December 14, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 52

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would like to welcome, on behalf of all members today, the Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, and they are seated in the Speaker's gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House today to inform my hon. colleagues of this government's continued commitment to post-secondary education and also to the Arts in our Province with some new developments of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, this government will contribute $3 million towards the construction of new student residences and $4 million to build an exhibition centre at Memorial University's Sir Wilfred Grenfell College campus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The new student residences will cost $7.5 million to construct. Memorial University will contribute the remainder through bank financing and revenues it expects to derive from rental of the residence rooms.

Three clusters of four residence buildings will each be constructed for a total of 300 beds. The design is intended to blend with the natural setting of the campus and, as an alternative to the traditional dormitory arrangement, apartment-style units will be built, with one-, two- and three-bedroom arrangements per unit. This type of residence will appeal to the growing population of mature students, as well as to students preferring non-dormitory living arrangements and those with families. The anticipated completion date for the project is winter 2001-2002.

Since Sir Wilfred Grenfell College was established in 1975, the focus of the college has shifted and its academic facilities expanded so that it now offers full four-year undergraduate degree programs in ten program areas and has a student enrolment of 1,200.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The new residences are essential to Grenfell's development as a residential liberal arts and science institution. In the next two to three years, the college aims to expand the student population to 1,500 and eventually to 1,800. Currently, Grenfell can accommodate only half of the students who apply for its 188 residence rooms.

Mr. Speaker, the new residences will meet the demand from current students and the anticipated demand from new students recruited by the college.

When the residences are not fully occupied, primarily during the summer months, they will be available as visitor accommodations, enhancing the city's ability to host large conventions, trade shows and other events.

The residences will almost double the number accommodations currently available in the Corner Brook area in the peak summer tourism season, thus contributing to the economic development of the city and region.

Speaking of tourism and the associated economic development, it is my pleasure to tell hon. members about the new fine arts facility at the Sir Wilfred Grenfell College which is supported wholeheartedly by my colleague, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. It will be approximately 15,000 square feet and will include environmentally controlled exhibition and storage space for visiting artists, a multimedia lecture theater, workshop space, offices and more. The gallery will showcase works of art, and museum and achieve exhibits. The exhibition center will be connected to the Grenfell campus by a covered link.

The design of the new exhibition center will begin shortly. It is anticipated that architectural design work will be completed by next fall, at which time tenders will be called and site preparation work can begin. Construction is expected to coincide with the new student residences and also to be completed by the winter of 2001-2002.

As most of you know, yesterday government announced an investment of $40 million to begin construction of a new provincial gallery, museum and archives. The Rooms, as the facility will be known, will be located in Fort Townshend in the capital city - in the historic core of the oldest city in North America.

Mr. Speaker, this important step in the preservation of our cultural heritage signals that we, as a Province, are taking full responsibility for ensuring that our heritage is protected for the future. It also ensures that our historical and cultural treasures will be accessible to everyone, residents and visitors alike.

The new exhibition center at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College will complement The Rooms. It will be a showplace for our cultural history on the West Coast of the Province and will be an integral part of the operation of our other key cultural institutions.

The facility will be owned and operated by Memorial University but will be linked to the provincial gallery, museum and archives through a cooperative arrangement that will see the Province's cultural, historic and artistic treasures shared between institutions for all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to enjoy.

Exhibits will be shared between the provincial art gallery, museum and archives in St. John's and the new facility in Corner Brook. As well, the center will provide community programming in the arts for the whole region. I am confident this showcase will become an integral part of the community and a tremendous tourism draw for resident and non-resident visitors all year round.

Mr. Speaker, today's announcement connects exciting developments in post-secondary education and the arts in our Province. I look forward to the completion of both projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can see that there is a future career for the minister in reading the news either as anchor on NTV or CBC.

Seriously, this is an important statement from this point of view. Across the country there are very few post-secondary institutions that deal in the fine arts. The view has long been held that in Corner Brook - like many other small cities within Canada, such as where Mount St. Vincent is located, where Mount Allision is located - we have an opportunity to build upon the direction where this institution has been going for fine arts to develop a niche, so to speak.

The announcement today of expansion of rooms to meet a growing demand is good news. I know the government wants to be seen, as well, on the West Coast in terms of cultural heritage. The other announcement that was made could be see as an anchor for artists, but that is not the real story, while we support that.

The real story is this. What is the state of the Province's finances, truly? In the last couple of days we have seen significant announcements. We have seen a budget where there was a forecasted small deficit. The question for government is this. How much more money is government getting on equalization this year than they did last year? Last year, government ran up about $160 million deficit. We broke the story. They received in addition to what was already announced in the budget - because equalization payments were up - about $180 million. So government is in the position right now where they have the knowledge, they have not shared it with anybody, in terms of knowing how much more money is coming into the provincial coffers and provincial revenues, which is fair enough.

Besides these announcements, which have been good onto themselves and good public policy reasons to move in their direction, how much more money is coming in equalization? What else can we expect government to do outside of what was announced in the budget? Because these initiatives clearly were not. What more can we expect and in what areas?

I say to the minister that as she sits down and tries to divvy up what to do with extra funding coming into the Province, that while the initiative today on the West Coast is very good, the parents in St. John's West, with respect to school reform - another west end of this Province - deserve some consideration when it comes to school reform and implementing the opportunities and the commitments made by government.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me say that we welcome any effort to expand, develop and improve the ability of Sir Wilfred Grenfell College to be a first rate fine arts college and a liberal arts college as well. It is part of the largest university in Atlantic Canada. We are very pleased that this development is taking place both with respect to the residence and the ability to house full-time students, and also the exhibition centre which will be an important part of our Province's ability to display our arts and artistic endeavors.

Let me say that this is money that is being spent on what is called bricks and mortar. While this is necessary, it is also necessary to ensure that our students have adequate access to post-secondary education in this Province. When we have seen, under the Liberal government since 1989, a 250 per cent increase in tuition in less than a decade, it is making it increasingly difficult -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - for students to go to this very fine institution, Mr. Speaker, and something should be done about that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More good news.

I would like to advise members of the House of Assembly that the Province has entered into an agreement with Unisys Canada and xwave solutions which creates an electronic, personal property registry system for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This new service, which reforms outdated legislative and business practices in our personal property registry, is now on line as of yesterday.

The formal announcement took place at a news conference held just prior to the opening of the House.

At that time, I was joined by David Wagner, President and CEO of Unisys and Peter Shea, Vice-President, Public Sector Practice with xwave. Also in attendance at the conference were: Peter Ringrose, Executive Director of the Law Society of Newfoundland; Sam Walters, Chair of the Canadian Bankers Association; Ray Piercey, a member of the Board of the Directors of the Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union; and Miss Gerlinde Van Driel, President of the Canadian Bar Association.

These representatives are also here in the House today. I would like them recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McLEAN: Their presence, Mr. Speaker, is a strong indication of just how welcome this new system is.

With Unisys and xwave, we now offer a service that is in line with services provided throughout this country.

Using a personal computer with a modem or Internet access, clients of the registry now give electronic notice of their security interest or encumbrance on personal properties such as cars, boats and appliances. This registration establishes their priority over other creditors with respect to these properties.

The new system also enables new types of securities such as licences, leases and stocks to be registered. The registration of these properties enables individuals to use such assets as collateral when seeking financing.

Because information is now being transferred electronically, clients will no longer have to visit a central registry located in St. John's to conduct their business. They can access the service from any location in Newfoundland and Labrador. Extended hours of operation are also in place. The new registry will be available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

Registry clients also pay fees electronically as each transaction is processed.

Because businesses can now conduct their operations in a more efficient manner, this should also result in more timely service to the general public.

The new registry system will be made available through Atlantic Canada On-Line, an electronic service providing access to information maintained by all four provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. ACOL is managed by Unisys Canada in partnership with the four provinces.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I would like to thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of his statement before the House opened. Over the past couple of days I think I am on the good news cruise here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that we are pleased with the announcement today of the new personal property registration system. We are pleased that our Province is keeping up with the technology from around the country. Indeed, it gives opportunity for a concern that we certainly have expressed on this side of the House as it relates to access to information by rural Newfoundland.

I guess the fact that the registry now will be on-line and will be accessible to, indeed, the whole Province and the opportunity with the new hours, that they are going to be open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. now, Monday to Saturday, also gives opportunity for people who find themselves at other things during the week maybe having the whole day Saturday now to check in on things and to follow up on details that they have.

I guess as part of that, government certainly should be talking to the telephone companies, because I know in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's we have a major problem with the telephone system. We can be on-line all we like, but if we cannot get out after 6:00 p.m. in the evening it kind of diminishes that. Accessibility is very important to rural Newfoundland. Hopefully by moving ahead with technology we will address the other concerns that rural Newfoundland faces also.

Certainly, we welcome the news today, and as I say, anything that helps us keep up with the rest of the world is good. Keeping up with technology is important but there are always fears with the new technology, and my experience a couple of weeks ago certainly bears out that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: You want to be careful when you are on-line with some things. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we certainly welcome the news today also.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important development because the more accessible and more efficient use of a security registry system provides easier access to credit and assists business activity to take place. We hope that this proves to be successful and workable, and can be extended to other areas where government keeps records of companies, deeds and things like that, that other provinces have available through online systems as well. We look forward to further developments in that area.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the individuals that form the Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. Representing the Federation and seated in the Speaker's gallery are:

President of the Federation Derm Flynn, Mayor of Appleton; Vice-President, Councillor Carl Tessier of Gander; Southwest Director, Councillor Cynthia Downey of Stephenville Crossing; and Dr. Patricia Hempstead, Executive Director of the Federation.

Welcome to the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Federation made their annual presentation to the Social Policy Committee of government. This meeting provided an excellent opportunity for the Federation to engage in a meaningful dialogue with ministers from the other social policy departments of government. As a government, we are committed to listening to their ideas and suggestions and to working co-operatively with them.

Collectively, this group of dedicated people represent the recently elected Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. These individuals, through their years of involvement in municipal politics, and to their role in leading the Federation, demonstrate a true professionalism and commitment to municipal governance and leadership in the Province. Government is cognizant of the fine contribution that the Federation is making to local government, and as Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I commend them for that dedication and commitment.

As an organization, the Federation represents in excess of 90 per cent of the municipal governments in the Province. Clearly, the Federation is a key stakeholder for my department and I value their input on the key issues and challenges in local governance. I believe there exists, today, a mutual relationship of trust and respect between the municipalities and the provincial government, and the Federation is to be commended for the vital role it has played in fostering this environment.

In closing, I look forward to continuing to work with the newly elected Executive of the Federation into the new millennium. By working together, we can make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place in which to live.

May I offer my congratulations, again, to the newly elected president who takes over from Sam Synard who has now gone on to the national body of municipalities, and to wish them well in their deliberations and in their working together with us over the next year for the betterment of local government in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I would like to thank the minister for telling me he had a statement this day in the House of Assembly before the House sat. It was a relatively short statement, so I think I can speak on that fairly easily.

I would like the welcome the members of the Executive of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities to the House today from this side. The minister says that the Executive made the annual presentation to the Social Policy Committee. It would do well for the government, and in particular the minister, to listen to the Federation of Municipalities because in my experience, and being a former mayor of a small town - I do not think the present minister was a mayor of any municipality in the Province - I think it would well for the minister to listen to the recommendations of the Federation of Municipalities.

In particular, the rural municipalities in this Province have been hit very hard by this Administration over the years. The municipal operating grants have been cut almost 60 per cent over the past number of years. The infrastructure in many municipalities in this Province is falling apart. We need to put some money into the infrastructure in this Province.

So yes, the Federation of Municipalities and the people on that, and the people who have been serving on it for years, and councillors in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

The councillors in this Province, some of them have served as many as twenty and twenty-five years. There is real commitment out there and hopefully in the near future this government will be able to give the same type of commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to welcome the Executive of the Federation of Municipalities here today as well. I have known the President, Derm Flynn, for many years and I can assure this House that under his direction the Federation will make many new and progressive moves in the years to come.

I think it is also important, as well, for the minister to pay attention because municipalities in this Province are the people who are the closest to the population. They are the closest to the people of the Province and know the wants and needs. I think it is important that when they meet with government that government give them their ear, but even more important than that, to act on the initiatives that the Federation wants to have carried out in the communities across the Province.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. On Friday past, the Premier speculated publicly that any notion of an in-feed or transmission line with respect to the ongoing negotiations with the Lower Churchill would be off because of the possibility - I emphasize that word - of natural gas. Yesterday in the minister's statements it became evident as well.

My question is this. Last spring in the House of Assembly I asked the minister directly - we were in possession of information that said the federal government was not committed to working in good faith with this government and the Province to ensure that an in-feed to the Island, and also ensuring that power in Labrador, would be accessible to be used as a lynchpin and as a lever to develop industry and economic potential for the Province.

Can the minister stand in the House today and tell us what is the federal government's stance, and in telling us what the federal government's stance is with respect to the transmission line and the in-feed, what has been the Province's stance in response to that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide some information with respect to this issue. The notion of a possibility of an in-feed from Labrador - particularly associated with the development of the Lower Churchill project so that we could have electrical energy from Labrador to supply the rest of Labrador and also to the Island - is still a matter of joint working committees between the federal and provincial governments. There have been no decisions taken. Officials from the two governments are still trying to determine whether or not such a project is feasible and economically viable. The expectation is that they will report back, the latest that we heard, was by the spring, but in fact there has been no decision taken.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition started his question by saying that now the Premier said that the in-feed is off, that is it not a matter for discussion any more. That is not the case. The issue that has been raised publicly is that in the announcement of March 1998, the position put by the government was that we would hope that at this point, if we did not get the in-feed, we would not do any deal at all. What the Premier is saying publicly at this point is that if the in-feed does not materialize because the federal government does not contribute, it does not necessarily mean now that we will not proceed with the rest of the project.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that last week we saw the Prime Minister of the country talking about the necessity not necessarily for an in-feed because of natural gas, the Premier saying exactly that on Friday, and the minister standing today and saying that federal-provincial officials are still negotiating.

How is it that any bona fide negotiations, good faith negotiations, can take place when you have the leader of Newfoundland and Labrador, in terms of the Premier of the Province, and the Prime Minister of the country, basically scuttling it up front? How is it that such negotiations are meaningful, are going to take place in good faith, when those two individuals, the Prime Minister on the one hand, the Premier on the other hand, are speculating publicly that there may not be a need for it?

Tell us exactly what the federal government's response is. My information is that the federal government have said no. What I am looking for is what you, on behalf of the people of this Province, have said back to the federal government.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that his information then is incorrect. The joint committees that are working - representatives of the federal government and representatives of the provincial government working together - have not yet concluded their studies. There is no negotiation going on as such. There is a joint study being conducted to see under which circumstance, if any, an in-feed to provide electrical energy from Labrador developments to the Island could be economically feasible and sustainable. That is the study that is occurring. It is not an negotiation. The study is continuing.

What the Prime Minister of the country and the Premier have both said is that there are other options available to Newfoundland and Labrador, so that if an in-feed is not built it should not be the end of the world with respect to meeting the electrical needs on the Island. It is a completely different and unrelated issue.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is not unrelated. Minister, you know the difference between natural gas. It is finite, it is non-renewable. The difference in terms of renewable resource, hydro, as long as the water flows into the Churchill River system, if we have the infrastructure in place and the ability to provide energy, both in Labrador and in the Province, it will put this Province in a position to offer industrial users or potential industrial users low cost, continuous supply, uninterrupted supply of power.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question: You have talked about, that there is a study being done. Studies have already been done. The estimated cost associated with putting a transmission line or an in-feed to the Island portion of the Province has been done for some time. Surely you can provide us with more of an update than you already have on exactly what type of real, legitimate, progress has been made on this very significant issue.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we all acknowledge that natural gas is finite in quantity and hydro power, again, would be the ideal solution. That is why, exactly why, the studies and the discussions between the two levels of government are still proceeding and why we expect to get a report in the spring as to whether or not the Government of Canada can find its way clear, under a certain set of assumptions, to make a significant contribution to an in-feed which will cost slightly over $2 billion.

Obviously, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford to build the in-feed, but with the help of the Government of Canada we could. We would like for that still to be the long-term answer but there is no guarantee right now.

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

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

My concern is that the leverage that we have as a Province, as we come close to a Memorandum of Understanding, if one can exist and if the conditions are right, that the leverage that we have in terms of a transmission line to ensure that the real benefits - unlike the Upper Churchill system - for generations to come, for people in this Province, lies in the fact that a transmission line must be on and that power must be accessible both in Labrador and on the Island for future economic development.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question I would like to ask the minister is this: Are you concerned that you have given up that leverage? Are you concerned that, if you do not use the leverage that you have to ensure that that transmission line is a negotiating tool on the one hand but something that you are firmly committed to, that you have given that up, and that the reality and possibility of a transmission line becomes lessened every time you and your government talk about other options?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I sense from the line of questioning that the Leader of the Opposition sincerely and genuinely hopes that the government is successful in getting the Government of Canada to contribute significantly towards an in-feed, because that would be the long-term answer. However, if the joint studies that are ongoing and expected to be concluded by the spring lead to a conclusion that it is not economically feasible or viable at this point in time, or that the Government of Canada is not politically willing to contribute the amount of money that it would have to, to make the in-feed a reality at this point in our history, then I am not sure that he would then suggest, though, that we should abandon everything to do with the Labrador Hydro development if we do not get the in-feed.

That is the question that has been raised publicly. Would we abandon any and all of the rest of the discussions if we do not get the in-feed? The answer that the Premier has been giving at this point is: No, we do not intend to abandon the rest of the discussions; and we are still working with the Government of Canada, hopeful that they will find a way to contribute significantly to the in-feed because it is the best long-term answer for Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I know he is on top of his job, so therefore he must be aware of a new glossy brochure called The Territory and a new map of Quebec, produced by the Government of Quebec, which includes a large part of southern Labrador in the Province of Quebec.

Has the government protested this claim on our territory directly to Quebec and to the Government of Canada? I would ask the minister to table those letters protesting this act, along with the responses from both Quebec and Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) like to see your job description.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: Come up to the office and I will discuss it with you any time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member well knows, the border between Quebec and Newfoundland is recognized by both provinces. We are content with the level of recognition that exits. Obviously from time to time some questions are raised by particular individuals. I am not specifically aware of the one that the member raises today. I will look into it and have a further answer for him in the near future.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Following Question Period, I will e pleased to show both a map and brochure, one dated 1998, one dated 1999, both official government documents which make quite clearly the point that I raised earlier. It is a serious matter, I say, Mr. Minister. Quebec is building a legal case by openly claiming ownership of our territory. Every time our government fails to reject and protest Quebec's claims, we build credibility for their case. Some court, somewhere, some time, may be influenced by the history -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - of Quebec's persistence in claiming our land and our failure to do anything about it.

I ask the minister: Why are you so silent, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? Why are you and why is this government afraid to stand up to the Province of Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, our Province has not been silent on this issue when it has been necessary to be vocal, but we do not feel that it is necessary to be very vocal at this particular time because we think that the border is recognized by all Canadians, by the Government of Quebec. I think the Premier of Quebec, just a few days ago, indicated that the border between his province and our Province is not in question.

There is no serious disagreement about that border. From time to time the question is raised by various interests. From time to time we see certain publications that we would prefer would be printed other than they are; but, if we at any time feel that there is a serious issue that has to be dealt with, it will be dealt with. At the present moment we are quite content with the recognition of the boundary that exists in the country.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he should really treat this issue much more seriously. Both of these official documents clearly speak for themselves. How can this government keep on doing business with a province that claims our territory, does not recognize our laws, has captured almost all of the benefits from our resources in Labrador, and uses its overwhelming influence in Ottawa to deny federal support for our rights and interests as a Province? How do you continue to do business in this manner, Mr. Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I think that recent events will indicate that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is doing excellent business with the Province of Quebec. We do not feel that there is any credible question raised about the border. I will look into the couple of specific instances that the member has cited -

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to satisfy his mind.

MR. NOEL: - to satisfy his mind and to make sure that he has a peaceful and happy Christmas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. There are between 1,100 and 1,200 subsidized beds in personal care homes across the Province. The minister has repeatedly said that there should be no subsidized beds, but rather subsidies should be provided to the individual rather than the bed in the personal care home. I ask the minister: Is she planning on changing this policy in the near future?

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

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

First, I would like to say that I was really glad to hear the member opposite was looking for me and he missed me here. I am glad to be back, to be able to answer the questions.

 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Yes, we are in fact reviewing the whole policy as it relates from home support to nursing homes, including personal care homes. We have been very clear on our perspective over subsidized versus non-subsidized, and moving in fact from subsidy of beds to subsidy of people.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to hear the minister is going to focus on people now. I am very delighted to hear that.

There are many personal care owners who have invested hundred of thousands of dollars in their homes and have borrowed heavily to do so. Banks have loaned the money on a security that a subsidized bed carries a certain market value and it gives them an ability to repay that debt. It provides similar security, I say to the minister, as if you have a milk quota, an egg quota, a crab quota, or a cod quota. It is similar security.

I ask the minister: If she removes the subsidies on beds, will she ensure that personal care homeowners receive a fair market value for the loss of each subsidized bed?

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is appalling that the member opposite would compare our senior citizens to cod quotas, for starters. I would have to say that in our review of the whole issue around personal care homes we are looking at the subsidies, we are looking at the rates, we are looking at how we actually pay the subsidies; whether again, as I said, we move totally from one of a bed subsidy to a personal subsidy, or we do it over a period of time. All of that will be factored in to the consideration. I have met with the personal care home owners and they know we are looking at this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, who is speaking as I am trying to answer the question, that I look forward to his support when we do move from subsidies of beds, which are a majority in his district, to subsidies for people throughout the rest of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, he is constantly talking, but I would love to hear him support this initiative when he has to go to his district and defend moving of bed subsidies to client subsidies.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the minister, who has been a minister for almost four years, is now starting to realize individuals are important, not beds. I am glad that the minister is realizing that.

Minister, there are many personal care homes with subsidized beds that have been in existence for years. Independent assessments have shown they are equivalent in excess of $20,000 or more when they go to the bank and try to get credit on borrowing, to do expansions or to purchase new homes that people have done recently. These owners have made a considerable investment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

 

MR. SULLIVAN: In spite of the fact that the minister has not provided any compensation to these people to adequately run those homes, I ask her will she now institute a fair pay raise for people that are providing a top quality service to people here in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I know it might seem like I have been here for four years, but I have only been elected just over three years. I have not been in this portfolio quite three years yet.

We will consider things as best we can. I know it is easy for the member opposite. Every day he will stand and ask for more money for drugs, more money for this, more money for that. it is easy, and I know that is his job, but we have to look at our available resources and we will do whatever we possibly can to assist in any level of health care, whether it is in long-term care or whether it is in acute care.

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

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

Today I have a question for the President of Treasury Board, the minister responsible for the love boat cruise. Recently, the public has seen the use of our Coast Guard boats being abused by public officials and, indeed, by the provincial Cabinet led by the Premier of the Province. In fact, the request for the most recent misuse of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert came from the Premier's office, who is a former federal Minister of Fisheries and who should know the importance of these boats, which should not be used as cruise ships for politicians. Do you, minister, approve of the Premier's blatant abuse of his former position as Minister of DFO to gain perks and favours for himself and his Cabinet, including you?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a minute to try to answer the question, if I could. I would not want real information to get in the way of the bit of fun that the hon. members want to try to have with this issue, because it is a serious issue.

For starters, obviously it is very unfortunate that a writer, Mr. Cleary who I spoke with yesterday, has obviously never been on a Coast Guard boat in the north of Labrador, or off the North Coast of Newfoundland. Because nobody would describe any trip that we took on a scheduled run of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert as a cruise, for starters. There was no cruise. Now, people can try to use language like that if they want, and there was certainly absolutely nothing lavish about it. There was a normal request made, which happens from time to time - and it happens a lot in the northern regions off the Coast of Labrador and in northern Newfoundland, and on the northeast coast of Newfoundland - that if a Coast Guard vessel is available and if it is not going to be taken out of service, and still going to available for primary search and rescue duties, that if it is available to serve the needs of the public for things other than its primary Coast Guard duties, it has been done in the past.

There was no cruise. There was a trip in a ship that was taking fuel to lighthouse stations that went from St. Anthony to Battle Harbour. As a matter of fact, three days later when I was driving the coast I saw it going down the Straits of Belle Isle. They did take the Cabinet and some executive council members to Battle Harbour. They dropped us off and they continued on delivering fuel to the lighthouse stations, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about delivering fuel. I would like to know was the fuel for the ship or for the Cabinet ministers. How can anyone on that side of the House condone the misuse of the Coast Guard search and rescue vessels for the personal pleasure of the Premier and Cabinet? Can you assure the fishermen and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the Province that the Coast Guard vessels will be available at all times for search and rescue in future and will not be accommodating the pleasures of the Premier and the Cabinet ministers?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the facts or the information to get in the way again of the particular slant that the hon. member tries to place with this, but a spokeswoman for the Coast Guard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If hon. members wish to carry on a conversation I wish they would do it outside the Chamber.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the spokeswoman for the Coast Guard, when asked about this issue, indicated that the Sir Humphrey Gilbert was not reassigned specifically to transport Mr. Tobin and his Cabinet. Rather, she said, the ship had been scheduled for other duties, namely transporting fuel to lighthouse stations. There was another Coast Guard ship in the area that was assigned to search and rescue duties for that week. This particular crew -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: This particular crew who were in their last week, because I spoke with several of them personally, of a twenty-eight day shift at sea - they were in their last few days - when they finished the fuel delivery they were glad to be going home for twenty-eight days off. The first twenty-one days, the crew of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert had been doing search and rescue duties -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The ships and the search and rescue duties were fully covered at the time and are always fully covered, Mr. Speaker, by the Coast Guard, and this government does not run the Coast Guard. It was decided by the Coast Guard that it was proper in this instance to take the passengers on a regular run over to the Coast of Labrador.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, the Coast Guard vessels are always on call. With respect to this situation here, I say to the minister, if that ship had been called out in an emergency situation the ministers and the Premier had no right being in the way of an emergency situation.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the provincial government, led by the Premier and senior Cabinet ministers, are so ready, willing and able to abuse the federal system because of the Premier's personal contacts, what are you really doing with the provincial treasury, and do you have any shame whatsoever?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a pretty pathetic line of questioning, but that is just my opinion.

The whole notion, again, to try to suggest that there was some Coast Guard duties that may not have been done as a result of this, is wrong. It has been testified and verified to be wrong by the Coast Guard representatives themselves. In part of the same story, if he had finished his research and read the whole story, the Coast Guard made it clear that the Premier and his party would be stuck aboard the Sir Humphrey Gilbert if a distress call came in because they would have to take priority.

As a matter of fact, as soon as we boarded the ship in St. Anthony we were taken on a tour. We were shown the emergency measures on the ship, and we were told that if there was a call we were to go to the quarters and stay out of the way and not to interfere with the work of the crew if they were needed. They did not expect to be needed because they were on a fuel delivery call and not on a search and rescue mission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour. We have repeatedly asked government to release, directly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly asked government to release, directly to the people, reports on THM levels in municipal water supplies, along with public health information explaining directly to the people what the numbers mean and what they should do about them.

I ask you again, before this Legislature closes for Christmas, in light of government's serious bungling of this issue and the confusion and concern that it has caused municipalities across the Province: Will you today agree to release the reports and appropriate public health information directly to the people of the municipalities that are involved?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I made a commitment that when we got all of the details in from every one of the municipalities we would indeed release all the information that was there to the media and to the general public. As I speak, all of the information is not in.

This morning, I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) answer.

 

MR. LANGDON: Let me finish, now.

In consultation this morning, when I met with the Federation of Municipalities, who are not here now, I invited them to be a part of the exercise when we would release it. In fact, I take the hon. member's advice when he said also: What are you doing, sending out information that is not explained to the public? Therefore, that is what we are doing. When we get it all in, we will release everything to the public.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he made a commitment and in his letter to the municipalities he gave them a time frame; that has already lapsed. Minister, will you point out where in the Municipalities Act, in what health or in what environment act government places the responsibility on municipalities to release public health information to the public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I personally checked with the Department of Justice and the minister at that particular time, and it was the advice of Justice that we send out these letters to the municipalities. At such time as we get all the information back in, we will release it and then everybody out in the public will be able to see what the information is.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I personally do not accept the reason that government must have permission from all municipalities. You gave a time frame; that has already lapsed. Now, let's live in your fantasy land for a minute. You have received some of the information already. Why not at least release it on the municipalities that you have already received permission from?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, we will not release the information in drib-drabs. When it is finished, we will release it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; time for one quick question.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Government Services and Lands. I would like to ask the minister: Has his department any plans to privatize the Bill of Sales office?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Has he any plans of privatizing any parts of the department?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the acting Minister of Finance, I have the honour of tabling the Public Accounts of the Province for the financial year ended 31 March 1999, as required by the Financial Administration Act.

I am sure that this will come as a great relief and probably as a welcomed Christmas gift for the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley who has been salvitating at the mouth over there in anticipation of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Salvitating?

MR. MATTHEWS: Salivating, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of greater clarity, he has been drooling at the mouth for these reports.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Income Support Program report for the 1998-1999 fiscal year, as required of the Social Assistance Act.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tender the Public Tender Act exceptions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: - for April through to November. I was going to put a bow on them but I didn't have time.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 residents of the Province who have concerns about government's promise to introduce a bill into the House of Assembly to revise the definition of spouse in the Province's legislation to provide for the coverage of same sex couples, and the fact that government has done nothing to fulfil the promise. This petition is accompanied by a letter - not in the proper petition form - signed by 450 residents of the Province.

The petitioners reference some 359 references - or, sorry, sixty-nine pieces of legislation which have definitions of spouse, and thirty-one different definitions of spouse in this legislation, causing a great deal of confusion and uncertainty in terms of the application of the law.

The Supreme Court of Canada, last spring, in the case of M. versus H., ordered the Province of Ontario to treat same sex couples the same as opposite sex couples in a landmark decision. At that time, the Minister of Justice promised a review of the Province's legislation and it was expected that we would have this legislation in place this fall.

 

Last night in the House of Assembly, in response to another question during debate, the minister indicated that the Province was trying to come up with a definition of spouse that was related to the common law spouse circumstances where there is a requirement for a child of a relationship to be able to be considered as common law spouses. Quite clearly that is not the only definition of spouse in our legislation, and in order to accomplish the spirit of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision it is pretty clear that the government is going to have to come up with a definition of spouse that is inclusive and gender neutral, just as the Minister of Health and Community Services has done in dealing with the new Adoption Act. It is legislation that is gender non-specific, and that is the expectation and hope of the signatories to this petition.

The petitioners also complain that government has failed to enter into a discussion with members of the gay community to ascertain the range of issues that the new definition must address; nor have they responded to inquiries on behalf of the gay community. I hope that is not an indication of this government's attitude towards its responsibilities to bring this Province's legislation in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. I call on government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call on government to enter into discussions with representatives of the Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality and talk about these issues and find out what the areas of concern are in particular to these citizens, and ensure that our legislation complies both in spirit and in the letter of the Supreme Court of Canada decision last spring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The fight for equality for gays and lesbians has taken place across the country through many, many court cases over the years, and they should not have to go to court every time to get government to comply to the Human Rights Code of its province, or the Charter of Rights and Freedom. There should be an omnibus piece of legislation brought in by the Minister of Justice to ensure that equality exists for all citizens of our Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to speak and second the petition that has been presented by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is interesting to note that in addition to the petition today there has been a significant amount of correspondence that has been forwarded to the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Newfoundland Gays and Lesbians for Equality, and this particular request is a result of a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which was rendered on May 20, 1999, which struck down as unconstitutional Ontario's definition of spouse as a member of the opposite sex.

The Supreme Court, in that particular decision, gave Ontario until November 20 of this year to act. Quebec and British Columbia, incidentally, have both passed legislation reflecting the court's decision and it is important to note that it was only some four or five days ago that we celebrated the fifty-first anniversary of international human rights. Of course, in view of the fact that we now have the law of the land quite clear in the May 20, 1999, decision whereby the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear exactly how the laws of, in that case Ontario - by inference obviously all the provinces of this country - basically a directives to the provinces in Canada to set down clearly in its own provincial legislation exactly what is meant by spouse.

I understand from some correspondence that has been forwarded to both my colleague, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and myself as justice critic, that there are some 359 references to spouse in sixty-nine pieces of legislation, and includes sixteen different definitions of spouse in fourteen pieces of legislation. Therefore, this clarification is certainly important.

I guess I can say I am mildly encouraged by the language of the Minister of Justice when he said in this Legislature just a couple of days ago that the matter is being addressed; however, unfortunately, it is not being done with the haste and with the sense of importance that it ought to be given in view of what the Supreme Court of Canada had said in the spring of this year.

I support the presentation and petition as presented, and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling the first order, I would like to move that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Motion carried.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I can't stand the stuff. I believe the Leader of the Opposition knew what I said, actually.

Order 2, third reading of a bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification”. (Bill 1)

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 1)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 3, third reading of a bill, “An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province”. (Bill 31)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 31 be now read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, this has passed Committee stage already. I spoke on it in great length during Committee. I would like to make some closing remarks. I will only be - what is my time limit?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, we have called for a ban on the bulk export of water for some three years, so we have no hesitation in giving consent to the final reading, third reading of this bill.

I want to say again, for the record, that we put forward some very good amendments on this bill, and I find it is very unfortunate that government did not see fit to give due consideration to these amendments and accept the amendments for the protection of the people of the Province, for the protection of our resource. Having said that, I will say this: that it is more important to protect our water resource than to vote against this bill for the sake of our very fine and very important amendments. While I believe that those amendments should have been accepted, and while I believe that it will shown some years down the road that some of these amendments should have been given greater consideration by government, we have to protect our water resource not only for the sake of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians but indeed for all Canadians.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give approval to third reading on this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 31)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 4, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act”. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 9 be read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. EFFORD: Keep your credit card (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No problem, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I heard you have a new theme song now, I'm Going To Hire A Wino.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few closing remarks on the amendment to the Securities Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Nice tie? Thank you, it is nice and blue. Don't be trying to throw me off, now, I am trying to make a few comments.

I would like to make a few comments on An Act To Amend The Securities Act. We raised some concerns during second reading, and certainly concerns with the security of people's files. It is very important that private information belonging to individuals is secure. While we understand, as we listened to the Minister of Government Services and Lands today talk about the new personal property registry - while we support keeping up with today's technology, we certainly have concerns as it relates to people's personal files, people's personal information.

 

The purpose of this amendment, even in the Explanatory Note, basically says it would “...permit documents to be filed electronically.” We are very concerned of security but at the same time we understand we have to keep up with technology. There is much information outlined in these files and we certainly feel it is important they are filed electronically. It is certainly important that they are secure, and that is the main thing in bringing in the amendment to the Securities Act. We certainly feel that we do not have any major problem with it.

I would just like to make a few comments, if I could, in closing. If I could ask the minister a question - and it has to do with exemptions - are there any exemptions? I am just trying to find it here now. In clause 1, section 144 (aa)(i) reads: “providing for exemptions, in addition to those set out in subsections 94(1) and (3), or removing an exemption set out in those subsections.” I am just wondering if the minister could answer that. It is on page 7, I say to the minister. Are there any exemptions? Why would there be exemptions? Could he explain maybe what would be left out, what information that we would not be filing that we would have on an individual? Would there be any exemptions to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: You don't have it? It is hard to say I have it. I'm just wondering, are there any exemptions to information we would be filing away? I am always concerned about exemptions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Okay. On page 6, I say to the minister, under (s), it says: “providing for exemptions from the prospectus requirements under this Act...” Again, we are talking about exemptions. I certainly have concerns. Then in another section, (aa)(ii), it reads: “providing for exemptions from section 95 or removing an exemption set out in that section...”

There are several instances here in the amendment that concern exemptions. I am just wondering from what point the - again, on page 10 we have in (hh)(i): “providing exemptions from a requirement of this Act.” In (jj), we are talking about: “prescribing requirements with respect to reverse take-overs...”

All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are concerned about any exemptions. We just saw the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tabling exemptions. I can remember when I was in the House before that the former Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is today the Minister of Fisheries, that we were always concerned when he was presenting exemptions, I tell you. Certainly any exemptions to any rules, regulations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Transportation too.

MR. MANNING: Yes, and he was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at the time. I can remember here in the House on a continuous basis when the present Minister of Fisheries would present exemptions to the House, and it certainly made for some good reading, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly raised some concerns. We are concerned about exemptions, and in regards to the bill they are certainly questions we would like to have answered, but I will leave it at that for now.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, “An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance,” Bill 26, Order 5.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a couple of brief comments on this one. I guess the major concern there is that we are moving the administration of what is now an MCP that has a certain arm's-length, a certain moving from the department over it now, under the wing of the department. The department now will have access to all of these records. The department is run by a political individual. It is run by a minister who sits on the side of government and who would have access to records. The biggest concern there, I guess, is moving away from MCP, from an arm's-length administered thing. There are lots of matters with confidentiality, the proper use, and what is considered to cross the line in terms of what should be released and what should not. The decision now gets put into political hands as opposed to being put into the hands of an independent arm's-length Medical Care Commission. That is a major concern, in particular with reference to this particular act.

I do know that in the act also there are certain provisions for recovery and so on that the minister says are already there now. Also, when you move it under the department there may be greater opportunity that certain things could be pursued. If they are justifiable, certainly, I do not have any problems with that at all. Somebody has to be responsible, I guess, for their particular actions, and if there is cost of recovery to the Province as a result of someone's liability on their part they have every right to do that. The overall concern we have here is taking it from an independent arm's-length run agency and putting it under the umbrella of a minister, that it can be used for political purposes. That is not the intent, it may never happen, but I'm just saying that it is not the best method to follow. It is something that could certainly be done better, to have some independent agency.

It does not have to move. Just because we moved the health care corporations around the Province, the institution boards and the community health care boards, just because we have formed them does not justify moving it from the Medical Care Commission under the umbrella of the department. That alone does not justify it. Because we all know that the health care boards in the Province are appointed by the minister, selected by the minister. The minister has power over that. If the minister wants you on that she puts you on that. If she does not want you on it the minister can take you off those boards. Now we are putting more and more underneath that specific umbrella, and a lot of information dealing with patients' records is of a very highly confidential nature, and that is one of the major concerns.

If anybody thinks the boards are running independently in our Province, they are wrong. They certainly are not, because anyone is there to run really to serve a purpose. You cannot have functioning boards running completely independently when the makeup of these boards is appointed by the minister. That is not in the best interest of the public. It has the potential, certainly, not to be in the best interest of the public. Whenever there is a potential not to be in the best interest of the public sometimes the best public interest does not get served in those regards.

That is a concern I have with that. It is not something that is necessary. It is something that does not have to occur. It is existing without that right now. Today, last week and last month it was operating without this legislation. There is nothing to say it cannot continue to work efficiently without that legislation in the future.

It is not a necessary piece of legislation, it is just to put more under the control, more under the wing, of the department and that is not always a healthy thing, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 26)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 6, Bill 27, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.”

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 27.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Registered Nurses Act is, I understand, more or less a nominal thing, a name change. It is nothing of great consequence. It is something that has been requested by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. Also, it has to do with changing the financial year. There are things I feel that should come under the control of the Nurses' Union. It should be there prerogative. If they suggest such a change it is something I might add that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon? Or the association, sorry, ARNN. I think there is an “l” in that name now. It is the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think it is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this will be added to that name. It has often been called ARNN. With the request of that, of course, yes, that is the professional body that governs nurses as opposed to the one that deals with the Nurses' Union. It is certainly important to make that distinction here. We would certainly support this particular amendment here to allow them to, I guess, have a say in what their financial year and name is. We fully endorse that.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, Bill 29.

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

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

I just want to say another few words, closing remarks, on this piece of legislation. When the minister introduced this he made the comment that this was basically housekeeping and that the whole intent of this bill, of course, was to take the responsibility out of the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and put it into the hands of the minister with respect to any individual or company or what have you wanting to use the Coat of Arms on any given product or for any purpose.

At that time I asked him how often this had been requested in the past. He told me: Very few times. My next question was: If that is the case, why are they doing this? My concern, of course, and that of the members on this side, is are there going to be a certain criteria put in place, regulations put in place? I asked the minister that and to the day - and this has been ongoing now in this House for a few weeks - have had no response from the minister.

Again, in third reading, all I wanted to do was stand in my place and bring that point forward. Will there be certain criteria or regulations put in place that will control the decisions of the minister, or this minister or any minister in the future with respect to the use of the Coat of Arms for the Province? Again, as I said a minute ago, the minister has not today or any other day said there would be or there would not be. It would be at the complete discretion of the minister.

Some members on the other side of the House do not think that this is very important. You can see by the smiles on their faces when I stand and bring the point up. I am becoming like the Minister of Mines and Energy when he said yesterday that his throat was gone.

MR. T. OSBORNE: I know why your voice sounds hoarse.

MR. J. BYRNE: Why is that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Do not say anything.

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation, Bill 29, An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act. It is very serious, really, when you sit back and size it up. If you look at our history in the Province, look at the traditions in the Province, look at how the Coat of Arms has been used by the Province in the past - Members in this House of Assembly have used it many times on various items. Maybe their business cards, or with respect to making a note to someone and having cards printed up with the Coat of Arms on that. A letterhead is another one that they use. Who will get to use this Coat of Arms for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is serious.

I see the Minister of Government Services and Lands looking over. He does not seem to be taking it too seriously. I bet you he has the Coat of Arms on his letterhead. I would say he has business cards with the Coat of Arms on it. Is there anybody in any business in the Province who is going to be permitted, at the minister's discretion, the use of the Coat of Arms? That is the concern I have.

It looks like I am going to have to sit down because my throat is acting up here. I just wanted to highlight that once again, to know that within the future if the use of the Coat of Arms is abused, we will know that we had brought it forward here in the House of Assembly, that we had our concerns. The government has the majority, of course, and they are going to pass it through anyway, obviously, or they would not have brought it to the House. After saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit in my place and if anybody else would like to speak, so be it.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 29)

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

MR. TULK: Order 8, Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

This is third reading on this bill. It is an important piece of legislation. I know the Member for St. John's East and the critic for Mines and Energy - it is extremely important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Down with Arafat. To the Member for Bonavista South, that is what happened one time, wasn't it? Weren't you on a conference and someone said to the Member for Bellevue: Down with Arafat. Is that true?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is it.

 

MR. E. BYRNE: That isn't true, is it? A true story. Before the afternoon is out I will ask the Member for Bonavista South. Will you be able to tell us?

MR. FITZGERALD: I cannot tell stories (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: There was a conference, and someone had mistaken him for somebody else, some other public official. The Member for Bellevue and another public official within the globe got mistaken. Maybe the Member for Bonavista South who was there, who saw it first-hand, will get up. It is a fairly humorous story, from what I understand.

I will speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only if I'm allowed to get up and speak too.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me? We will give you leave, yes, absolutely. You have leave from us. Whether you have it from the Government House Leader is another story.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) tell everybody what we were doing (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am sure they were involved in a very informed public debate when someone mistook the comments by the Member for Bellevue.

However, I know my colleagues from St. John's East and Baie Verte are going to want to speak for a few minutes on Bill 28 before we pass final and third reading, because they were part of a very lively discussion, with myself, that we had with the mining industry one morning, debating this bill, a bill that is supported by the mineral mining association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were two important points that were made with this piece of legislation. The first point was that this time last year, when we made amendments to the mineral mining act, those amendments that we made, while made in the spirit to deal with Inco, had severe and adverse affects upon the mining industry in terms of trying to attract capital investment from the capital markets for exploration. That is very clear.

The second message that we got that morning from people who were there, the people who are on the ground, who are doing the exploring, who are finding new mines and new opportunities to create jobs and wealth in the Province, was simply this: If government had not put $2 million last year into its mineral and mining investment fund, where junior mining companies could take advantage of the fact that if they raised $100,000 then they could get $100,000, then exploration in the mining industry would have fallen flat on its face.

Their recommendation, and it is one that we make, because it is a good program, is that wherever government can enhance the level of monies available to the mining industry on a fifty-fifty basis, that it do so. Because in doing that, it sends a signal to junior mining companies, to the mining and exploration community, not only provincial but nationally, that this Province is open for business from that point of view. It shows a sign, a directly tangible sign, that government itself is going to be a partner, not just through its public statements but legitimately.

From the point of view of the people we met with, I speak on their behalf again in this Legislature encouraging government to the extent possible to live within the recommendations that were made, but to enhance those opportunities as has been described by that industry. It has proven that that investment fund had significant benefit to the Province, that it created wealth, that it created jobs, and that the more we can move in that direction, as a partner in this industry, the better off this industry will be.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just speak for a couple of minutes on this legislation, during third reading. As my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, indicated, there was a meeting that took place approximately a week or ten days ago and it was an opportunity, I say, Mr. Speaker, for the mining council to meet with us, as an Opposition, and to review Bill 28 as it relates to the operation of mines and mills in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that was evident was the fact that the mining council was an active participant in the preparation of this draft legislation, and it is good to see that, from time to time, government is prepared to meet with those parties and those interests that a have a direct interest in opposed legislation. This was indicative of that, I say, Mr. Speaker, because the individuals with whom we met appeared to be quite supportive and, as they described it, it was progressive legislation that dealt with issues of reclamation and rehabilitation of mine sites. It was obviously very clear that this was legislation that was in the right direction and working in partnership with the mining industry generally in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is very little more that we are going to add in third reading, other than to say that this is perhaps one of the more important pieces of legislation that is being passed at this time, unlike most of the legislation which is nothing but triviality and just housekeeping, this particular act, An Act Respecting The Operation of Mines And Mills In The Province, appears to be a move in the right direction and a piece of legislation that has received the support of the industry at large.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on Bill 28 , An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province. It is definitely an important piece of legislation, and I would echo the comments of the Member for St. John's East in saying that I believe it is one of most important pieces of legislation before the House this session as it relates to a very important industry in our Province, and indeed an industry that has provided much employment and had provided much stability in many communities throughout the Province, whether it is on the Northern Peninsula, down on the South Coast, down on the Burin Peninsula, in Labrador itself. Mines and mills have provided, for decades in this Province, great opportunities for employment and economic development. Indeed, I guess, bringing in an act to respect the operation of the mines and mills is something that is important for the simple reason, not only for any future of the developments but indeed for the ones that are existing or planning on expanding.

The concerns that people have raised over the years are certainly addressed in the act. It is interesting to see that in order for a lease to operate a mine in the Province now, the entrepreneur, the mining company, will have to present in a plan to the minister and indeed follow up with an annual plan which will be filed with the minister. It is certainly something that needs to be done. A lot of these companies come in with the promise of major economic development, with the promise of providing the much needed jobs that many people in the Province are looking for. Indeed, the fact that they have some type of plan in place that will ensure that the things that are needed - jobs are not the only things in the picture, but indeed the other concerns that people have, especially in mining towns throughout the Province, and that is one of environmental problems.

Most of the mines that we have, and certainly have had in the past, have left behind, when they were finished, when the mining life, whether it was a twenty-five year mining life, or more or less, when the mines closed up and they leave these communities, they leave not only an eyesore in many cases but a major environmental hazard. Hopefully through this piece of legislation now, any company that wishes to operate a mine in the Province, indeed any company that is operating today, at the time of the completion of the mining activity, will be forced to rehabilitate the site, will be forced to put the site back to as much of its natural beginning as it was. Indeed, that certainly is a concern that has been raised time and time again by many people throughout the Province when almost every mine that we have had - we look around our Province today at some of the mines that have been used, and certainly the ones that are closed up.

I happen to have visited down on the Baie Verte Peninsula a few years ago with the Member for Cape St. Francis and the Member for Baie Verte, and visited a couple of mines down there. It was incredible, the silt, the garbage, the pure garbage that was left around. The water tables themselves were full of God knows what; there were so many chemicals and different things that were left in the water. It certainly is a concern for everybody in the Province. Indeed concerns that have been raised by the Opposition and by people throughout the Province over the years hopefully are being addressed to some extent in this piece of legislation.

Any mine that operates in this Province from now on, whether it is a large or small mine, whether it is a short-term mine or whether it is there for the long-term, that especially the environmental concerns would be addressed and that the rehabilitation of those mining sites will be something that will certainly be done and that it will be restored to a condition that is acceptable to the minister.

My only concern, I guess, with the piece of legislation is that it goes back to, as I just said, being restored to a condition that is acceptable to the minister. The problem I have here is with the minister, whoever he or she may be. Whatever political stripe he or she may be really does not matter. I really don't think that the rehabilitation of a mine, or the condition that it is left in, should be the sole responsibility of the minister. We all know that we all have friends and associates in these major companies. We have people who donate to political campaigns. We have people who partake in the political process, and it is always a concern whether one person would have the final okay on something of such major importance.

Along with that, it says, “is made suitable for a use that the minister considers appropriate.” Once again, we are concerned about the fact that a minister would have total responsibility for this on his or her shoulders. I think there certainly should be some level of government, whether it is a department committee or a committee of the Department of Mines and Energy or a committee of the House, or some type of committee, be in place that would have a look at and investigate when a mine would be closing and indeed to address the concerns that would be raised due to the environmentalists that are out there; and not only environmentalists but everybody in the community concerned about what the future holds, especially after the mine closes up.

 

We have mines in the Province that have gone bankrupt and have been forced to move on very quickly, and usually the people of the day, the government of the day, certainly the people of the Province, are left with a major, major mess - certainly environmental disasters in some cases - that cost millions and millions of dollars to clean up, and in a lot of cases never get cleaned up. It is certainly a concern that is going to be addressed, or hopefully going to be addressed, through this piece of legislation.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, having an act in place where the company will have to file annual reports to the minister is something that at least gives the minister an opportunity - I should not say the minister himself or herself, but - gives the Department of Mines and Energy the opportunity to keep an eye on things, that somebody is not out in some part of our Province operating without any rules, regulations or control. I guess, with the development that is ongoing, with the development that is hopefully in the future of this Province, whether it is Voisey's Bay development or any other mining development, that we have a piece of legislation that will continue, I guess, the concerns that have been raised and address the concerns that have been raised by people throughout the Province as it relates to environmental concerns.

Apart from that, the piece of legislation addresses most of the concerns that the people have expressed. Hopefully that will put some teeth in the legislation and will be backed up by some progressive action from the Minister of Mines and Energy, and certainly have concerns raised.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the piece of legislation because I believe that we have to have rules and regulations in place that address the concerns of the people of the Province.

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 28)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 9, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No. 2)”. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We on this side of the House have already said that we agree with the general thrust of Bill 32. For the purpose of the third reading we just want to restate, in brief, some of the concerns that we have.

We note in the public forums that the Premier is making quite a bit of a statement in the national press about how he has been reducing taxes in Newfoundland. In fact, it appears that this particular bill and the reduction of Newfoundland's share of the income tax is part of a national agenda for the Premier. I note that in the public press he has already said that this is the first time since Confederation we have had an income tax reduction. What the Premier did not say was that in 1989, when the Liberals took office, our provincial share of the income tax was at 60 per cent and that the Wells' government, in a grab for money, pushed it up to 69 per cent. What this government has done is brought the tax rate back from 69 per cent to 62 per cent but they are still 2 per cent higher in the income tax rates than they were when they took office in 1989.

Also, for a matter of convenience, I wonder if members have often noted that when this government talks about Liberal administrations they only refer back to the time when the current Premier took office. They would like to forget the times when they were in office from 1989 to 1996, under the now Chief Justice Clyde Wells.

There are a couple of other things we want to note in the legislation. There was much ado in the press conferences that were called about this being a three-year commitment, but this piece of legislation does not give anything of a guarantee in the legislation for the second and third years. What we have is a statement, in law. When this bill is passed in third reading and signed by His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, we will have a law that will say that we are going to reduce our income taxes for the year 2000. There is a political promise made for 2001 and 2002, so the legislative changes apply only to the 2000 taxation year. As much as the government wants to take credit for commitments that are made beyond the year 2000, there is nothing in this bill that makes a legal commitment by government beyond the next taxation year.

What is done here is purely for, in large part, political reasons, because the other side of this is that we have to take note as well of the surtaxes. On the one hand, the government is reducing our income tax from 69 per cent to 62 per cent; then, on the other hand, they are saying to us: Now we are going to apply a surtax to almost anybody who pays any income tax whatsoever.

The current surtax is for people who make over $60,100. In future, the surtax will apply to just about everybody, so we are not reducing the net taxes paid from 69 per cent to 62 per cent. The net savings is really about a little less than 4 per cent, because we have to factor in the surtaxes. On this side, we have said that we will support the bill; however, we have to state exactly what the bill is doing: (a) There is no commitment beyond the year 2000 and will have to come back the Legislature again next year; and (b) The surtaxes are now going to be applied to practically everybody who pays income tax in the Province; (c) We want to note that we will still be a long way from being competitive with other provinces in this country.

We have a long way to go, even if there is a willingness to implement phases two and three. We still have to keep in mind that, when we move to tax an income system, we have to compete with Alberta, Ontario, and other provinces in this country.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, we on this side will give support. We just wish they had really gone the whole distance and had fully adopted our income tax reduction plan.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No.2)”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 10, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law”. (Bill 24)

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 24)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 11, “An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act”. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25 be read a third time.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is very little to add, I think, from comments that were made in the debate during second reading and again during Committee stage, only to reiterate the fact that this is an opportunity for government to really remove itself from these designations and these appointments to members of the legal profession and to give serious consideration to the recommendation to the Law Society to establish a sub-committee whose sole purpose would be to make recommendations and to make selections of the designation of Queen's Counsel on its own.

If it is done that way, it would then be based on merit and it would be a situation that I think would have some recognition and some value; because what we see now are simply situations where these appointments are made arbitrarily by government of individuals who perhaps are friends of campaigns and friends of various ministers and so on. If the designation is to mean anything, if it is to mean a designation of some value, at least it should be done in a committee which is arm's length from government, without any political interference. If that is done, and if it is done in that manner, we would restore the designation of Queen's Counsel to mean something of significance and of some worth.

Those are my few words, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the third reading of the Queen's Counsel Act.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 12, “An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966". (Bill 38)

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend the Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 38)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 13, “An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code”. (Bill 37)

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 14, “An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act”. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It moved and seconded that said bill be now read a third time. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a couple of brief comments on this particular one. What is proposed here is certainly in agreement with physiotherapists. There is one particular concern that is not addressed, and I certainly want to be on the record on this. I made it in an earlier stage of the bill, and that is the long, long, extremely long waiting list to be able to see a physiotherapist; that people are not getting the medical attention they need because they are on waiting lists for months and months trying to access them at hospitals and so on. People are being forced -

One person I spoke with recently underwent surgery in Toronto and came back here, at $75 a week to a private physiotherapist, and now he just cannot afford it. He is a young person, in his early twenties, and he cannot access it through the hospital system now - for months and months. They need this physiotherapy, and we have to look at some system. If they are not going to allow reimbursement for medical expenses that are needed there, there will have to be the hiring and provision of more physiotherapists within our system to be able to accommodate people who need help; because if they do not get the help they need you will have long-term costs on the system. If you can get physiotherapy early you correct the problem. Later on, you have to have much more extensive physiotherapy. Right now they are just carving up the hours that are there among all the people. They are trying to see who is the most urgent, who needs it worse than the next person. It has gone on with that not only in physiotherapy. It has gone on in heart surgery, you name it, and everything else out there. That is a concern, that there are long waiting lists and people are not getting the care they need because we have not addressed the problems with physiotherapists here in our Province.

Thank you.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 15, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act (No 2)”. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We are making tremendous progress, I say to the Opposition House Leader. We are getting down through these bills in such rapid order that there seems to be a spirit of cooperation existing here that probably is indicative of the proceedings towards the end of a session.

We on this side have considered this particular bill and we recognize what the government is doing here, that they have taken money from the general revenues to put into the sinking funds. What has happened is that, because of the changes in the exchange rates and because of other factors that happen in the order of the business or government, there is about a $35 million amount that is extra to what is needed to pay off the debts. Therefore, in the sinking fund there is about that amount of money extra.

We agree that rather than applying that to the debt, given our financial position, that it probably should be returned to the consolidated revenues from whence it came. It would be appropriate that government would take that money - if we were the government we would do the very same thing - take that amount of money that is extra and not needed to pay off our debts, take it from the sinking fund, return it to consolidated revenues, and use it for services that might be needed for the general public in providing the services government is responsible for in the administration of the Province. We are saying this is an appropriate thing to do. We would like probably some time to be able to just put it on the rest of the debt, but it is not necessary and at this point in time we believe the actions here are appropriate.

This bill will also let the government take this action in the next years without having to come back directly to the Legislature every time you need to do it. It is an appropriate amount. It was mentioned in the Budget last year, and this legislation gives the President of Treasury Board the authority to do it under the law as it will now be amended.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act (No. 2),” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, how come you are recognizing me this afternoon and I am not even stood up yet? You are fast today.

MR. SPEAKER: Anticipation. You are in a hurry and so am I.

MR. TULK: The rule of anticipation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, he is slow getting up.

MR. TULK: I am getting old, boy.

Order 16, “An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act,” Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few words on the bill, An Act To Amend The Occupational Health and Safety Act. We did have some concerns about the Occupational Health and Safety Act as the changes were being made, but I think in consultation and questions to the minister he has adequately addressed the concerns that we had and provided explanations we required to the changes in the bill. I would like to say to the House that the Occupational Health and Safety Act in this Province is certainly one of the best pieces of legislation pertaining to occupational health and safety in the country. We are forever on guard as workers to make sure that it stays that way.

I would just like to say that the changes that are proposed in the legislation here now certainly go towards enhancing the Occupational Health and Safety Act and make it stronger than it was previously, and provides for certain actions to take place in terms of services that we need from time to time outside the Province, whereas before we were restricted in that. I would just like to say that we support the changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Again, it is one of the best pieces of legislation in the country protecting workers. Thank you very much.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 33)

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

MR. TULK: Order 17, “An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act,” Bill 44.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 44)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 18, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to rise and be on record to support this act. It is very important that we recognize the danger of forest fires in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last year, there was 228 forest fires with a devastating effect on our forest land, burning over 39,000 hectares of forest land. Out of this, 176 of these fires were linked to human error or human cause. I think this act gives the power to the forestry officials to do a better job in combating forest fires and combating the human error part of this very serious problem that we have. It is a resource that we cannot afford to lose because of the unavailability of other forest stands. We have to make sure that anybody responsible for causing these forest fires will be caught and prosecuted. I think this act goes a long way to give the power to the forestry officials to do their work and do it in a very responsible way. I also recognize the fact that these forest fires do have a high cost. In 1999, it has shown that it caused over $400,000 worth of property damage.

I just want to be on record to say that I do support this act, and I hope that in the year to come we do not have the same problem that we had this year with forest fires in the hot season, in the summer months. I think that our forestry department should be commended for the great job they did last year in battling the forest fires and keeping up with the commitment they made at the beginning of the season. I know first hand that they worked very hard and I certainly commend the Department of Forestry for doing that.

I hope this year it will be a little easier for them because this is a very difficult job to do. It is not something easy when you get up at daylight and fight a forest fire right till dark in the middle of the summer when the days are long. The commitment that the department, the volunteer workers and some of the temporary workers made certainly has to be commended. I am certainly proud to get here today and say that they did a good job. I have no problems supporting this amendment to the bill to help forestry officials do this job better this year. Hopefully, this year will not be as bad as last year and we will not have the great loss again this summer coming that we had last year. Because we really cannot afford to lose this resource any more.

I just want to be on the record for saying that. That is my final comment on that act, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 19, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act,” Bill 42.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 42)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 20, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act,” Bill 51.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 51)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 21, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act,” Bill 30.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the next order of business that we are going to call, as per agreement between myself and the Opposition House Leader, is Motion 3. What is does is it has to do with the passage of the motion that we tabled yesterday on the Standing Orders. I think we have agreed that I would say a few words introducing the bill, the hon. the Opposition House Leader would say a few words, and if the Leader of the NDP were here he would say a few words, and then we would vote. I think that was the agreement we had, because basically we have done this in Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: What is the problem? Is there a problem?

MR. SPEAKER: Not a problem. I just want to confer with the Clerk on the order of proceedings, that is all.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to take a few minutes again to say that I believe that this is a very good accomplishment, and it shows the kind of thing that you can get done when people cooperate and work together for the good of this Legislature and for the good of all of us. I think it will go a long ways to move us forward into the 20 century, as it picks up and catches up with a number of other parliamentary jurisdictions in the country.

I refer specifically - and I would say to my colleagues and those people on the other side - that maybe right after the next election, and if His Honor should, heaven forbid, have to come out of the Chair for any reason whatsoever whenever the Chair is vacant, that they should probably get ready to run for one of the most distinguished offices this House has to offer up to a member. That is the election of a Speaker, because what we have essentially done here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: You are voting for me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely. How could I vote against (inaudible).

MR. TULK: That is true. The truth is that whenever the Chair becomes vacant again, whether it is vacated by the present Speaker or whether it is after the next election, that the Speaker of this House should be elected by secret ballot. I believe it is fair to say, and I am sure the Opposition House Leader will correct me if I am wrong, I think it is correct to say that all the rest of the jurisdictions in the country now elect the Speaker, with the exception of the Territories.

Another section here is the time for the meeting of the House. I want to say that I was a bit disappointed yesterday afternoon, in the article in The Telegram - or, I think it was this morning it came out, and I am not referring to a cruise or anything like that. I was a bit disappointed in the fact that they seem to want to imply that somehow or another members were taking more time off from the House and all that kind of stuff. It is quite the opposite. As a matter of fact, the debate in this House has been increased and I suggest to you that it has been enhanced by the fact that we have said that we will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, and from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and that in actual fact we will do away with what we used to call the Late Show, which in actual fact all of us considered, I think, on the committee, was somewhat outdated and a waste of time. By doing that, we have increased the effectiveness and the efficiency of the House while at the same time allowing members, particularly members who live outside the city, to get home to their constituents and do some work on Friday and make themselves more available to their own people.

The other thing is - and this is a rule I have no problem with. I moved today, for example, that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. Under those new rules, if you are to do that, I would have had to give notice of it on yesterday, which makes all kinds of sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) as a precaution.

MR. TULK: That is right, I give the notice as a precaution. At least members know that there is the possibility that tomorrow night, the next night, whatever they have to do, they have to stay.

I think another very important move that we made in those Standing Orders was Statements by Members. Basically what that is: at the beginning of each day, on the Order Paper, when we come back, will appear, under Routine Proceedings, before Statements by Ministers, Statements by Members, and we have laid out the rules for those. There will be a total of six minutes given for that, and any one member may stand up for one minute to talk about a number of subjects that might be of interest to him or her, not to be controversial, not to be in debate, but to stand up and make a statement on some things that may be of importance to him or her.

The other thing that we have often found - I think it was the Clerks who motivated us to change this more than anybody - is that under the Business of Supply, Ways and Means and Budget, the procedure that we have had in this House has been somewhat archaic, up and down, in and out almost. What we did was ask the Clerks to put together a suitable means - still hold the government accountable, but put together a suitable means of shortening that procedure, and getting clear of that archaic piece of work.

The other thing that we did which should be of particular interest to members is the notion of a Parliamentary Calendar. While it is not set down exactly what will happen in a given year, because the government will always have the privilege - and they have to; I don't care who the government is - to lengthen the time. We have set down that there will be a minimum of four weeks in the fall, and that they adjourn not later than one week before Christmas, so that again members do not have to be here unless there is something that the government feels it has to do. Members do not have to be here; they have some idea of the last week before Christmas and they can plan their lives -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Now, I did that. That wasn't Steve.

AN HON. MEMBER:(Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I don't care. Read Hansard. When was it? The Clerk will tell me. It was December 21, 1984.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I am sorry. My good friend is no longer here but he cannot take credit for that one.

The other thing is that in the spring we will open the House on the second Monday in March and we will go to the Friday before the Victoria Day weekend, with a two week break for Easter.

Much to the chagrin of my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the committee could not seem to find agreement that we would recognize him and his colleague from Labrador West as a Parliamentary Group, but the rules are set down so that anybody knows that you must have contested two-thirds of the number of seats in the House of Assembly at the preceding general election, and have elected at least three members, or at a by-election. This, we said, should not affect the ruling of Speaker McNicholas in 1987 concerning the right of a two-person group within the House to reply to Ministerial Statements.

I think one other thing that we did, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give particular credit to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition for this, in that we moved the amount of time that we would use for petitions, and that is all it should be. The amount of time that we move for petitions should be three minutes, and that there should be one speaker; because the purpose of a petition is not to enter into debate, not to go back and forth. It is to stand up and present the wishes of the views of the people signing the petition to the House for the government to act upon. That is what the purpose of a petition is, and we moved in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down with those few words. I think what we did here, I think what this Committee did, under the chairmanship of the Member for Terra Nova, Mr. Lush, if I can use his name, who is, as I have said yesterday, the dean of parliamentary procedure in this House, under the vice-chairmanship of the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader, put together a practice that I think will benefit all of us. I want to thank again all of the members of the committee. If I missed somebody - the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I even enjoyed him, except in the early mornings. He gets a bit uptight, a bit squeamish, and a bit - I don't know - ‘chippy' early in the mornings. There is something about him. I don't know why that happens. The Member for Lewisporte, who is not here, spent some time with us on this committee this summer - unfortunately he could not be with us this fall - and the Member for Topsail, the Member for Trinity, and at times the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and the Member for Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I think it is a great piece of work that we have done here and should indeed enhance the work of this House.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few comments. I made reference to some of the subject matter that is discussed there with leave when I tabled the report. As the Government House Leader has indicated, we are also in the process, I think, as he mentioned yesterday of getting the Standing Orders sort of cleaned up and get some order and structure to them, but with reference to some of the specific things here, election of a Speaker, I think it is about time that we moved into electing a Speaker - the last Province in Canada - and with that comes certain authority, we recognize, that should be with the Speaker. For instance, we cannot appeal the ruling of the Speaker, the Speaker's right to suspend someone from the House for the remainder of that day and so on would come with that also. That is certainly something that we can support there, and I think the committee has moved in the appropriate direction on these.

What we see here in this motion as procedures and so on, electing, I am not going to comment on that. They are pretty standardized procedures in which you would elect a Speaker, and when a Speaker would be elected and so on. Obviously it would be after - generally the Cabinet is put in place first. When you are voting then, somebody would not be, of course, a Member of Cabinet. That would not be possible; nor would it occur prior to that. That would give an opportunity that somebody, if appointed to Cabinet, would not have to step down as Speaker and go through the process again.

We have some fairly significant changes overall in our Standing Orders. One reference there is Sitting Day Extended. Basically, when you look at and debate whether there is more time in a particular day - we can look at it realistically and say that in a normal day in the House of Assembly there are about two hours used for debating in the House. The first hour is usually taken up with Ministerial Statements, Question Period and Petitions, and then you generally have two hours. By removing Friday, we have taken out two hours and we have added an hour into each day to put three more hours on, and we have taken a half hour for the Late Show to give it three-and-a-half -

AN HON. MEMBER: Plus Petitions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Petitions could always be presented on the other days anyway, because you may have the same number; you might do them in four days. Still it reduces, generally, the time there. Really, at worse case, if you just compared equals there, you would probably end up with probably an-hour-and-a-half extra debating time. Added into a particular week, that does increase the amount of time that we have to do business of the day. I think that is a positive one. It is positive in a sense that on Friday it allows especially two things: Not only members who live far away from the city and have to get home and are tied up in travel; it also allows a day in which the House is not sitting during the week that you have to do business.

A lot of people get constituent calls and it is difficult to do it when you are in meetings. I know, from our perspective, we are normally in meetings from 9:00 a.m. often until noon hour. You are waiting to get calls back. You come to the House and people call you back. It is at least one day of the week in which you can be there to take calls and at least get calls back during a working day. It is kind of difficult to do it otherwise. I think it is much in line with other jurisdictions across the country, too, that they do not sit on Friday.

I think that aids not only in the travel aspect, but it also aids in being able to carry out the business of constituents. That is one of the reasons why we were elected in the first place, and probably a very important reason why anyone may want to get reelected again, by serving constituents in the district. If you do not look after constituents, your chance of getting reelected are certainly diminished.

We have added Statements by Members. I think that is positive. Normally we have to give leave, and if we are not in a good mood we may not give leave for a statement. Usually, if it is on a death or (inaudible) there is normally leave being given. Now, at least a person can stand up and make a statement in the House. Any member - government back bencher, opposition member - can stand on any particular day and they have one minute to be able to put forth a certain interest, a certain matter of interest or concern to them in the House of Assembly. That is not going to be of a highly contentious nature now, dealing with and expecting a question or a response to it, but at least a statement. That is certainly a positive move.

There are some other minor ones with reference to Journals and that. I will not get into these because they are more or less administrative things that just assist in the process that do not really impact on the public.

We have had - at least when we are dealing with financial matters and so on - moving out of Committee, back into Committee and so on, to streamline the proceedings here in the House. We have moved on that to change that because other jurisdictions that have been doing that previously have long changed it. It is about time we came into that; really a lot of unnecessary things that most people do not understand anyway.

We have looked at, too, in the light of - on debate, we realize that if you have thirty minutes speaking on a bill, to reduce it to twenty minutes. If you cannot say something in twenty minutes you probably cannot say it. You have an opportunity for amendments if so desired. You have Committee. You have numerous opportunities.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is so very true. The master of brevity, I say to the Government House Leader, the master of brevity. I cannot say the same thing, I might add, to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wouldn't be able to say that.

MR. NOEL: Or yourself.

MR. SULLIVAN: Or myself. I thank the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for adding that.

With reference to, I guess, Practice, the Parliamentary Calendar, I think right now we do not have any minimums in which we should sit here in the House. At least this bring into the House certain minimum times: a minimum of four weeks in the fall. It could be longer, depending on what government business is there. A minimum of the second week in March, the second Monday in March, to the week before the 24 th weekend, with two weeks out at Easter time. They are setting minimum amounts in which we have to debate business and to raise issues of public concern in the House; that is not there now. We do not have to open the House in the fall. You can open it up and present a budget, get Interim Supply, shut her down again, basically, when you meet the requirements that are there now for Budget Debate.

Apart from that, at least now we have minimum amounts in there and an opportunity to be able to have at least minimum time to discuss. That does not certainly preclude government wanting to call the House together early, stay later and so on, and debate business. I am sure that is something that the Opposition will not protest.

Petitions: the petitions have become almost a source of debate back and forth in the House. That is not the intent, really, of presenting a petition on behalf of constituents. It is the substance and matter of petitions, and that is why it is streamlined to bring it in line with all other jurisdictions that are currently doing that now.

Of course, with Parliamentary Group, it is pretty self-explanatory. There have to be certain requirements that you should have to be able to be recognized as a parliamentary group: being registered as a political party, having a certain number of seats contested in elections. This, I might add, if you look at other provinces in Canada, some might form a party with less members but they have a higher percentage of the popular vote than required; but, when you look at it, in all fairness, it is representative of jurisdictions across the country.

Certainly, being a member of the committee and attending every meeting of that committee, and being a part of it, I think we made some substantive changes here; some which I think will serve us well in the time to come here in the House and I think will help to deal with the business of the House to give members a fair opportunity to be able to express and have an opportunity to be able to put forward things that they would like to put forth as private members here in the House that are not really provided except with leave now as we currently operate today. Certainly, all in all, we are very supportive of the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

 

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak on the motion of the Government House Leader coming from the Select Committee on the Standing Orders and procedures in the House.

The committee had quite a few meetings. It was quite a vigorous committee, I might say, in terms of the range of debate within the committee, on almost all of the matters before it, the whole series of suggestions; and, for the most part, a consensus was reached on the solution to some of the issues that were before us. First of all, I will go through the matters in the motion regarding Standing Orders being changed. The first one, of course, just deals with procedures and precedence in the House which was agreed upon but just not in our Standing Orders.

The second one gets into more substantive areas that we discussed, and that includes, as follows, the election of the Speaker. That is certainly something that I proposed at the commencement of the new Administration, after the general election of February of 1996, that I proposed that we elect our Speaker, like every other Legislature in Canada does. I note that the Opposition House Leader said we are the last government or the last Legislature in Canada to do this. I don't know why we always have to be last in doing something.

MR. TULK: The last shall be best.

MR. HARRIS: The Government House Leader is butchering a fine, old biblical saying about the last shall be first. The last shall be first. He says the last shall be best, but the last shall be first, I think, is what the book says.

MR. TULK: The best shall be last, but I said the last shall be best.

MR. HARRIS: The election of the Speaker is something that is long overdue in this House. That is not a reflection on the current Speaker, the person who holds the office of Speaker of this House. I think when I made the release and indicated my support for an elected Speaker role, I indicated that I thought he should have no trouble getting elected. The position of having an elected Speaker, the procedure that is set forth here, is the culling of the most efficient and best operating procedures across the country. I think we should have a very satisfactory method for electing a Speaker upon the commencement of a new parliament.

The change in the sitting of the House is something I think some members have wanted to see happen for some time. It is certainly more appealing to members outside the immediate capital area to be able to travel to their districts and participate in events on Friday. Also, we tend to have a different atmosphere, I suppose, in the House on Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. after sitting in the House four days in the afternoons. Friday seems to be a bit of a - I will not call it a Friday morning free-for-all, but there tends to be a little bit more looseness -

AN HON. MEMBER: Silly.

MR. HARRIS: Sometimes silly. Yes, I guess I would go so far as to say silliness sometimes reigns. Perhaps it is better to extend the time of sittings along the way on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and allow Friday for constituency business or for member's travel. That provision, of course, does not apply to the Wednesday operations, so the new times would be 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. except for Wednesday.

The procedures for naming of members and following the new procedure where the Speaker is given the authority to carry out disciplines is something that is in keeping with the new role of an elective Speaker. That is in keeping with the change in the status and the independence of the Speaker that would come from having an elected Speaker.

We have also agreed that Standing Order 14(1) be amended. In other words, the orders of the proceedings of the House would provide for statements by members. Statements by members is a new provision which we see in the House of Commons in Ottawa and in other legislatures. It is an opportunity for a member to talk about an event of significance in his district, or of provincial, national or international significance, for one minute. That would be an additional opportunity, in particular, for private members to raise a matter that expresses an opinion of a member or brings a matter to public attention, to the members of the House. It could be something in terms of an obituary for a notable member of society. It could be a particularly special event occurring in a member's district. It could be something of a more general nature of national, local or provincial interest that a member wishes to bring to the attention of the House.

We have streamlined certain procedures for dealing with the budget speech, Supply, and Ways and Means of the House, and amendments on the budget debate, and also provided for limiting the time of speeches on matters before the House. There is always a way, if the matter is important enough to be debated for extensive periods, to bring in appropriate motions, amendments, six month hoists, or other substantive, reasoned amendments that would provide for a lengthened debate. Having individual speakers speak for thirty minutes is not necessary.

We are also, I guess, codifying the practice in our committees to have ten minutes of debate, which has almost been the universal practice for the almost ten years that I have been here. That is, that in Committee we have an agreed on rule of speakers speaking for ten minutes at a time and passing the floor back and forth from one speaker to another, even though the rules had provided for twenty minutes.

Another couple of particular housekeeping type changes have been made to straighten out some anomalies in our Standing Orders and that is being done here by a number of the other provisions. In addition, there were debates about the scheduling of the House of Assembly, perhaps adopting a parliamentary calendar. We have done that in a general way as opposed to setting specific dates that are immoveable, but it does provide for some degree of certainty. Members can know when they are expected to be in the House of Assembly, when they are expecting the House of Assembly to open, so that particular plans can be made. The public can have certain expectations as well as to when matters might be brought before the House.

The next item is one that I have particular interest in obviously and I will leave that till last, because I want to talk about petitions for a moment. We debated petitions extensively. We have seen petitions used in this House as sort of a dilatory type of thing where members can use up a lot of time on petitions. Petitions are important, but our House of Assembly has had a particularly lengthy procedure where a single petition could take as much as fifteen minutes, a minimum of ten if two speakers use up the five minutes allotted to them, particularly if it is an Opposition petition. Sometimes petitions are matters of politics and policy as opposed to a petition for a road, a school or other traditional matters of petition before the House of Assembly. When they get political, they can be used to have lengthy debates in the House over matters that are the subject of other legislation or other debates. We agreed - and I think this is, I suppose, a mark of the consensus nature of much of what the Committee did - to limit petitions to three minutes to be presented by the petitioner, so that the matter of the petition is put on the record. The government has an opportunity to respond by following what the petitioners had to say, or by having a minister write a note to the member presenting the petition indicating what he or she will do in response to the request of the petitioners.

There were two very important matters before our Committee. In part, one of the things that prompted the Committee to be set up was the importance of determining what was going to be a parliamentary group in this House of Assembly. I had every expectation, based on the ruling of Speaker McNicholas with respect to the parliamentary group - that ruling took place in 1987, when our party had two members in this House on a previous occasion - I had every expectation that when we sat down to draw rules to determine what was a parliamentary group that that precedent would be followed and the rules would be drawn to include the New Democratic Party caucus as it now exists, and not to exclude it. I had assurances from the members of this House and from the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives that this was going to be the case. Instead, we have a rule now that has been adopted which is unduly restrictive, because it prevents our caucus from being recognized as a parliamentary group.

In Prince Edward Island a single member of the Legislature, in the form of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, has been recognized as representing a political party or a third party in the Legislative Assembly. As part of the recognition of the role of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the Legislature in P.E.I., time is allocated during Question Period for the Leader of the New Democratic Party on each and every sitting day of parliament. In Nova Scotia, two members are sufficient to form a recognized parliamentary group. In Saskatchewan, two members are sufficient to form a third party in the House of Assembly. In some other provinces, such as New Brunswick where the bar is a little higher, at five members, the Leader of the New Democratic Party in that House, who is the soul representative of the party elected, is given access to Question Period every day. In Alberta, in a legislature of eighty-three members, where there are sixty-four Tories in government and there are sixteen Liberals in Opposition, there are two New Democrats in Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Don't start me, I say to the Member for Waterford Valley, or we will have to send you up to Harbour Deep and you might find yourself chained onto the wharf. I understand the Minister of Transportation has offered to bring you to Harbour Deep. He hasn't offered to bring you back, that is the only problem, and that is perhaps why you have not taken him up on it. He has offered to bring you to Harbour Deep but he has not promised to take you back, so I guess that is probably why you haven't taken him up on the offer. Because you did not really plan to spend Christmas in Harbour Deep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So in Alberta, where the Tories are in control, where the Tories are the government, the Liberals have sixteen people in Opposition, the New Democrats have two members. Although they are not recognized as a parliamentary group, every single day in Question Period the New Democrats are recognized with a question and supplementaries. That seems to be right and proper.

In this Committee, in addition to not agreeing that the rules should be drawn to include the current NDP caucus, there was no consensus from the Committee on conclusion, providing a proper place in Question Period for the New Democratic caucus. I know the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation supports the recognition of our role in this House. The two things do not always go together, and because there was no consensus in the Committee it was agreed to leave the issue of Question Period to the Speaker. I will be, over the next few weeks and months, preparing what I believe to be a compelling case for recognition in Question Period on a daily basis, in a specific location in Question Period, with the Speaker. I have done some research to date and other details are being confirmed, but in the absence of a consensus from the Committee, and a recommendation from the committee, I'm forced to put my faith in the Speaker in this regard.

With respect to the parliamentary group, because this is going to be contained in the Standing Orders of the House, at least in the practice notes, I'm appealing to members opposite and on this side of the House to modify the report of the Committee in this one respect and modify the resolution.

In keeping with that I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, to amend paragraph -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Labrador West, the following amendment, which reads:

To amend paragraph 2 of the Resolution by deleting the word “three” in the fifth line of paragraph 3 of the Practice Notes and replacing it with the word “two.”

I have copies here for the Table, Mr. Speaker, if one of the Pages can take them.

MR. SPEAKER: It is in order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment squarely puts before the House the opportunity to recognize the New Democratic Party caucus as a third party in the House. I know every now and then, even though members have tried to not mention the word party when they look our way, they often slip in error and say that, then try to correct themselves from time to time. The fact of the matter is that this Legislature really ought to reflect what the public out there thinks in terms of the role of political parties in our society.

Having achieved a record of some note in this Province of having almost continuous representation in this House since 1984 with a small gap between the general election in 1989 and the by-election in which I was elected in December 1990, our party has had continuous representation in this House with two members from December 1986 to March 1989, and now again, two members since the February election.

It simply reflects the political reality in this Province. I should note that our own parliamentary system is what is often called the first past the post system or the majority plurality system where, regardless of the number of votes that opposing parties might get, the only people who get elected are those who receive the majority of votes in a particular constituency. This is an unusual system. It exists really only in the U.K. and even, in that respect, only in parts of the U.K, the British Parliament. The new parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have a modified form of proportional representation. The United States, Canada and England are the three countries that still maintain this system. In most other countries, most other democracies throughout the world, a proportional representation would probably result in us having four or five seats in this Legislature based on our portion of the popular vote.

We do not have that system but we do have a system where our party has contested every general election since 1960. We are a registered party under the Elections Act; we have elected two members to the House of Assembly. Certainly, what is recognized in the law, what is recognized in the land, what is recognized in the whole electrical process, ought to be recognized in this House. We cannot pretend to be blind to the political realities and pass rules that appear to be deliberately designed to exclude a recognized political party which has elected two members to this House because it appears, certainly, that the rule here is designed to exclude the caucus that we have existing.

It had been my expectation, based on our precedents and based on conversations with members, that the rules would be drawn to ensure that we were recognized as a party. I would ask hon. members to consider this amendment seriously and reflect in this House what is reflected in society and in the Province at large: that the NDP, in fact, acts as a political party, is a political party, has responsibilities beyond the role of two individual members.

I represent the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and my colleague represents the District of Labrador West, as each and every member of this House represent their own individual districts. Members of Cabinet represent their responsibility for a particular government department. Critics in the Opposition also speak on a provincial basis for issues that affect their particular critic area. The Leader of the Opposition has responsibilities for the whole of the Province, as does the Leader of the New Democratic Party in this House. We have divided up departments and critic areas, and we are expected to be able to comment on and participate in debate on matters that have nothing to do, directly and specifically, with our districts but are, in fact, matters that are of general political interest and affect matters of public policy throughout the Province.

That is the role that we play, that is the role that we were elected to play, and the House of Assembly ought to recognize that and provide an opportunity for that recognition to take the form of recognition as a parliamentary party.

We are not talking here about a party that may come out of nowhere. We are not talking about a Party that might be formed by defectors from a particular caucus who decide to put their seats together and sit in one part of the House because they do not like their colleagues in government, or they do not like what the government is doing, or they are in Opposition and they do not like the party that they are in, or they decide to change horses in midstream. We are talking about a rule that is here, and when we talked about this rule we talked about it. In fact, I helped to draft the parts of the rule that would make it difficult for defectors to form a parliamentary party and have the recognition that was there. Because I have a belief that if someone wants to change a party in the House then they should go back to the people who elected them and ask them whether they wish to have that person sit in the House in a different political caucus.

If two members opposite wanted to leave the back benches over there and form a caucus in the House they could do that, but they would not be a recognized political party under the Elections Act and they would not have been elected under that party banner in the previous general election or a by-election. That part of the rule was designed to prevent the things that members of the Committee expressed concern about happening if we had only a small number to be recognized as a party. Those parts of the rules are designed to provide for that.

I have some difficulty with the two-thirds requirement. I have a special difficulty with that. We have had situations before where we might have a regional party. Suppose all four seats in Labrador returned members of the New Labrador Party or the new, new Labrador party, or some regional rights party that found expression in the election, and they sent four people to this House. Every seat in Labrador could be in this House represented by a particular party that was a registered party under the act. Obviously the Labrador party would not contest more than four seats. It is very unlikely they would have people running in St. John's or Conception Bay East & Bell Island or Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but politically they would be a party and ought to be recognized as a parliamentary group.

I have some problems with that, and perhaps if that were to happen we would see our way clear to change the rule and recognize such a group. This makes it difficult, Mr. Speaker, to be a recognized parliamentary party but to draw the rules to include the current caucus would be an appropriate thing to do, and I ask hon. members to support that proposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

All those in favour of the original motion?

MR. SHELLEY: Division! You only have one over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now voting on the original motion.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, any time the hon. gentleman wants Division in this House I will stand up and get Division for him. I may not vote with him, but I tell you, I will stand up and get Division for him. He has to have that right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Short division or long division?

MR. TULK: Short division.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole?

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could, before the Committee moves, and with the leave of the House, there was one thing I think that all of us forgot to do, and that is to thank the Clerk, Mr. John Noel, and Elizabeth Murphy - I do not know what your title is - for the effort and work that they gave us on that Committee. I want to thank them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to echo the sentiment because they did a lot of groundwork, I must add, researching other jurisdictions, and put a lot of information in front of us to be able to make the informed decisions that were made by the Committee, I might add there. I must say that on a lot of the things there was unanimity. There might be some minor differences on some, but we would certainly like to thank them. They did a tremendous job in getting information to us.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do not blame the Clerk or the Clerk's assistant for decisions made by the Committee, but I will say that the decisions made by the Committee were much more informed as a result of their diligent efforts to ferret out what the rules are in other jurisdictions. Sometimes not just the rules but the practices themselves, because quite often they do differ. We would not have been able to do our work and reach the degree of consensus that we did without their excellent professional help. I do want to join - despite my disappointment in some of the findings of the Committee, at least in respect to the parliamentary group - in thanking the Clerk and the Clerk's assistant for their professional assistance and help.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 22, Committee of the Whole on a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997". (Bill 43)

CHAIR: Bill 43, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997". (Bill 43)

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Schools Act, while it is very short in nature, it does have some very important things. The amendment is proposed there with conflict of interest. We certainly endorse that, I might add, and we do not have any problems with the amendment that was brought forth in that regard, but we feel there are some other things that did not get addressed that should get addressed, and we would have liked to see further amendments added there. I said to the minister earlier, in fact, one suggested there, I have indicated that we were looking at and discussing here, and we figure is very important. In fact, it only reflects what is happening out there with municipalities now all over the Province. The very same government that introduced - one that governs municipalities, the town councils all over the Province, is the same basic one that I am about to propose now, Mr. Chairman, an amendment that would serve the same purpose.

I will move the amendment first, and then I will just speak on it. I move the following amendment to Bill 43:

That Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, which is now before the House of Assembly, be amended by adding immediately following Clause 1 the following Clause 2:

“2. Section 53 of the Schools Act, 1997 is amended by renumbering subsection (9) as subsection (11) and inserting new subsections (9) and (10) as follows:

(9) Trustees shall vote on a question by voice, show of hands, or roll call.

(10) A trustee shall not abstain from voting on a motion or resolution before the school board unless he or she is required to abstain from voting because of a conflict of interest under section 68 or he or she has been permitted to abstain by a majority vote of the other trustees in attendance at the meeting.”

There is a copy of the amendment for the Chair, and I will certainly provide a copy of the amendment to the minister and the Government House Leader, too, I would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: She has a copy.

MR. SULLIVAN: She has a copy of this specific one? Okay.

I certainly want to say a few points on this particular amendment. When we make decisions, whether it is on a school board or in towns - and there are a lot of small towns in this Province that have local government, town councils, and the mayor and elected councillors of those towns have to go to meetings and have to make decisions in public, and people know how you are voting.

We see City Hall, we see locals from all little municipalities. I know it is difficult on times to say where you are on issues, because you might be running a local business, you might have certain friends in the area, but I think it is best that you stand up and be counted in a manner where people know where you are to. We elect people to make decisions and we want to know what decisions people are making on our behalf. That is why I do not think we should hide behind a secret ballot on very important crucial decisions affecting our children and their future. That is why we on this side of the House, we in our caucus, feel very strongly that the minister should give the utmost consideration to accepting this one, because it is now done in municipalities and it is done elsewhere, I say to the minister, and it is the same basic communities by which this board governors even a larger scale. School board govern; school districts are larger areas represented than a lot of the small councils in the hundreds of communities around our Province.

Does anybody know the number of municipalities in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and ninety municipalities.

MR. SULLIVAN: Two hundred and ninety municipalities in our Province, and we have ten districts and the francophone, which would be eleven basically, or you could say ten representing the distinctive areas of the Province and one representing the Province generally under the francophone.

I do not see why members who want to vote on an issue, why they should be able to cast their ballot in secret. I do not think it is appropriate. I do not think the best interests of education of these kids are being served, the same as the best interests of municipalities are being served by voting secretly on things.

If you are willing to put your name up for a school board election, and if you are willing to go out there, I think you are entrusted with certain powers, entrusted with the confidence of people to make decisions and you should be above board, in the public, and not, like I said, behind on a secret ballot.

I think it is important that a trustee should not just abstain from voting. I think there is a certain right that comes with being elected to a position, unless you are in conflict of interest. If you are in a conflict of interest, obviously you have to withdraw from that decision-making; or, if the other trustees feel that you have the right and you should abstain on this, a majority vote would give you that basic right to abstain.

I think they are fundamental points; they are fundamental amendments. I know I spoke briefly with the minister on it, and I could see a certain rationale point for it on the other; but, to be honest with you, it doesn't hold any validity with me.

If you look at rural Newfoundland - I will use this as an example, too, and I think it is a valid point that was mentioned to me - in small communities, if you are doing business in small communities, you do not want to upset people in communities. That is understandable, but it is also understandable - the bigger picture out there - when you are elected, you are entrusted with responsibilities. You have to carry out those responsibilities, and it should be done in the light of the public. It should have not only the public openness that is there; certainly it must have the appearance of being open. It must be a very transparent process.

It is not a transparent process, to be honest with you, when school boards can go out and make decisions on a secret ballot. It is not an accountability process. You are trying to pick out who said what and who did what and who is going to vote where. It is giving you a shield by which to hide from the conviction of your decision. That is basically what it is. It is a shield to hide from your own convictions and so on, and you have to do what is best - not what is best for you personally.

If you are in a position whereby you cannot make that decision and you don't publicly want to make that decision, then you should resign and allow somebody else to contest that position who will make that decision. That is why I am asking the minister - and I think she has been aware that it could be forthcoming. I am sure her colleagues should not find too much difficulty with that process because it is a process that this very government has endorsed and allowed to happen in every single town across this Province. Why should it not be allowed to happen when we are dealing with the future of education of our kids where we should have those transparent decisions? It is happening in local government, it is happening everywhere. We stand in the House and be counted. We stand at city councils. We stand at town councils. We stand in numerous areas of the Province in a lot of decision-making by numerous governing bodies and they make decisions in the manner and people know where they are on issues.

What is wrong with that? I think that is being very progressive, it is being very open. If an individual, like I indicated, has a problem with it, they should not be there in the first place if they cannot make a decision. If the decision might in some way have potential conflict, I might add, they have the options to remove from that. No one expects a person to be in a position of conflict. They should not be allowed to make a decision in personal conflict, number one, and there are still some avenues whereby the majority of people figure you could abstain on it. Of course, that option is there also.

These are a couple of basis points on these two amendments that we made. I did have one other but these two, I am sure, are - my colleague would certainly would like to either move or to speak on this one first probably, I would assume.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main -Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I stand to give my support behind the initial amendment which takes care of the conflict of interest with regard to relatives trustees would have attending schools. The amendments that we are putting forth to section 53 again eliminates another difficulty which has come to the attention certainly of the minister and of us all over the last number of years, and that deals with the voting procedures.

Now, under the conflict of interest, it was unfortunate that in many of the decisions that have been made of late this conflict of interest has disqualified some of the trustees from voting on issues that dealt specifically with the area schools they represented. It caused a great deal of concern, not only for the trustees, but with regard to the parents and the students as they tried to come to grips with school closings, re-configurations and the like.

The second thing that certainly came to our attention was the aspect of voting. I suppose the recommendation here is that the trustees should vote not in secret but in openness. Subsection 9, where it says, “Trustees shall vote on a question by voice, show of hands or roll call,” takes away that aspect of a secret vote. It is most important, because at these school board meetings many of the students, parents and others who are involved in that decision would be present. It is very important that they see where these trustees stand on this particular issue or the particular motion that would have come forth. Again, it is very important that these trustees be given the opportunity to show where indeed they stand on this particular issue.

I have spoken to a number of trustees. They too wanted this amendment to go in, at least the ones who I spoke to. They mentioned two things to me. One was the conflict of interest dealing with their children; the other was the aspect of the secret vote. These trustees themselves wanted it taken out, or at least something put in to make sure that the vote that was given was an open transparent vote so that all could see. These people are elected representatives. They are elected with the idea of representing the people who vote for them. As elected representatives, they know right from the beginning that they are expected to assume the responsibilities of that particular office.

Again, I certainly endorse the original amendment regarding the conflict of interest. With regard to the vote by voice, show of hands or roll call, I certainly hope the minister and this House will accept it so that we can move forward. I certainly give way to my colleague who will speak on the second section.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The intent of these friendly amendments which we offer is simply to have consistency, Madam Minister, between the parliamentary procedures that govern municipalities and the parliamentary procedures that govern the school boards of the Province. In my involvement in municipal government, for twenty-five years nearly, we have had many discussions. Over that period of time we have evolved to a point where we have written in the Municipalities Act some of the guidelines. I refer, Madam Minister, to section 212 of the new Municipalities Act and this is the section that deals with the voting at the municipal level.

I say to Madam Minister that there should be some consistency here for governance. All of these municipalities are duly elected and the councils are duly elected, as are the school board members, and there should be some consistency. When we offer those particular amendments we are offering them in an attempt, I am sure, to help the minister be able to give guidance to the various school boards in the Province, and to make sure that when the people who are out in the various communities have dialogue with the school boards, have dialogue with the municipal councils, they are at least dealing with the same general set of regulations that govern voting.

Our intent is merely to do two things. One is to say that you cannot have a secret ballot. You are duly elected. If you are elected you stand up for what you believe in. In this particular House we know that once a standing vote is called here no member has the right to abstain. If we have a standing vote you cannot sit in your place. You have to stand and be counted either for or against the motion. What we are saying here under our proposed (10) is: “A trustee should not abstain from voting on a motion or resolution before the school board unless he or she is required to abstain from voting because of a conflict of interest under section 68...” In other words, what this would facilitate is that you elect people to make decisions, and certainly you cannot have people who are going to say: I'm not going to make a decision, I'm going to abstain.

We used to have a real difficulty with this in various councils in the Province. We would have people who did not want to take a stand on something. The mayor would call a vote, you have seven people there, and then two people would abstain - my colleague the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can tell of examples of this kind of thing, although I am sure it was not in his particular municipality - from voting. You would have seven people. Two people would abstain and say: I cannot vote on that. So, you are left with five people. Then you have a vote and the vote is then three to two. Two people abstained, so in essence the decision is made by three people. With seven people in the chambers the decision is made by three people. That is not appropriate. If you are in the chambers and you are there you should be required to vote. If you do not want to vote then you should not hold the office. It is as simple as that. It is the same way in this Legislature here. If you are in your place and a standing vote is called you do not have the option. You have to stand either for the ayes or for the nays.

We offer these amendments as friendly amendments, I say to the Government House Leader. We will not belabor the point but we certainly want to say to the minister that we would encourage her, in the best interest of the future governors of the school boards of the Province, to accept them in the spirit in which they are given. Not in an adversarial manner whatsoever, but given to facilitate consistency between the voting procedures at the municipal level and the voting procedures at the school board level.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are voting on the amendment put forward by the Member for Ferryland.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the two amendments that members opposite have brought forward. I had an earlier discussion with the Opposition House Leader with respect to the first amendment that was proposed of section 53, and he is right, we have had some discussion with respect to about how trustees feel about secret ballots or showing how they are voting, either with a show of hands or a roll call.

I think we all recognize that in the debate around education reform, and certainly in the restructuring of the schools, it has been a highly charged emotional debate a lot of times with these trustees who are serving in a volunteer capacity. They are finding themselves in very difficult circumstances, particularly in rural Newfoundland, in the smaller centres where, as the Opposition House Leader mentioned, many of these trustees have businesses or areas of responsibility where, for whatever reason, if they make a decision that is not favourable with a certain group of people can tend to get their business boycotted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MS FOOTE: I am not arguing with that. I guess the point here is that while you say you have had representation from some trustees who would support a show of hands or a roll call, there are other trustees who are saying to me: No, we prefer the secret ballot, for any number of reasons. I know, too, that when the judgements that came down, both judges, while they said in their judgements that they certainly would be in favor of a show of hands or an open voting process, they did not say there was anything wrong with the secret ballot.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I have today on either of the amendments is that we consult with the boards a fair bit in terms of how they are carrying out their responsibilities, and we pride ourselves in fact on the amount of consultation that we do. I am told on the first amendment, when I spoke with the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, that they would prefer to keep it as it is. Because right now boards decide themselves what they do, and until they are in a position where they have significant representation from the majority of their boards then they would not opt to change the act and would, in fact, prefer to keep it as it is.

Rather than do something arbitrarily in the House without consulting with the boards on either of these amendments, I would prefer to go the route that we have and not amend at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I disagree actually with the minister. The same government put in legislation to have every town and city in this Province voting at public meetings by a show of hands so people know where they are on each issue. Now we are going to allow legislation to tell school board trustees: You can hide behind the shield of what you feel and you can vote secretly on issues pertaining to the future of kids and their education in the Province. Minister, I disagree with that and I think it is wrong. I do not think that should be the case.

It is not the case with each town being able to decide or each region being able to decide. It is stated, I believe, within the Municipalities Act. Why shouldn't the education act or the Schools Act also allow for a visual display of someone's stand on a particular issue, whether it is a school closing, renovations, programming, whatever the case may be? I think members that are elected by the public are accountable to the public and you are not accountable if you can hide behind a secret ballot. That is not accountability. It is not consistent with government policy, it is a contradiction of government policy as it applies to other decision making, and I really think the minister should have second thoughts, discuss this with colleague and Cabinet ministers, whoever, and get some consistency and clarity into decision making.

In some parts of the Province you have to go by a show of hands, in other parts of the Province you can have a secret ballot. You can have different rules by which people can apply and different means. That is not right. It is not consistent. Not only is it not consistent from board to board, it is not consistent with government policy, period. Where there are inconsistencies, I think, in government policy, whether it is representing the people in a community or whether it is representing decisions on education, there should be uniformity in those regulations. It is not there.

If the amendment is defeated, what it means is that this government is endorsing people not standing up and being counted on decision making. We have seen it, and we have seen instances in the past. Whether it comes before courts or whether it does not, I really feel that if someone is going to hold public office, we in this House of Assembly stand and be counted and we have to vote. They vote in public in towns across the Province, they do it in other organizations across the Province, at public meetings, they hold offices, and why shouldn't they do it in the case of school board trustees?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: She has? Good. Now she is going to reconsider and hopefully support it. Hopefully the Premier would support that. I hope the Premier might be able to convince his colleagues to support something that is fundamental in our Province and that is the right to stand and be counted the same as we do in the House of Assembly. That is not asking too much. That is a very sensible, rational decision, a decision that should be expressed by people there.

I certainly do not think we are being very progressive in it. We are certainly not being consistent. We are not being consistent from board to board. We can set different policies with different boards. You cannot do it from town to town and in the same communities that these boards operate, so why can't you do it?

I certainly disagree with the version there. We certainly hope that the amendment here will carry because we think it is in the best interest of decision making for children within boards.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I note with some concern the comments of the minister and the fact that she has indicated that it is her intention to recommend to her colleagues that they would not accept this particular amendment. What the minister is saying is that it is quite okay for duly elected school boards to go into a school board meeting after they have run for office and have gone out and campaigned, and have run for public office they want to serve. The part about the fact that they are volunteers is a lot of nonsense as far as this particular decision we are talking about here goes.

Most of the town councillors and all of the municipal councillors of the Province, a great majority of them, serve as volunteers. The fact that they are volunteers in a community, or the fact that the minister said that some of the members might have business interests, might have special interests, and that they would be afraid to make a decision because they might find that someone doesn't want to patronize their drug store, won't go down to the hardware store, won't buy a vacuum cleaner or won't do something else because they are a school board member and they have made a decision that is going to peeve a certain group in the population, is ridiculous.

What a way to make decisions. What a ridiculous rationale for the minister to say that she is saying that the person who runs for a school board should be able to hide behind a secret ballot so that the voter who elected that school board member is not able to find out how their elected representative voted. What a ludicrous, archaic way to have parliamentary democracy working at a school board level.

It has taken municipalities fifty years to evolve to where they are today. That kind of voting nonsense used to go on at the municipal council level in Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank God that some of the people at the municipal level saw the wisdom of changing it. What we are saying here is that there are lots of groups of elected people. When you have a town council or a community council elected, the law says that they have to vote and they have to vote in a public way. We elect a school board that is going to govern our education, that is going to decide where schools will be built, what size they are going to be, what curriculum is going to be offered - all of these issues - how to allocate teachers and all the rest of it, and they are going to say: We are going to let the school board go out and be able to do their voting in secret.

That is against everything that I believe we should be permitting in this Province. If you are duly elected, you stand up for what you believe in. Therefore I am rather surprised at the minister, in her comments, saying that we are going to continue to facilitate a rather archaic way of conducting the public business. We might as well leave it to the old days when the merchant class would go in and make all the decisions for the municipalities and do it behind closed doors. Because in essence what we have done with the school boards is say: You can hide and nobody will know what you did.

That is not the right way to go, and what an example it gives to our democracy classes in our high school system. What we are telling our high school students is that this is the way this group over here wants. This is democracy in the manner that this government wants to see in our school board level. It is a shameful thing. We have the opportunity today to do what is right and to do it for all the right reasons, to be a leading example to our grade XIIs, our grade VIIIs, our student councils and other people in our school system. We can say that democracy will govern the school board process. It will govern how decisions are made. People who elect school board members have a right to find out exactly who made the decisions and they can then hold them accountable. There is no accountability at the school board level. All the school board has to do now is say: We will issue a statement on Monday or Tuesday morning, or whatever following the meeting of the day before, and we will tell you what the decisions are. Just like back in the old days when the merchants would run the small communities, we will just let them have full control. That is not the way to go.

We put forward a friendly amendment and to be honest with you, I had a part in writing it, obviously, because I feel so strongly about it. I can say to you that we today are saying the fifty years of evolution of democracy and voting procedures at a municipal level are worth nothing. They will not apply to the school board. School boards can be, I suppose you can call them, little oligarchies all to themselves. We offered this amendment as a friendly amendment. I know that the Minister of Environment knows what I am saying to be the absolutely right way to go, I know the Minister of Energy knows that what I am saying is the right way to go at the school board level, and I know the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows exactly what I am saying. This is the right way to go. I believe all members over there are democrats. They all believe in the parliamentary system, every single one of them.

All I am saying is that we should apply the rules at the municipal level. The very same rules we apply there we should apply to the school boards. Because what we are saying is that if you happen to be a parent that you cannot go to a school board and ask for a justification of how people voted, but if you go to your town council you can say: I want to find out how you voted. It is on the public record.

That is not the right way to go, and I tell the minister it won't be very long before she will be forced to come back here and accept this particular way of conducting the parliamentary democracy at the school board level. I appeal to the minister one final time to reconsider because she has an opportunity to be a leader in a democratic system, and instead she is saying: No, we cannot do that because school board members have to be able to hide. Mr. Chairman, we are saying here that if you are duly elected you should have no room to hide because that is not part of our parliamentary system.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I will pick up where my colleague left off. I would not want to wake up the dead over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, again I rise to express my concerns about this particular amendment not going through. Because it is very important that we realize that the voting procedures at a public meetings have to be open. Because if they are not open, transparent, whatever you want to do to describe them - it is very important, from the point of the trustees as we have already pointed out, but also from the standpoint of the general public who attend these meetings. They attend these meetings with the idea of seeing democracy in action, but when you are sitting in an auditorium - and I have been on the receiving end of this with regard to school configurations, with regard to school closures. I'm very much afraid that I am going to be another part of it because in my particular district they will be reconfiguring the schools. A motion will come forward in January. I look over at the hon.-

MR. EFFORD: You will say yes if it makes good common sense.

MR. HEDDERSON: What is this again?

MR. EFFORD: You will say yes if it makes good common sense.

MR. HEDDERSON: If it makes good educational common sense, I will agree with you, minister. Absolutely.

MR. EFFORD: Don't you tell me that every school (inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: No, absolutely not.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the one from St. John's West, right?

MR. HEDDERSON: No, we need another school in St. John's West, I say to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HEDDERSON: To go back to what I was referring to, to attend the public meeting and to sit in the audience and see a group of elected representatives sitting around a table, and a motion put forward, and waiting for these people to stand up and vote, well, there is nothing more frustrating from the point of view of the general public than to hear a decision being made and to not see the trustees actually indicate which way they would vote.

With regard to the election, these are elected representatives and as elected representatives they may stand for election yet again. It is very important that the people who elect them know how they felt or how they voted so that they could make their decision in a manner which would be more appropriate than if these trustees voted in private or in secret.

To bring forth the motion was a friendly amendment with the thought of bringing to the school board voting procedures, the school board meetings, a way, a voting procedure that is common not only in school board meetings, but in municipal meetings and in this very House. As an elected representative, the onus on you to state your position. You are elected for a purpose and the purpose for which you are elected is to vote on very important matters.

As I pointed out, there is still restructuring going on around this Province in different areas and different school boards, and not only will the restructuring decisions be difficult and hard decisions to make, but we have all types of decisions that will be coming to the attention of school boards as they move forward in the next couple of years.

Like the conflict of interest which needed to be addressed, and I am very glad is being addressed, with regard to voting procedures, to ignore what people expect for elected representatives is certainly not the way to go. I say to the minister that I hope this amendment can be accepted, that will be accepted, and I certainly leave it at that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Chairman, all I can do is reiterate what I said when I stood up prior to the last two speeches opposite in terms of thanking them for the amendments they were putting forward, but clearly explaining why I would not be supporting the amendments at this point in time.

I explained that, and I said we have a very good working relationship with all of the boards in the Province, particularly with the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association. What I've undertaken to do, as I said when I stood up initially, was to consult with the school boards. I will certainly do that, because right now, as it stands, the different school boards approach it in a different way and I have been advised by the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association they would like to keep it that way. Having said that, I can certainly go back to them, as I said I would, and consult with them. There will be another time if it is decided that yes, we should go forward with these amendments, but for today, until I have gone through the consultation process with the school boards, I would prefer to leave it as it is.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Are we going to call a vote on that one?

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: Because I just have one other amendment. I will allow the vote on this amendment if you wanted to proceed.

CHAIR: We are voting on the amendment put forward by the Member for Ferryland.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also feel there is one other area that needs addressing. I am sure now the minister will definitely agree with this one. It is not on a secret ballot. I will just read the amendment and then I will provide a copy. It reads:

That Clause 1 of Bill 43, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, which is now before the House of Assembly, be amended by adding immediately following subsection (6) the following subsection (7): “A decision of the trustees made at a closed meeting shall not be valid until that decision has been ratified by a vote of the trustees at a public meeting.”

I think it is important. In fact, I will use an example to illustrate a point. In April of this year, at Prince of Wales Collegiate, I attended a meeting of the school board in which they voted on a school in my district. That was in April. The board unanimously approved, and they agreed with the parents' proposal and the council's. They said: Let's close all the schools up in the area of the system and have one school. Parents agreed, and we had a lot of meetings and a lot of discussion, lobbying together. Everybody on the one (inaudible). It was unanimous. There wasn't a dissenter in 250 people at a meeting representing the parents. They closed the school in Fermeuse, they closed the school in Cape Bryole. Thirty-four kilometers is the farthest distance now to go to school from one end, which is a fair distance, I say to the members. Kindergarten kids come from Cappahayden now down to Ferryland. That was a major step, because they came to Fermeuse which was only half the distance before. People in Cape Bryole, for instance, agreed to close it. They agreed to consolidate the two administrations in Ferryland: the IV to VIII and the IX to XII into one and close the other two schools and move everybody central.

We did a proposal in November of last year, put it to the board in November of 1998, and we said: Let's get on with education reform, let's get one school in the area. With that, closing two schools, the considerable savings, the reduction in staff and administration, we figured we should have access to comparable services that the rest of the board have. That is what they asked for. We should have adequate access to other programming. That is all they wanted, the best opportunities. They knew you cannot keep schools open with smaller numbers, non-efficiencies, and so on November 4 they put a proposal to the board. Unfortunately, nothing happened for months. They went out on their own, raised several thousand dollars, went to an architect and got a plan. They paid the architect. Four councils raised the money equally. They said: Here is a plan now that can bring about that. Still no decision. Finally in April 1999 at Prince of Wales Collegiate the board unanimously decided to put the gymnasium there and do the other internal reconfigurations to move forward.

In May, at a closed meeting of the board, with only certain members, they came back and overturned that decision not to put a full gymnasium there and the other facilities. After several meetings, I might add, with the board. They asked me to represent the councils, as their spokesperson in dealing with the board, which I did, and I got involved. We went to a board meeting again in late June. We went down there and weren't allowed to speak. It did not stop us from speaking because we knew we had not been given a fair shake and the people were vocal at the meeting. We jammed in down at Atlantic Place, not half big enough to have public meetings, but we went there anyway. Almost all of us managed to squeeze into that space and we said: We have not been told the truth, they have reversed decisions.

I wrote a detailed letter covering several months of the sequence of events, everything that happened, what we were told in meetings, and provided facts to every board member before going to that meeting and called every single one I could get in contact with. I got a hold of almost every one of them, except two or three. I said: Here are the facts we were told, here is what the people were told in meetings. I sat there with them, with principals and that. The people that were opposed to it - well, thank God, at that meeting they voted eight to three to go ahead and carry out the earlier decision they had made in April of that year. When at a closed meeting, with a smaller number, they changed it. That should not be allowed to happen.

This amendment that I am asking to be accepted I will just read again. It states, in part:

(7) A decision of the trustees made at a closed meeting shall not be valid until that decision has been ratified by a vote of the trustees at a public meeting.

That is only fair. The boards are elected to represent the public. They should not be allowed to go behind closed doors and make decisions that are contrary. This did not come from me, actually. This was not my suggestion on this one. It is not related to my district at all - that precipitated this at all. In fact, I think my colleague probably from Waterford Valley is one. It had nothing to do with mine. I did not even discuss it with him, but I used it to illustrate how important this particular point is in getting what is considered to be fairness, transparency in decisions.

Allowing secret votes, that was just defeated here I might add, is not allowing transparency. This one here is only telling people: Don't go behind a closed door and make a decision that you are not prepared to ratify with the full body at a public meeting.

That is a pretty reasonable amendment we are putting forward, and I certainly hope that the minister can respond favourably to this one. Granted, she did say on the last one that she would go back to the boards again - and hopefully may come back at the next session of the House and maybe be able to effect the change we suggested earlier. I give her the benefit of the time on that because it is kind of short notice to do that and exhaust discussions on it. Hopefully she will be able to do that. Hopefully she will be able to stand in her place now and endorse this amendment and get on with it here and we can get this piece of legislation through.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Again, we on this side of the House, with the great encouragement of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, whatever it is that he is minister of when he is here, want to refer members to section 61 of the education act. It says, “A meeting of a board is open to the public unless it is declared by vote of the trustees to be a closed meeting from which members of the public shall be excluded.”

Then, section 62.(2) goes on to say, “Notwithstanding subsection (1), the minutes of a closed meeting shall not be available to the public.”

Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are proposing - again, it is a friendly amendment we are putting forward - is to try to guarantee some transparency. What was happening many years ago at the municipal level was that the elected councils would go and have a private meeting. In fact, in some cases they would not even let people from the public come in for the public meetings. They would say: You have to wait outside.

We have evolved over time and we said: Okay, you can have your private meetings but you must ratify those decisions in a public meeting.

Mr. Chairman, there are ways to protect things like, for example, the legal requirements, staffing matters. These are all protected -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) private meetings?

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. Member for Bellevue, there certainly were private meetings when I was the Mayor for Mount Pearl - there certainly were - but the decisions were always ratified at a public meeting; because, under the Municipalities Act, under the City of Mount Pearl Act, under the City of St. John's Act, under the City of Corner Brook Act, these decisions are not valid unless they are brought forward at a public meeting. What I am saying to the Member for Bellevue is that there is provision for private meetings but you must ratify the decision at a public meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: What we are saying here is that the general public of the Province has a right to know what decisions were made; that the laws as they apply to the decision-making processes at the municipal level will also apply at the school board level.

I know that members opposite feel very uncomfortable with the way they are voting this afternoon, and they should feel very uncomfortable because the very same government that sets out one set of guidelines for municipalities is now saying to school boards that it is okay to hide behind your vote. It is okay to do one thing at a public meeting and then have a private meeting and negate that, and nobody knows how things went or who voted how.

If we are going to have some kind of semblance of a parliamentary system at the school board level, we have to do it publicly; because, if we do not, we will never ever know the way that decision-making processes were made.

We encourage the minister to look at these particular recommendations. I do believe the minister is more sensitive to these particular amendments than she has indicated, but unfortunately she is instructing her colleagues on the other side to vote against them. I encourage her to support this particular amendment because what this says is that you have a publicly elected body and therefore all the decisions should be made and done in a public manner.

We encourage the government to accept our amendments, and I am hoping the minister will agree that this is the way in which the school board decisions of this Province should be governed in the future.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, again I rise to this amendment, in support of this amendment, and certainly would encourage the minister and that side of the House to vote for this particular amendment. It is an important amendment, one which should be given the appropriate consideration. It is an amendment that is needed. Again, in light of what we discussed, or what I mentioned in regard to a previous amendment, that any time where you are talking about elected representatives, any time where you are talking about making decisions in a closed meeting, I cannot stress the importance of making sure that those decisions which are made at a closed meeting must be ratified by a vote of the trustees at a public meeting.

Again, the transparency is necessary; the accountability is necessary. I find it hard to believe that many crucial decisions could indeed be made behind closed doors, away from the general public, where the general public would not be in any way party to that particular decision. It is a friendly amendment, an amendment that mirrors the voting procedures that are in other boards. It is most important that it be given the consideration that is required. For too long, especially with regard to the education of our children - it is absolutely necessary that the accountability be there.

We have heard so very, very often how the children of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are the future. I cannot believe that decisions would not be open, would not be transparent, because anyone who would make decisions on behalf of the students, of the children of this Province, would only be making those decisions for the good of the students in our system.

School boards, in their mission statements, even though they might be different in regard to wording, they indicate that they have been elected and it is always student first. If indeed all decisions are for students, for the best delivery of education in this Province, it is most important that these decisions be open, they be transparent, that if they are going to decide - the nature of decisions could be anything regarding the running of the schools, the staffing of the schools, the curriculum offerings, the program offerings - it is indeed most important that these decisions be open, that they be brought back to the vote of the trustees at a public meeting. If these decisions are brought back to a public meeting, they are in actual fact not only ratified by the vote of the trustees but I guess you could say they are ratified in a public forum and that the people in attendance there feel as if indeed they are part of the meeting and part of the ratification.

Of course, at school board meetings the public does not get a chance to speak but they do go -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. HEDDERSON: At public board meetings they do not get a chance to speak. You have to sit there - much, I suppose, like in this particular House where you sit in the galleries and listen but cannot participate - but the very fact that the public are there and listening makes them a part of the whole proceedings.

If decisions of trustees are to be made, and if they are made behind closed doors, they still must bring it forth to the trustees at a public meeting so that once again not only will the trustees - there have been cases, I might add, where not all the trustees are involved in these closed meetings. These closed meetings may only involve part of the board. Therefore, it is most important that the decision that is made by just a small number of trustees would indeed be ratified by the vote of the entire body of elected representatives at a particular school board.

In closing, again I would encourage the minister to consider this amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Chairman, like the last amendment, I recognize where the members opposite are coming from. I think we also have to recognize that we are talking about trustees here, people who have been elected to these positions by the people of the Province in all regions of the Province.

Out of respect for them as well, I think I have an obligation to consult with them on this proposed amendment, again recognizing where the hon. members are coming from on both amendments, and to bring it back to the House, I hope, with a favorable reply; but, for today, I want to take this under advisement and consult with those who will be impacted by the changes we make if we were to accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I will not vote in favour of the amendments today but instead will take them and consult with the boards on what has been put forward.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly hope the minister keeps in mind, when she does consult, that all of the municipalities in this Province are bound by public votes, that are passed by legislation here, representing all of these. They are in the same situation, the same category. They are elected people also, in their communities, and they are subject to a public display of their voting preference here. I think, presented in the proper light, they could see it that way certainly in terms of consistency.

I know it has been a difficult time for school boards during the school closures and decision-making, communities pitted against communities and so on. It has been a difficult process. I am glad we did not go through that in my district, I know that. We did not have that experience because we had a very cooperative approach on it, as I mentioned. I am sure a group met with the minister on it before. It is a problem. I think we are past that. I think they would be a lot more receptive to it now than they would over the turmoil we have had in the last year or two. Hopefully that will change. I think the public have a right to know what their elected representative stands for and what they are doing, the same as they have a right here in this House of Assembly and in their local governments in the area.

I certainly hope that we will see some legislation forthcoming. Apparently we are not going to get support on this amendment but hopefully legislation will come forth in the next session to be able to see that done here. It is only right and it is only consistent with government policy elsewhere.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, I just wanted to clarify, did I hear -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Did I hear the minister say that she will be having a commitment by the minister to have consultations with the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association and the school boards between now and the spring session, and that we can anticipate a report and legislation, possibly, amendments in the spring session? Is that the intent of the minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Chairman, what I have undertaken to do, in light of the two amendments put forward today, is to consult with the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards Association, have them consult with their boards and get back to me on their views on the amendments put forward.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: I declare the amendment defeated.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997”. (Bill 43)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me call Bill 41, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland”.

I think there is a minor amendment here which I will read into the record because the Minister of Justice is not here: An Act To Amend The Law Society Act, 1999

1. Subclause 43(4) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately before the words “shall be dealt with” the words “that information”.

All this amendment would do is add the words “that information”, which were inadvertently omitted from the provision in the first place.

CHAIR: Bill 41, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland”.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have no difficulty with the amendment as presented. It is simply just completing a sentence as a result of the omission of a couple of words, so obviously there is no difficulty with that.

With respect to third reading -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No question about that, I say to the Government House Leader.

With respect to the legislation itself, as I have indicated in previous debate, Mr. Chairman, this act is the result of a lot of work and a lot of effort by those individuals who wanted to improve upon the old act governing the legal profession in the Province. This act modifies many of the provisions, in particular the provisions dealing with interjurisdictional practice and the whole issue of discipline of its members.

I have spoken with the Secretary Treasurer of the Law Society. I have also spoken with a couple of the solicitors within the department who have worked diligently towards this particular piece of legislation and, having spoken with those individuals and having reviewed the legislation, it is clear that this legislation is what the profession now needs and we have no difficulty with what is being presented. In fact, we will support fully the bill governing the legal profession in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

A bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland”. (Bill 41)

On motion, clauses 1 through 42, carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 43 as amended, carried.

On motion, clauses 44 through 83, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act,” Bill 40. I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, if he would follow this bill through.

CHAIR: Bill 40, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.”

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We on this side have spoken to this particular amendment. We recognize that there are some changes that will facilitate the appropriate pension rights of those who were in religious orders. Also, it does follow consistently with the collective bargaining that has gone on between the NLTA and the government. While all members in the teaching profession were not happy with some of those changes, we recognize that the members of the profession had these matters explained to them and that they voted on it in a free democratic way. Therefore, we in this House are merely putting into legislation the intent and the provisions agreed upon by the majority of teachers. Also, as I mentioned, it does clear up some difficulties that involve the people who were in religious orders.

With these matters stated, we support the bill because it is consistent with what was duly negotiated.

CHAIR: A bill, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.” (Bill 40)

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 25, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991,” Bill 39.

CHAIR: Bill 39.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise again to speak in support of the general principle of this bill. There are a couple of sections I want to draw to members' attention. The provision is made in this legislation for people who, shall we say, are negatively affected when the marriage breaks down, and primarily involving females who find themselves very much in a disadvantageous position after the marriage broke down. This act does address that issue. We know that there have been substantive negotiations that have gone on with all levels of government, at the Cabinet level, and there has been an extensive lobbying that has occurred. We are pleased to say that this matter has now been addressed. Women in particular, prior to this, had some real difficulties with their pension rights and literally, in cases where the person receiving a pension dies, in some cases the person had their pensions stopped altogether.

This is a fair piece of legislation. We cannot let this matter pass, however, without bringing to the government's attention what is happening to the public service pensioners, those people who have very low pensions. While we recognize the general application of the senior support benefit that was announced in last year's Budget, we also say to the government that there is some responsibility in government to look after its former employees. We recognize that there are defined benefits, we recognize that there is a matter here of the government taking a hard-nosed stance and saying: You did not pay in enough premiums, therefore you cannot have enough benefits.

All throughout the 1970s and the 1980s members of the public service pensioners were not allowed to negotiate their pension benefits. Pensions was not something that was on the table for negotiation. Many public service pensioners find themselves a victim not only of the government's actions throughout the 1970s and 1980s, but a victim of their unions' lack of action at that particular time.

It is not simply the government that did, shall we say, inadequately address public service pensioners in the 1970s and 1980s; so did the unions inadequately address public service pensioners. Many of us here were in unions that kind of took the attitude that pensions were something that were not on the collective bargaining table. Suddenly we have to address it and now we have a large sector of the population that are really victims of this particular circumstance.

While you cannot expect public service pensioners to come out and, shall we say, discredit their unions - that is not likely to happen - they are looking to government for some help and some way of addressing their particular situation.

With these few comments, particularly as they apply to public service pensioners, it is time for the government to recognize their responsibility and to do something to address the inequities and the very poor living standards that many of our public service pensioners encounter on a daily basis.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Bill 39.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.”

On motion, clauses 1 through 8, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Before we go to supper, Mr. Chairman - and I think we have agreed we will recess the Committee for an hour - we will do “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act,” Bill 47, Order 26.

CHAIR: Bill 47.

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.”

On motion, clause 1, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I think we have agreed among us that we will take a recess until 7:00 p.m.

CHAIR: Very well. The House is recessed until 7:00 p.m.

Recess

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 27, Bill 52, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.”

CHAIR: Bill 52.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We on this side, through our critic, made some comments on this particular piece of legislation before. Of course it is purely to bring the City Of Mount Pearl Act, the City Of Corner Brook Act, the City Of St. John's Act and the St. John's Assessment Act in keeping or to modify or to go along with other acts in the Province, particularly the new Municipalities Act.

We did want to make a few comments. The particular act has been discussed with the municipalities involved. We understand there has been dialogue that has been going on for some time with these municipalities. There are some sections that are of interest, and in particular, some of the sections that I made note of this afternoon when we were talking about amendments to the education act.

We also note the fact that the councils can now have different assessments for different types of business. In clause 4 (5) of the act, there is provision here that the cities may go and borrow money. A city may borrow “...with the prior written approval of the minister, provide for an expenditure in its budget for a capital reserve...” That is something the municipalities have been asking for for some time. For example, when the City of Corner Brook was building their new civic centre they had to have permission to go and set up their reserve. That now applies to the City of Mount Pearl and to other acts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Some members on this side were wondering if we could come in and just hitchhike our way to Battle Harbour.

Mr. Chairman, the critic for this particular act is undoubtedly out this evening on personal family business. He and I discussed this earlier in the day and he does not have any objection because basically what we are doing here is merely bringing this act in line with the other acts. With those few comments, I think that we on this side will grant approval at the Committee stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

On motion, clauses 1 through 40, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 52 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 28, “An Act Respecting Adoptions,” Bill 45.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would remind the hon. members, especially when we are conducting a vote, it is very difficult to try and hear. If you could at least keep it down a bit while we are doing that part of the proceedings, please.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I did not get a chance a few days ago to have a few comments on this particular piece of legislation and I wanted to go on the record as saying that this particular piece of legislation is consistent with what is now being practiced in the Province of British Columbia. It is consistent with what is being practiced in the Scandinavian countries. When we were completing the study on children's interests, as the Chair will certainly remember, we had quite an extensive dialogue on this particular process and the whole adoption procedure. As a person who served on that Committee, I'm very pleased to stand and say that this new procedure, this new adoption legislation, is very consistent with where we feel our Province should be going. As the minister said when she introduced it, the old adoption legislation is fifty years old. While I had been telling her earlier, a few days ago in the lobby of the Confederation Building, that I support this particular piece of legislation, I want to say to hon. members that opening up adoption information is something that is long overdue.

I just want but one little aside to show you why I am so pleased with this. I happened to be a high school teacher for many years. Many years ago my sister had a child and that child was put up for adoption. We had been trying to find that child for some time and it so happens that this young man - the child of my sister, who had been put up for adoption happened to end up in the school where I was teaching. In fact, I taught him, and for many years he knew that I was his uncle but he was not allowed to divulge that kind of information. Since we have made a connection with him and now he has been rejoined to our family, it makes the family unit strong. I'm proud to say that in this particular piece of legislation he would not have had the struggle that he had trying to contact his birth mother. In that particular case, as I say, I was a teacher in a school and taught a young man who turns out to be my nephew. I had him as a student but because the sharing of information did not take place, which would have been provided for here, then certainly his life would have been a little bit more, shall we say - his issues could have been addressed more adequately.

I am pleased to endorse and support this. Now there will be some changes that we will probably have as we go on in time, but I wanted to say to the minister - and I am sure she is well aware of this - that in British Columbia when this piece of legislation was put forward there was an awful lot of consultation that went on throughout the whole Province. I should point out as well that in the veto provisions, a very small number of birth parents actually use the veto provision. Some of the brochures that were used in British Columbia I have in my files, and I know the minister is well aware of the public information process that was used.

I commend the minister, I commend the government, because this in itself is a very progressive piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 1 through 75, carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed Bill 45 without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 29, “An Act To Amend The Medical Act,” Bill 46.

CHAIR: Bill 46, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Medical Act”.

On motion, clauses 1 through 5, carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is waiting for the hon. members to quiet down so we can resume proceedings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sorry, Mr. Chair.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 30, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act”. (Bill 49).

On motion, clauses 1 through 7, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Order 31, “An Act To Amend The Works, Services and Transportation Act”. (Bill 48).

On motion, clauses 1 and 2, carried.

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

 

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again some time in the new year.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

[Due to a technical malfunction a portion of this sitting was not recorded.]

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible) the Minister of Education said that she would be studying these proposed amendments and there was a commitment made that she would be bringing them back. Then I note that the Member for Bellevue, when I made that statement, was shaking his head in the negative. They had better get their act together over there because we took the word of the minister this afternoon that she would be studying it and she was bringing it back.

Who speaks for the government? Is it the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier - is that the person speaking for the government - or is it the Minister of Education, who this afternoon stood in her place and said that she would be bringing it back?

I ask the Member for Bellevue if he would stand, because we on this side took the word of the minister this afternoon to be the procedure would be followed. I am surprised the Member for Bellevue would be saying: No, that is not what he intends to recommend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I won't repeat the comment made by the Government House Leader; however, I do think these are good amendments. We put them to government as friendly amendments, and we look forward to them coming back because we believe that school boards should be - all of their business should be done very much in a public forum.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to, again, try to encourage government to listen to the wisdom of our suggestions.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 43).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 23, Bill 41, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland”. (Bill 41).

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 41).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 24, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act”. (Bill 40).

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pension Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 40).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 25, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991". (Bill 39).

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 39).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 26, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act”. (Bill 47).

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 47).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 27, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act”. (Bill 52).

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 52).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 28, “An Act Respecting Adoptions”. (Bill 45).

On motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Adoptions”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 45).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 29, “An Act To Amend The Medical Act”. (Bill 46).

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Medical Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 46).

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 30, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act,” Bill 49.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act”, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 31, “An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act,” Bill 48.

On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 48)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, is probably going to arrive around 8:00 p.m. I will not move the adjournment of the House, obviously, until we have done all of the work; but I would like, on behalf of this side, to thank my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, for doing a good fall's work, and the Leader of the NDP, in spite of the fact, as I said, when he gets up early in the morning and comes into Committee sometimes he is a bit piqued in the mornings. Nevertheless, I feel that we have done a fair amount of work this fall. Some of the bills were housekeeping.

I want to take this opportunity to wish everybody connected with the Legislature - my colleagues on this side, my colleagues on the other side, the staff of the House and all of the officers of the House - the very best for Christmas and through the new year, to say God bless, and we will see you back here hopefully in the new year safe and sound.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly I, too, wish everybody well. Have a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. We did accomplish a fair amount of legislation here. While some of it might not be earth-shattering in nature, like we have had here in the past, we have had some that registered very high on the Richter scale in the past. We have not seen a big amount of that. As the Opposition, we certainly added our voice and comments on each one there. We did not really feel that the bills were significant - that we should, in other words, force government to call closure for the twentieth time since 1989 on any of the bills. Many of these bills are very positive. They are needed. We made some suggestions of some amendments that government did not see fit to go along with. We certainly hope that in the next session they will come back, after taking these under consideration, with more time, and enact some of those in future legislation.

I certainly wish all officers of the House and all the people who participate here in the process, and all members, a great Christmas season.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like also to join with the Government and Opposition House Leaders in thanking the staff of the House, you, Mr. Speaker, the Table Officers, the Clerk and the Clerk's Assistant. I guess this is one of the first fall sessions I have been in that we have not had anyone threaten to carve up the Christmas turkey on the Table of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: We came close.

MR. HARRIS: We came close but we really have not had that type - and I know the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Commissionaires are much more relieved this session than they were last session, in terms of their duties and responsibilities; so obviously that means we have not had the kind of controversial legislation that we have had in the past.

Despite our political differences, and even our differences in Committee, I say to the Government House Leader, at 8:00 in the morning when I have not had breakfast and I know I am walking into a den of lions, I probably am a little bit more unpleasant than I usually am.

AN HON. MEMBER: What - than you usually are?

MR. HARRIS: Or shall I say I am not my usual, pleasant self?

AN HON. MEMBER: There you go.

MR. HARRIS: That's more like it, hey?

Anyway, a special thanks to our new Pages who have joined us this fall and helped us to conduct our activities, and to the unseen scribes of Hansard who diligently -

MR. TULK: God bless them.

MR. HARRIS: God bless them, as the Government House Leader says. They have sometimes a thankless task of recording every word we say.

I want to end by wishing all hon. members a very Merry Christmas, and I hope that the next millennium is as good to you as the last millennium.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could have leave for just one minute.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact, I have never done this in this House in the years that I have been here. Mr. Speaker, it is a birthday wish but it is a very special one and I thought I should do it now because I did miss it last year. There is a lady in my district by the name of Mrs. Chipp, in King's Point, who, on December 29, will celebrate her 107 th birthday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: As a matter of fact, last year, myself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: She will be 107 on December 29.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is she PC or Liberal?

MR. SHELLEY: She is a very smart lady. As a matter of fact, I never asked her that. I do know her son and all the rest of her family are Tories, I will say that. Last December 29 -

AN HON. MEMBER: What is her first name?

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know her first name. I have always called her -

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know your own constituent's first name?

MR. SHELLEY: Relax. Out of respect for the lady, I have always known her as Mrs. Chipp. I went to see her on her birthday last year, with my own children. She sits up; her sight is good; her hearing is good; she speaks very well, and she still has a great sense of humor. My little girl asked her: What is the secret of living so long? She said, “I never worry about tomorrow. I just live for today”. I think that is some of the best advice that a lot of us can take in this House, that we take every day and be lucky that we live through it.

I would suggest to the House Leader that the Premier - probably a suggestion is that a certificate go to her. I have already requested to the Prime Minister, and I am certainly going to get one from the Leader of the Opposition and present her with it on December 28 when I will be there to visit her. I would request that one from the House be written also.

As far as I know - I have not checked it out totally - I think she is the oldest living Newfoundlander as of right now. Of course, as of January 1, she will be going to her third century. It is quite an accomplishment and I ask that be sent on behalf of the Premier.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I would like it unanimous that somebody who has lived in three centuries, who will be107 years old on December 29, that indeed this House would unanimously send her our congratulations. I can guarantee you that whatever is appropriate to come from this side of the Legislature will be sent. We would ask that she be wished many, many happy returns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the House recesses, the Chair would like to table a report of the Commission of Internal Economy for the fiscal year April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Just on leave, while we wait for His Honor, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all members, those who are present and those who are not, a prosperous New Year, a good family Christmas. We are all creatures of habit. This is the time of year that - if things hold true, we may see some of the same old faces in some new places by the time the next Legislature rolls around. I want to take the opportunity to say, in particular to the Government House Leader and to all members of the House, that they have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. To you, Mr. Speaker, who keeps the House on the straight and narrow from time to time, as difficult as it may be to control the Government House Leader from time to time, I know that you have had your hands full with all of us but I wish, certainly on behalf of the Opposition, to wish you and your family a very special Christmas for the job that you do on behalf of everybody in the Province in keeping this House on track and pointed in the right direction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) to wait and ring the bells when His Honour arrives.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, we will recess until His Honour gets here.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has, at its present session, passed certain bills to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

CLERK: A bill, “An Act To Amend The Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957 (No.2).” (Bill 23)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957.” (Bill 22)

A bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting Apprenticeship And Occupational Certification.” (Bill 1)

A bill, “An Act To Provide For The Conservation, Protection, Wise Use And Management Of The Water Resources Of The Province.” (Bill 31)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Securities Act.” (Bill 9)

A bill, “An Act To Revise The Administration Of Medical Care Insurance.” (Bill 26)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Registered Nurses Act.” (Bill 27)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Coat Of Arms Act.” (Bill 29)

A bill, “An Act Respecting The Operation Of Mines And Mills In The Province.” (Bill 28)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act (No.2).” (Bill 32)

A bill, “An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.” (Bill 24)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act.” (Bill 25)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Loan (Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund) Act, 1966.” (Bill 38)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code.” (Bill 37)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Physiotherapy Act.” (Bill 36)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act (No.2).” (Bill 34)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.” (Bill 33)

A bill, “An Act To Amend An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.” (Bill 44)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Forestry Act.” (Bill 35)

A bill, “An Act To Amend the Proceedings Against The Crown Act And The Public Officials Garnishee Act.” (Bill 42)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Electrical Power Control Act, 1994 And The Public Utilities Act.” (Bill 51)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Wilderness And Ecological Reserves Act.” (Bill 30)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997.” (Bill 43)

A bill, “An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Law Society Of Newfoundland.” (Bill 41)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.” (Bill 40)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991.” (Bill 39)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.” (Bill 47)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act And The St. John's Assessment Act.” (Bill 52)

A bill, “An Act Respecting Adoptions.” (Bill 45)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Medical Act.” (Bill 46)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act.” (Bill 49)

A bill, “An Act To Amend The Works, Services And Transportation Act.” (Bill 48)

HIS HONOUR, THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (A.M. House): In Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Her Majesty I would like to congratulate members of this hon. House for their diligence, the commitment of their time and their energies during this session. I hope you have a pleasant holiday season with your family and friends.

For those of you who are able to attend, I would like to invite you to join us at Government House for the traditional New Year's levy on New Year's Day between 3:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish all hon. members a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the government member puts the motion, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to wish all Members of the House a very Merry Christmas and a very pleasant and enjoyable New Year. To the staff of the House of Assembly, the people in Hansard, and the Legislative Library as well, on behalf of all members I want to extend to them a very Merry Christmas and a very enjoyable New Year.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: It is moved that when this House adjourn today it stands adjourned until the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from the Province the Deputy Speaker, may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting. It is moved that this House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until the call of the Chair.