) if I could get his attention, because I do not want to say something here that is...

Motion No. 5 is "An Act To Amend the Shops' Closing Act". Today, really, under the rules, all I am allowed to ask for is first reading unless I have leave of the House. I understand what we have agreed to is that we will do first reading, that we will do second reading, that we will then move the House into Committee where any debate will occur under the normal twenty minutes of debate, and then we will move Committee and do third reading. So, Mr. Speaker, I would call first reading of Motion No. 5.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act," carried. (Bill No. 4)

On motion, Bill No. 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, before I move second reading, I intended to tell the Opposition House Leader this: I think what we are going to ask to have done with this is to ask to have the Clerk take this to His Honour and have Royal Assent given at Government House rather than have His Honour come in. We have done that before. Do I need a motion to that affect? I don't think so.

MR. SPEAKER: No, if we have an agreement on it I think that would be satisfactory.

MR. TULK: Yes, we have agreed that we will do that rather than have His Honour come in.

Mr. Speaker, I would call second reading of Bill No. 4.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 4)

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Your Honour has somebody to sit in the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I would move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

CHAIR (Ramsay): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think what we have agreed on is that the minister or somebody on this side would speak for the shortest possible time and say what this bill is about. Then, if members on the other side want to speak, they can speak for up to twenty minutes and we would then rise the Committee -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Yes, but we had not agreed with that. We would carry on the debate for second reading in Committee. The second reading is twenty minutes now, Jack. Don't be nasty to me today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just briefly on the bill, when the bill was amended last December, I just want to speak to the technical aspect of it. When Sunday shopping rules were changed to permit stores to stay open on Sunday, inadvertently Easter Sunday was omitted. We really should have amended it at the time to delete Sundays from - section 4(1)(a)(i), as it then was, said Sundays would be the days in which shops would be closed.

The easy amendment would have been to take the `s' off Sunday and put `Easter' in front of the word `Sunday'. As it happened it did not occur to anybody, including members opposite, to argue: Surely we cannot be deleting Easter Sunday. We all, I think in fairness, inadvertently did it.

The hon. Opposition House Leader was, in questions today, I think, saying that by restoring this - or, I am sorry, in the comment on the minister's statement that in restoring this - we were proving we were wrong. I think really what that proves, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment was right 98 per cent of the time, because we only changed it in respect of one particular day. We chose to do it under this section, frankly, because Easter Sunday was never a public holiday in the Province and if we took that view, then every Sunday was a public holiday. So what we are really doing is restoring one of the shops' closing days, and that is Easter Sunday which was among the fifty-one, fifty-two or fifty-three as the year might occasion, of the Sundays that fell in a given year. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is something that this House will endorse because Easter Sunday is a day of traditional religious observation in the Province, it is a great christian holiday and one celebrated by Moslems, to a point, and other faiths that are perhaps less followed in this province.

One might say there are other ways to it and that is true, but, Mr. Chairman, frankly, it appeared to us that the most obvious sensible way to approach this was to restore Easter Sunday, where it had been among the other Sundays that occur in each year. So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, we obviously support the bill and we invite commentary.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the first two words that comes to mind when I look at this bill, to address this Administration, is `wrong again'. We had put forward in the House of Assembly all during Christmas, the whole week leading up to Christmas, before we closed, sitting all night and talking about Sunday shopping and I think what we should do is start here again today and if they want this for Sunday - Easter Sunday - this Sunday, it is only Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, and we have five or six nights to go. No, problem, if they want it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: - they will have to work for it, Mr. Chairman. We said that they should not have Sunday shopping. We support the people in the Province. We asked the question in the House of Assembly: Who is pushing Sunday shopping - no answer. It was not the retailers, or the people that worked in the stores, they opposed it. Mr. Chairman we had petitions presented here in this House of Assembly, everyone on this side of the House, I think, presented a petition regarding Sunday shopping and here we have, three months later, the government coming in here and admitting that they made a mistake. We were asking questions, we were saying take your time on this, government, take your time - we do not need to rush this. Why were they in such a rush to get this through before Christmas? A couple of months later we are changing it. We do not know why.

What we should have here today, Mr. Chairman, is a bill to amend the previous Act, to change it to not Easter Sunday but to each and every Sunday. There should not be any Sunday shopping at all. As a matter of fact, this person here has yet to step foot inside of a store on Sunday since this was proclaimed and approved before Christmas.

MR. EFFORD: You do not buy gas?

MR. J. BYRNE: I did not go into a store. Now, the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Chairman, said: You do not buy gas - a different matter altogether. The Minister of Fisheries asked me do I buy gas on Sunday and let me tell you, there is no one in this Province knows more about gas then the Minister of Fisheries. I can guarantee you that. The Minister of Fisheries is an expert on gas from what we hear in this House of Assembly.

The Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman, was up today talking about air quality control and while he was speaking, I could feel the air in this House of Assembly getting thicker as he was speaking, and it was depleting, getting worse all the time.

The Minister of Finance was introducing this bill today and I am just wondering what implications or what complications may arise from making Sunday shopping, the first Easter Sunday - not permitted on Easter Sunday itself. What is it going to cost the people in the different cities in the Province? I have a problem with it because are we now just excluding - what impact is it going to have on annual leave and all statutory holidays, Mr. Chairman? If the Easter Sun

day -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I was told I had to speak for at least forty-five minutes on this.

Mr. Chairman, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act. I thought when we introduced this in the House of Assembly in the fall that the government would be after doing a lot of research on this, doing a lot of planning on this, and they would sit back and say we certainly would not have to look at the Shops' Closing Act for at least five years, for the term of their mandate, which may be another three or four months - could be six months, could be a year, could be two years. We should not be in this House of Assembly today making amendments to the Shops' Closing Act so shortly after approving -

MR. HARRIS: They should be making amends, not amendments.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said we should be making amends. I do not think we should be making amends on this side of the House, but on the government side of the House they should be making amends. All the arguments that we put forward at the time, Mr. Chairman, were valid, logical arguments, but no, the government would not listen to anybody on this side of the House.

As a matter of fact, I was under the impression that there would be some people on the government side of the House who would vote against this last fall, but the big heavy whip came out and they said: Do it. I do not know if anybody ran out of the House or not. I am not sure if the Premier is responsible for the bill or not, but we were wondering why it was put forward. Because we could not find anyone who was supporting it, other than the Premier. Even members on that side of the House were opposed to it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. I am not sure if he did. He did what he was told. I say to the Government House Leader, the minister who introduced this bill, the Minister of Environment and Labour, was it? I think he just did what he was told to do, being in Cabinet, you know, towing the rope.

MR. TULK: Not true!

MR. J. BYRNE: Not true? The Government House Leader says it is not true, Mr. Chairman. I find it more than passing strange, and it happens often, that the government, since I have been here, for five years, they rush stuff through this House of Assembly and they continually come back to make amendments to it. I can see it happening three or four years later where situations change, but two or three months? Obviously, the Government House Leader has to admit that they did not put the proper planning and forethought into this bill before they approved it in the House.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Chairman, we have the Government House Leader admitting publicly in this House of Assembly that he only does what he is told. I believe that, there is no doubt. That is the only reason why he is sitting in that chair. The previous Premier had him in the back benches, that far back - no, he never had him in the gallery, but it was close to the gallery, I can guarantee you that. I used to feel bad for the Government House Leader, being in the House of Assembly so long and still in the back benches.

MR. TULK: I saw you crying.

MR. J. BYRNE: If he saw me crying, it was crocodile tears, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Chairman. Then he is moved up to the front benches, the Government House Leader, the left-hand man of the Premier, sitting to the left of the Premier, of course.

In the meantime, I have to say that I have to support the bill, obviously, because we, on this side of the House, did not support Sunday shopping in the first place, and this is just one Sunday now out of fifty-two. We are making progress on this side of the House. We do not know how many more Sundays may come in the near future - maybe Saturdays, who knows? But, as I said, I have no choice but to support this. I think it is right. I think there should be no need for Sunday shopping in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, none whatsoever.

MR. TULK: In spite of the fact the government is so stunned.

MR. J. BYRNE: In spite of the fact that the government is so stunned, is that what you are saying? For Hansard purposes, I am quoting the Government House Leader. He is saying the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is stunned. In Newfoundland terminology, if you translate that, it is being stupid - that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is being stupid. That is what `stunned' means, from my perspective.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I will have to give the hon. gentleman a little lesson in the meaning of a couple of Newfoundland words, alright? `Stunned' means not too bright. `Stupid' means you do not know anything.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, here is the Government House Leader confirming what I just said. `Stunned' means not knowing anything over on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are both.

MR. J. BYRNE: They are both - stunned and stupid. Someone just said to me - and I am only quoting this now, Mr. Chairman - someone just said to me that the Government House Leader is too stupid to know what `stunned' means. Now, I never said that, I am quoting what someone told me. I would not say that, no, no, someone just said that but I will not say who.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote in favour and support this amendment but it is just too bad, that the government, two or three months after approving it, has to bring it to the House of Assembly admitting that they made a major, major, shameful mistake.

CHAIR: Just to clarify, because I did not say this at the beginning, we are debating the amendment to An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the legislation now before the House represents a significant climb-down by the government, but it is a good opportunity to review what happened here in December, and the legislation that was before the House at that time to remove the entire subparagraph that is now being replaced. Mr. Chairman, back in December, the government said that there were changes because they wanted to create some freedom. This was the freedom bill. The Premier stood and talked about freedom, the same kind of freedom when I hear them talk about freedom of choice in this regard, I am concerned about who are the powerful people directing from behind the scenes.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I remember listening to CBC one morning and the minister responsible for this bill, the same minister responsible for the other one, the Minister of Environment and Labour, when asked with whom did he consult, answered honestly and truthfully that they consulted with nobody. They did not consult with anybody; that is what he said, at least he did not consult with anybody. But somebody wanted this bill, Mr. Chairman, they tried to read out sections of the consultation that was done with business people a few years ago, the same consultation that has been driving the privatization of parks, the same consultation that has been driving other aspects of privatization. Let us get a piece of the action, maybe a piece of the action of schools now. We are going to have privatization of schools, we are going to have IBM; IBM are going to run the schools of the Province now; we are going to have the corporate culture, the corporate culture is going to dominate the educational culture and the Member for Waterford Valley would be concerned about this, I am sure.

So what we have happening, Mr. Chairman, is a domination of this government's ideas by the needs and ideas of the big, big, big business communities, the mega business communities, Mr. Chairman, let us get into partnering, we will call it partnering; we will call it something else, we will make fancy names, we will make euphemisms that will allow us to pretend that we are doing one thing while we are doing another. So what they were doing here was, they wanted to talk about freedom. Let us talk about freedom. It is a matter of choice. Businesses will have a choice as to whether they open or not.

Now, Mr. Chairman, most of the businesses did not agree with that; they said: No, no, it does not work that way. The way it works is, that if somebody opens, then the rest of them are forced to open and they used the word `forced'; forced to open by the competitive pressures, so what happened, Mr. Chairman? For the first couple of weeks,everybody kept their doors shut; the big supermarkets, the big stores, Wal-Marts, all of them, they stayed closed waiting to see what was going to happen and what did happen, Mr. Chairman?

Well, there was one or two big, huge, retail businesses that decided it was in their interest to open on Sunday. What is the place called, the Price Club, is it, Costco or whatever they changed their name to now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Yes. The figure I have heard is that they used to do 40 per cent of their business on Saturday. So I guess they figured that if they did 40 per cent of their business on Saturday, if they had two Saturdays a week, or two Saturday business days a week, so that the people could come in not just from St. John's but from Bay Roberts, from Port de Grave, from Harbour Grace, from Bonavista, from Clarenville, take the business away from all these communities and drive into St. John's, spend the weekend, spend Saturday and Sunday shopping at the Price Club, or the Price Costco, or whatever their newest name is. They will amalgamate with somebody else.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am not even in the 500 Club, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley. I am not even in the 500 Club. I am not a joiner. I don't join very many clubs. It was called the Price Club a few years ago, then it became Price Costco, and it might merge with Citibank next week, you never know. You never know who they are going to merge with next. They are just getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

So they decided they were going to open. So what happens? All the little businesses like Loblaws and Dominion Stores say: Well, if they are going to open, we are going to open. We are forced to do it by competitive pressures.

So, Mr. Chairman, what was predicted and was told from this side of the House in December happened in a matter of weeks. It was not an insidious process that took place over a year or two or three, one store opening, another store opening. It happened in a dramatic way for the very, very reasons that were predicted on this side, that it was not going to be a matter of choice, it was going to be a matter of course. Government knew that, Mr. Chairman. Government knew that because they were told by this side of the House that it was going to happen. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that they were asked by this very same organization who caused the domino to trip over. I suspect it was that very same organization who asked them to pass this legislation.

So whenever I hear again the government talking about freedom of choice in matters commercial, you can be sure that there are some powerful voices behind the scenes directing the symphony, calling the shots, telling them what they want to happen. The same people who told the government: Oh, we want to provide business opportunities for people in the Province so we will privatize NLCS. We will sell a $22-million-a-year business with a $3 million profit for $9 million. We will enter into an agreement - the Auditor General will report on it - a benefits agreement. No problem, this is a soft contract. This is a soft deal. We don't have to comply with that.

Where is the $3 million research and development institute that Andersen Consulting promised? They did not provide that, Mr. Chairman. Let's make it look good. Let's say the government can put a member on the board for five years. Let's put that in the agreement so that if anyone questions it, `Oh yes, we are involved. We have our person there on the board.' But, of course, the government does not have to appoint anybody and has not appointed anybody since 1996.

That is the idea this government has, Mr. Chairman, when they want privatizing, listening to the corporate interests, following the corporate agenda. Let's privatize some housing, never mind cross-subsidizing, never mind having market rent where people can afford to pay, have the government make some money and use that to subsidize the housing. No, we will not do that. We will provide some business opportunities for entrepreneurs. So we sell off Linden Court and kick out the seniors, Mr. Chairman. There is no concern with what happens to them. They might have been there for twenty, twenty-five, thirty and thirty-five years in their own neighbourhood, but that does not matter. What is more important is that the government has been told to provide business opportunities for entrepreneurs, and that is what happened there, Mr. Chairman. That is what happened there, but what has happened here is that the domino has fallen pretty quickly.

The Price Club decided it was in their interest to open, and they then forced others to open because they are selling groceries, they are selling bakery goods, they are selling toys, they are selling everything that Canadian Tire sells, and not everything Dominion Stores sell, but they have a meat section, they have a deli section. They have a mass appeal, Mr. Chairman, and they are bringing business in from all around the Province.

While I support the principle of the bill in that it takes a step towards restoring some sanity into the Sunday shopping by going some of the way to restoring Sunday closing as part of the act, I feel there has to be a slight change in the wording of the act.

I therefore have an amendment which I would like to move - seconded by the Member for St. John's West, although I don't know in Committee whether you need a seconder - that the motion would be that the word "Easter" be deleted from clause 1 of the bill and be replaced with the words "each."

I have a number of copies for the Table.

CHAIR: The hon. member's time is up. If he could have the Page deliver the copy of the amendment to the Table.

MR. HARRIS: I have copies of it (inaudible) the Chair and the (inaudible). It is a very good amendment. You could perhaps supply one to the Government House Leader and one to the Table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader has indicated that he is not sure whether it is in order, but he might not go along with it anyway. I would wait for a ruling, Mr. Chairman, before speaking for my twenty minutes to the motion.

CHAIR: The Chair will recess for just a brief moment to determine whether this is in order. The House stands recessed until called. It will just be a couple of minutes.

 

Recess

 

CHAIR: Order, please!

(Inaudible) on "An Act to Amend the Shops' Closing Act", we are in receipt of an amendment by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi which reads: that the word "Easter" be deleted from clause 1 of the bill and be replaced with the words "each."

In light of the fact that this expands the amendment to make it more acceptable to some hon. members, it is in order.

With that, I will recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: His time was up. Now, to the amendment, can he -

MR. HARRIS: I can speak to the amendment.

CHAIR: Speak to the amendment? Only if recognized?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think we had an agreement here on both sides of the House that we would speak for twenty minutes in Committee, whoever wanted to speak, and that we wouldn't rotate back and forth.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We don't have a problem. We are only going to have two speakers for a couple of minutes each, so that is not really relevant, I might say to the Government House Leader. My understanding is we go to Committee, and what happens in Committee. I don't recall the specifics, but it won't be a problem because we will adhere to it anyway. That is not a problem. If we get a chance to speak, we will do so. We will give him leave to continue.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To that point of order, briefly, my understanding is we were going to have the first reading, bypass the debate in second reading, and move immediately into Committee. That was what I had agreed to. This business of twenty minutes and no amendments, or no speaking to amendments, wasn't part of the agreement I was a party to.

In keeping with the spirit of the afternoon, I don't intend to speak interchangeably every ten minutes. I don't need much time to explain and amplify my amendment. I think, Mr. Chairman, your own words aptly describe the purpose of this amendment, and that is to make the legislation more acceptable to hon. members. I think that is exactly what it does. Some members are very concerned about Easter Sunday. Most members are concerned about all Sundays, in which Easter Sunday, of course, is one of them. To change the word of "Easter" to "each" makes the amendment more acceptable to hon. members and is more likely to obtain a majority in the House.

I think members have had an opportunity to reflect on what happened in the House in December, and the behaviour of the business community after it happened. When the big, big business decided to open its doors the others were forced to follow suit. I think that was predicted by the Opposition, by this member. I think the government, and probably members opposite, realize the full mistake they made and now have an opportunity to correct that and to vote in favour of restoring Sunday as a day of rest for employees, particularly in the retail sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

The noise level is getting quite high and the Chair cannot hear the hon. member who has the floor. If hon. members could please respect the fact that the hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi has the floor, it would be appreciated.

Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your assistance. I know hon. members would like to have a chance to reconsider what happened in December, and a chance now to restore Sunday as a day of rest for, in particular, retail workers who we are concerned about here, many of whom have to work part-time, and have to work whenever they are assigned. This is going to be taking away, as members know, from family time, in some cases both parents having to work on a Sunday when children are home from school and they don't have the kind of time they would like to have with their children. So, Mr. Chairman, for all the reasons that were expressed back in December, and now that members have had a chance to reflect on what the consequence has been in the community, I would ask hon. members to support the amendment and to restore Sunday as a public holiday under the Shops' Closing Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: To the amendment which takes Bill 4 and changes paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Shops Closing Act by changing the words "Easter Sunday" to "each Sunday", to that question.

MR. TULK: We are ready for the question.

CHAIR: You are ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Aye'

CHAIR: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Nay'.

I rule the amendment defeated.

To the main motion, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak to the main motion.

It is interesting that this bill is called Bill 4. It is the fourth time that the Shops' Closing Act has been brought into this House. The first time it was brought in was on December 4, 1995, and it was brought in then as a deflection because the hon. Premier was then with his colleagues in Ottawa slashing unemployment. There were cuts to unemployment so they brought this in as a deflection.

The second time it was brought in was the spring of 1997. Now we will all remember then how education reform was in disarray and the health department was terrible; there were health cuts all over the place. There was a lack of an energy plan, absence of a royalty regime. It was brought in then and it died on the Order Paper.

The third time it was brought in, there were health cuts, there was conflict of interest, sick schools, out-migration, but we had an `ups'; the bill passed and we had Sunday shopping. Now, it is back again. It has returned.

The hon. Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, spoke about freedom. When the bill was brought in, the government said: Oh no, stores will be free to open. But right here we have grocers forced to buy in because of competition. We have letters from people who are forced to work because their employer says: Would you like to work on Sunday? Can you work on Sunday? No, I cannot work on Sunday. Very well, we will get somebody else to work on Sunday. But when that person comes in they give them more hours, which cuts away from the hours of the employee; not to mention family day.

Sunday used to be family day before this government got at it. We have removed family day. Sunday provides a breathing spell for people by removing commercial and employment pressures. We have added commercial and employment pressures and it will, without doubt, introduce much stress to families by removing the ability of many children to spend time with both parents, and for both parents to act together for even one day as mom and dad.

We had a little girl who did a project that I was able to get my hands on, and this project says: Please do not shop on Sundays because her mom and her dad are both employed in retail and she has to do without them on Sunday.

To that end, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose another amendment to the motion here. It should read: That clause 1 of Bill 4, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act", which is now before the House, be amended by substituting for the words "Easter Sunday", the words and the comma, "the Sundays of Easter, Mother's Day and Father's Day".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: I do not know if bills ever get a name or are ever called a name in this House, but this should be called `The Robyn Baker Bill', because it is in honour of this little girl who is pleading for stores to be closed on Sundays so that her mom and dad can spend Sunday with her.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, it is like motherhood and apple pie. Who would want to force a mother to go to work on Mother's Day with young kids back at home?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What government would ever want to do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What government would want to tell a mother with two young kids at home hanging on to her skirt as she goes out the door on Mother's Day, `Go to work', and drive her to work on Mother's Day. That is not an (inaudible) thing for this government to do.

We have no recourse but to strongly endorse not only Easter Sunday - even when we supported all Sundays, and we spoke against it last fall - but to go just a little bit and say: Have some compassion for fathers and mothers. At least take a day out of the year that is dedicated to them and their families, to be able to enjoy the opportunity of spending it at home with their family.

The Government House Leader finds it so humorous that we, in our nature, human beings, as parents having children who were young, at least at one time - some are still young -

AN HON. MEMBER: This is serious.

MR. SULLIVAN: Very, very serious. Government has realized that it is important that Easter Sunday - they have the motives for supporting Easter Sunday. The Premier got a letter and he made a statement. Then we got a bill. Then we had an emergency here to get it through today. We are even going to make a trip down to Government House. I do not know but the Member from Bonavista South might carry it down, he might be the messenger, but still we endorse, I might add, that closing the shops in this Province - we support the piece of legislation on Easter Sunday.

We go a little bit further. We do not think it is unreasonable to say: Look, let's close stores on Father's Day and Mother's Day to allow at least two other days that are dedicated to fathers and mothers, and the families. We have no recourse here but to move that amendment and I hope government, in its wisdom and understanding that the family is an important unit structure in our society today, will endorse this unanimously here so the people of this Province can at least say that government cares about families and the future of people here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: This amendment is in order. Do you want the question to the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The amendment we are dealing with is an amendment to Bill 4, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act". The hon. Opposition House Leader has moved that clause 1 of Bill 4 now before the House be amended by substituting for the words "Easter Sunday" the words and the comma, "the Sundays of Easter, Mother's Day and Father's Day".

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: She moved it and you seconded it.

To that question on the amendment as put forwarded by the hon. Member of St. John's West:

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Aye'

CHAIR: All those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: `Nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Chairman.

 

Division

 

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the amendment to Bill 4, put forward by the hon. Member for St. John's West, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Osborne, Mr. Harris.

CHAIR: All those against the amendment to Bill No. 4, please rise.

Order, please!

The Clerk cannot be heard.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Lush, Mr. Penney, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Ms Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow.

Mr. Chair, there are eight yeas and twenty-four nays.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

To the main motion, Bill No. 4.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act." (Bill No. 4)

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress 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: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have considered Bill No. 4, "An Act To Amend The Shops' Closing Act", report it passed without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Shops Closing Act". ( Bill No. 4).

On motion, Bill 4, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I move, let me very quickly, on behalf of the government, wish everybody who is any manner connected with this House as well as hon. members opposite - on behalf of the government side of the House and all private members in the House wish everybody a Happy Easter.

I suspect, before I move adjournment, that the hon. gentlemen on the other side might want to say something.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to wish everybody an enjoyable vacation and be ready to get some answers when they get back on the 27th. I hope you have a safe holiday, too, in the process.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to reiterate the comments that we have a short break and come back with renewed energy to go back to the fray, and to thank the staff for their assistance during this brief session in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognises the hon. the Government House Leader, the Chair would like, as well, to wish everyone a very enjoyable Easter and I just want to inform members that today, Mr. Doug Parmiter is retiring. Mr. Parmiter has been a Commissioner with the House of Assembly since 1990. We certainly want to wish him well in his retirement and to thank him, as well, for his diligent service here at the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until the 27th, subject always, of course, to the call of the Chair, and that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, April 27 at 2:00 p.m.