May 9, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 23

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today twelve Level III students from Regina High School, Corner Brook, in the District of Humber West, accompanied by their teacher, Paul Quigley.

As well, I have six students I would like to welcome from Holy Heart of Mary Regional High School in the District o f St. John's East, accompanied by their teacher, Katherine Henderson.

The Chair would also like to welcome to the gallery today, thirteen members of the Mount Pearl Women's Institute, in the District of Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on March 21 with respect to the use of the sub judice convention in the House to block questions. On March 15, a question was ruled out of order on the basis of the convention; the matter, a civil case, being still before the courts since the judge had not rendered his decision.

As the hon. Member for Waterford Valley states, the convention exists to ensure that matters discussed in the House do not infringe on the rights of parties awaiting or undergoing trial. In the case referred to by the hon. the member, an injunction had been sought and the judge's decision was still pending.

The Chair would like to point out, with respect to the references - without repeating, of course, the references cited by the hon. member - that the convention exists to protect parties to judicial action, civil and criminal, although it is invoked more readily in criminal cases or those in which reputations are at stake. In questions relating to civil actions, Speakers have ruled both ways. In the case of the contract which was the subject of review in the matter at hand, the Chair, in the time available, reviewed the information presented and concluded that it would be more prudent to rule the question out of order. The ruling applies in that particular case, of course.

The Chair uses its discretion in deciding whether or not to allow a question, and decides each individual case on its merits. If the Chair is called upon to rule on a matter of sub judice again, the matter will be reviewed in light of the information available and the Chair will again exercise its discretion, always keeping in mind the rights of all interested parties including Members of the House of Assembly.

As well, on March 27, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services raised a point of privilege concerning the words spoken by the hon. the Opposition House Leader outside the House on March 23, 2000, which the minister alleges contradicts statements made in the House approximately a year earlier. The point of privilege is that the hon. the member is lying to the House if the alleged contradictory statements made outside the House are true.

Honourable members know that one cannot accuse another member of lying to the House. The suggestion that a member has lied is unparliamentary and, of course, must be withdrawn. To misrepresent is not a matter of privilege, but of order. Deliberately to mislead would be a breach of privilege, but a member would have to admit intentionally in misleading the House. In this case, the claim of breach of privilege is based on a statement made outside the House. A statement made outside the House cannot be the basis of a claim of breach of privilege.

In the case we are dealing with, we cannot say that the hon. the Opposition House Leader intended to mislead the House. It appears to the Chair that he is expressing his opinion about the extent and the causes of what he considers to be a certain problem. It is the Chair's opinion that the matter on several counts is not a matter of privilege but is more in the realm of a difference of opinion between two hon. members.

The Chair would remind hon. members at this point that quite often privilege is used as a vehicle to raise a question of order, or merely to apprize the House of something that members consider important.

The Chair would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members of Beauchesne's statement in §27, "A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament... A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House."

I would now like to ask the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to withdraw his statements made on that particular day.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, in line with the ruling, I gladly withdraw those comments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute to a great Newfoundlander, Mr. Arthur Lundrigan, who passed away yesterday in Corner Brook at the age of seventy-seven years.

In recognition of his lifetime achievements and his significant contributions to the development of businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Arthur, together with his brother, Harold, was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Hall of Fame on Thursday of just last week. There they joined their father, the late William J. Lundrigan, who was previously inducted into the Hall in 1990.

While others will describe the many accomplishments of Mr. Arthur and those of the Lundrigan family, what I choose to remember here today is a man who was the very personification of the word gentleman, and a man who had a big heart and an abiding love of all things; Newfoundland and Labrador in general, and the City of Corner Brook in particular.

In my opinion, nothing better exemplified his approach to business than a conversation I had with him just prior to his suffering a major stroke which severely incapacitated him a few years ago.

At that time, production was down at the cement plant. In fact, it was down to the point where it was only marginally profitable. In fact, it was widely known that North Star Cement could substantially improve its profit margin if it closed down the plant and sold cement imported in bulk from larger Canadian and/or offshore producers. When I asked why he had not pursued this option, he quietly but very firmly informed me that for him this was not an option. It was not an option because of the sixty-five men and women whose livelihood depended upon their jobs at the plant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MERCER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MERCER: For me, this spoke volumes about his commitment to his employees and to his community, and helped explain to me why he was so highly regarded by his employees and his business colleagues alike.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending deepest condolences to Mr. Arthur's widow, Ida, and to all members of the extended Lundrigan family on the passing of a true patriot, Mr. Arthur Raymond Lundrigan.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to congratulate six students from Marystown Central High School on receiving scholarship awards from Memorial University totaling over $60,000.

Jane Hurley won Memorial's Alumni Association Scholarship valued at $25,000, while Erin Glavine and Adam McCarthy received a Dr. Leslie Harris Memorial Alumni Association Scholarship valued at $16,000 each.

William Cheeseman, Terri Hannam and Tara Emberley each received Memorial University of Newfoundland entrance scholarships valued at $2,000 each.

Mr. Speaker, because of these achievements, these students will be allowed to register first for courses in both the fall and winter semesters while some have also been guaranteed a place in the University residence. It is another example of how students in this Province are working hard to achieve their career goals, and exemplifies the importance of doing well in school.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me today to inform hon. members that this afternoon I will introduce, for first reading, a bill to create a new Urban and Rural Planning Act for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This new act has been developed in close consultation with key stakeholders and I would like to recognize the representatives of these key stakeholder groups who are in the gallery today: Mayor Derm Flynn, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities; Mr. Mike Pinsent, Past President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators; and Dr. Patricia Hempstead, Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities.

This new Act will give municipalities greater freedom, flexibility and autonomy to effectively manage their own affairs. The Urban and Rural Planning Act will allow for public input and it has an appeals process whereby development decisions can be subjected to an independent review.

I have an information package for all members so that they will be well prepared to debate this new legislation, and therefore I will provide a more detailed analysis at that time of the introduction and at second reading.

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 a copy of her statement beforehand. I welcome the news with respect to the creation of a new Urban and Rural Planning Act. I also welcome to the House, of course, Mr. Flynn, Mr. Pinsent, and Dr. Hempstead.

The minister says: "The new Act will give municipalities greater freedom, flexibility and autonomy to effectively manage their own affairs." That is something I have been fighting for when I was a critic for municipal affairs and when I was a mayor of a small town for seven years.

I think it is something that the people that serve on these councils that are in the forefront and they usually know what is best for the people in their small municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would like to reserve comment with respect to the information package. The devil is usually in the details and I would just reserve comment until I receive the information package.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome a new Act and the participation and presence today of Mayor Flynn, Mr. Pinsent, and Dr. Hempstead. I look forward to reviewing the matter.

There is, of course, a balance to be achieved between autonomy of municipalities and provincial interests which sometimes can override local decisions where matters are of a great provincial importance in Urban and Rural Planning. So we look forward to seeing the details of the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that sixteen additional Community Access Centres have been established in nine communities throughout the Province in the past year. Those communities include Cap St.-Georges, Eastport, François, Gambo, Greenspond, McCallum, Upper Island Cove, Westport and St. John's.

That brings to 121 the total of Community Access Centres in 109 communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. These sites provide public access to the Internet and the guidance to use it effectively. They help Newfoundlanders and Labradorians develop their computer skills, access government information and education programs, and communicate knowledge and ideas with others.

Not only do people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador benefit from this technological resource, but the program also provides jobs for young people. Through the financial participation of the Department of Human Resources and Employment access centres across the Province will offer 110 new job opportunities. One hundred youth interns will work for ten to twelve weeks, while a further ten will act as regional coordinators. Together they will introduce the public to the Internet to show how to use it effectively.

Placements within a community access centre offer youth a chance to develop skills in marketing, promotions and research. They will also gain experience in technical and practical skills such as teaching, training, group facilitation and web page design, which are all in very high demand into today's job market.

The Community Access Program strongly supports the goals of the Strategic Social Plan. A community access centre supports community capacity building. It is a "grass roots" community service run by volunteers and community leaders. It is a powerful new way for communities to improve their social and economic development. By supporting this initiative we are endorsing the efforts of people who are making their communities better places in which to live and work.

Funding for the centres is provided under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Community Access Program. The program is joint initiative of the federal and provincial governments to help people in communities across Newfoundland and Labrador achieve the economic and social benefits that are available through the information highway. It is part of an initiative by the federal government to make Canada the most connected country in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister, thank you for an advance copy of the statement. I join with the minister, as we all do on this side of the House, in certainly looking at this as a very positive step. The importance of connecting to the information highway certainly has been an initiative for the last number of years. To provide better access to these communities is a very positive thing; also with regard to the job opportunities.

A little word of caution, I say, minister, in looking at the sites. There has been some difficulty with people, especially young people, accessing too much information and in the wrong areas. I do hope that precautions have been taken to make sure that the proper blocks are in place for these particular sites.

It is a positive initiative and one which we certainly support.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly pleased with the news of expanding access to the Internet. There is, of course, in this Province, as we struggle with basic literacy, also the possibility of a coming knowledge gap and technology gap, especially in small rural parts of the Province.

I look forward to the day when the minister can stand in this House and say that access to the Internet is available in every community of this Province, and I hope that comes soon. I am glad that there is also going to be other support for allowing people to learn how to make use of this new information technology.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Department of Justice and government, and I am sure all members of this House, I rise today to bring condolences to the family of the late Provincial Court Judge Joseph LeClair who passed away suddenly on Sunday, May 7.

Judge LeClair was born in Alberta on February 21, 1939,and originally came to Newfoundland with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He was appointed magistrate in August, 1972, and later attended Dalhousie University Law School from which he graduated in May, 1978. Judge LeClair was admitted to the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador in December, 1981, and during his career Judge LeClair presided over courts in St. John's, Bell Island, Ferryland, Harbour Grace, Holyrood and Whitbourne. He retired from the bench in November, 1997.

Judge LeClair made a significant contribution to the administration of justice in the Province. He served the public with intelligence, compassion and balance. His steadfast dedication to the ideals of our system of justice earned him the respect of the Bar, the general public, and all who appeared before him.

Judge LeClair is survived by his wife, Gertrude, and three sons, Joseph Jr., Paul and Jason. I would ask that a letter be issued from the House expressing our condolences to the LeClair family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf on my colleagues on this side of the House, we wish to associate ourselves with the remarks made by the minister on behalf of the government. I personally did not have the privilege of knowing the late Provincial Court Judge LeClair. I note from the minister's statement that he retired from the bench in November, 1997. Of course, that was the same year that I graduated from law school so I did not have the privilege of knowing him like perhaps some of my other colleagues might in the House.

I do know, from hearing from people in the profession, that Judge LeClair was a stalwart of justice in our judicial system. I know he served with distinction in many jurisdictions throughout the Province.

In a personal way I do know something of the family, I suppose, in a sense that his son is a teacher at Beaconsfield High School and our daughter, Margaret, is a student of his.

We certainly would want to associate ourselves with the remarks made by the minister in sending the condolences of this Legislature to the family of the late Provincial Court Judge LeClair.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister and the Member for Lewisporte in acknowledging the career and service to the Province of Provincial Court Judge LeClair. As a lawyer, I had appeared before him on many occasions in provincial court and he is certainly known to me, in my experience, and the reputation he had for fairness and understanding of human nature, which is a great asset to a court circumstance. Judge LeClair was known for that and he had a very fine human side to him. It is very unfortunate that so soon after his retirement he has passed away and I would like to join with others in sending our condolences to Judge LeClair's family.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to, I guess, the apologetic Minister of Health and Community Services. Our health care system, I say to the minister, is under attack. The waiting lists have never been longer for almost every medical procedure. Surgeries are cancelled almost daily and people cannot get admitted to hospitals because so many beds have closed even though doctors feel the person should be admitted. Patients are held for several weeks in various hospitals around this Province because no bed is available in St. John's, either to get the appropriate diagnosis or to perform the appropriate surgery.

I want to ask the minister: What is he doing to ensure that people who need surgery and appropriate medical attention will have access to it?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While someone might listen to the Opposition health critic and get a particular view of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is another side to the story. The fact of the matter is that in Newfoundland and Labrador today, in May of the year 2000, we are providing more services in a wider variety of areas and covering off more specialities and more specialty treatments in more physical locations and sites in this Province than we ever have in our history.

Now it is a fact that expectations are very high and that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, regardless of where they live, have come to believe and expect - largely led by people like the Opposition, suggesting that if they were the government they would have a hospital in every town, they would have a service in every single community, in all 600 communities, largely because politicians in Opposition parties are willing to play politics with health care. That is largely what drives much of the agenda, but the reality is that we have done more, we have committed more funding to health care than ever in the history of the Province. We are providing a broader range of services.

There are some changes that occur around this time of the year in arranging for holiday schedules and so on, that the Opposition members all said last year in this Legislature they believe their health care professionals should have; and, to provide for them, there is always a timely reordering of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - procedures in the Province around this time of the year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is now saying that people's expectations are too high. For a number of years we have had a crisis here and, when it is convenient, the Premier goes to Ottawa and tells the Prime Minister, Paul Martin and Allan Rock, that we have a crisis here. He is now agreeing. Maybe the minister has not tuned in to that one yet.

People cannot get the medical attention they need. With numerous bed closures for the summer, the situation is only going to get worse. I ask the minister if he feels it is appropriate for certain hospitals to provide only emergency surgical services during the summer?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that we are providing a greater degree of availability to cardiac surgery in the Province than we ever have in our history, this year; the fact that we are providing more services than ever in the history of the Province, this year; more than ever in the history of the Province is the fact this year for cancer treatment and other very serious illnesses, we are doing - and usually the opposition parties stand up and acknowledge when the government listens to their pleas and actually does what they ask; because in this Legislature they did ask in speech after speech after speech for the government to recognize that we needed more health care professionals, which we have. We have the greatest number this year than we have ever had in history, again, for physicians, for nursing positions, for licensed practical nurses and all other kinds of specialities in occupational health and therapy. One of the things they said with that is, we need more of them but the government should guarantee as well that they get access to their vacations. Mr. Speaker, the only way that can be done, when you have more health care professionals in the system entitled to vacation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - the way that is managed everywhere in North America, the way that is managed is to cancel elective surgeries during vacation periods and deal with emergency and urgent surgeries only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No wonder we have a problem, when I ask does he think it is appropriate to have only emergency surgical services in the summertime and he gets up and talks about something completely different.

I ask him if he thinks it is appropriate for a woman who had cancer previously, and who is on an urgent list for surgery, has to wait almost four months to get the surgery she needs? Does he consider that appropriate?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. health critic, no matter how he wants to present the view, I can tell him for a fact, again, that there are more services available in Newfoundland and Labrador for health care in this Province today than ever in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I think, Mr. Speaker, that is appropriate. We are trying to continue to make improvements and trying to continue to make a broader range of services available in more locations in Newfoundland and Labrador, like we have done with dialysis services, like we have done with mammography and breast screening and other issues. We are providing a greater range and more service than ever in the history of the Province.

The fact of the matter is, all across Canada, where we have a publicly funded health care system, because of the fact that it is publicly funded, people end up on waiting lists because there is a defined limit to the amount of money being spent by the taxpayers on behalf of the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: The length and scope of waiting lists are completely in the hands of medical professionals who make sure that the most urgent and emergency cases get done on a timely basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A woman from the Northern Peninsula was sent into St. John's for surgery. She came in on a bus, and she was told she had to wait six or seven days to get a bed. She went back home, to the Northern Peninsula, and was called several days later. She came in and underwent surgery to get a malignant thirteen pound tumor removed from her stomach. Minister, I am hearing stories like that almost on a daily basis.

Will the minister admit that our health care system has deteriorated so far that people's lives are now being put in jeopardy on a constant basis?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are always examples of individuals who, unfortunately, have to wait longer than we would hope.

What we have done is, we have adopted what the Opposition party said would be their number one priority in their election platform. They said they would make sure that health care was the number one priority, that is was the number one funding initiative for the government. That is exactly what we have done. Because we understand and believe that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador supports that, that is what we have done.

Mr. Speaker, he is trying to suggest, and he wants to get up day after day in speeches and say that again we have not increased health care funding in this Province by $136 million this year. He keeps going around trying to suggest it is only $31 million or $32 million because he wants to play politics with health care. It is too important for that.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this as well. The problem with it, that I have come to know, with the same kind of individuals who have come to me, is that they are unfortunately left with a health critic who will suggest to them, when they call his office out of desperation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - his only answer is: If I was the minister I would do something about it, which is the biggest lie in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My source is this book here that was prepared by the government. That is where I am getting my figures, I say to the minister, in case he doesn't know.

In Corner Brook, beds have closed, staff are now being denied unscheduled vacations, they are getting called back on double time, and days owed to them cannot be taken. Minister, there is a crisis at the Western Regional Health Care Hospital on the West Coast.

We have fifty nurses who are graduating out there this year and I have been informed that not one of them was offered a permanent job - not one - and only four have agreed to take casual work because there is no security and they can go elsewhere and find permanent work outside the Province.

I want to ask the minister: Why are graduating nurses on the West Coast not offered permanent employment on the West Coast when the shortage is so severe?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Opposition health critic, the hon. member, wanted to be honest about the issue, he would take the reports that he has called for the public release of, which the health care board for the Western region already has in their possession, planning their future for health care delivery, which suggests - he has seen the reports and he knows what I am talking about - that in Western Newfoundland, more so than anywhere else in this Province, and with any standard comparison anywhere else in the country, the one thing they don't need is nurses. He knows that for a fact. He knows that and he will stand in this Legislature and suggest that the nurses, because they graduate from a school in Western Newfoundland, should be offered a job in Western Newfoundland. What he neglects is that from 150 graduates this year in the whole of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: - almost 120 of them have now decided to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and take full-time employment with any one of the fourteen health care boards, not necessarily the one in Western Newfoundland because they are already overstaffed with nurses, not understaffed with nurses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Western Regional Health Care hasn't offered any nurse graduating in any part of the Province a permanent job, I say to the minister, not only the fifty on the West Coast.

I was informed that over a two week period at the Western Health Care Corporation $40,000 was paid out in two weeks in overtime costs, and the total cost runs into the millions of dollars. Now $40,000 in two weeks of overtime is enough to hire a nurse for an entire year. I ask the minister: Why are they being told that the board does not have a budget to hire new nurses, but they have a budget to pay far more money out in overtime costs?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it makes the point that I have been making. He stands up and says: Why is it that the Western Memorial Regional health care board hasn't offered a graduating nurse from anywhere in the Province a job? He already knows of a report that the board is now studying that suggests they don't need nurses. They are overstaffed in nurses. What they need is physiotherapists, they need occupational therapists, they need other allied health care professionals, but they don't need nurses. He still wants to stand and says: Why haven't they offered nurses graduating in Newfoundland full-time jobs? They don't need them. He should be congratulating the board for saying: We are not going to offer more nurses jobs in Western Newfoundland because somebody wants to play politics with it, like the Opposition health care critic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat..

MR. GRIMES: They are going to seek out occupational therapists., they are going to seek out physiotherapists, Mr. Speaker. They are going to try to hire the staff that they need and they are going to try to make sure, like the Opposition claimed last year, that they get the vacation they deserve as well through proper planning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It doesn't make sense what the minister is saying. We are paying millions in overtime costs and nurses have to come back on double-time, and on holidays double and one-half time. We won't give people time off that they have already worked in overtime, and we have too many nurses! There is something wrong. I will ask him one simple question. Will he tell us if the health care system today is better than it ever was before? That is what he is implying.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the facts are these, and I will restate it again for the record in Hansard. In Newfoundland and Labrador today, just to take dialysis as an example, there is a broader base of service available to more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in more locations, with more properly trained health care professionals providing the service, than we have ever seen in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That happens to be a fact. There are more cardiac surgeries being provided every week in this Province, in May 2000, than have ever occurred in this Province in its history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That happens to be a fact. Now, are there demands beyond the service in those two examples? Yes there are. Have we continued to make improvements in each of the last number of years? Yes we have. Are we trying to meet the needs of the people? Yes we are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: Is health care our number one priority? Yes it is. Individuals will determine, based on their own circumstance, whether they feel the system is the best system it has ever been, or whether in fact there are still things they want the government to seek continued improvement in, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. When the Premier announced formal negotiations with Quebec to develop additional hydroelectric capacity on the Churchill River, he said that a key objective was, and I quote: "To ensure access to a secure, renewable source of power and stable electrical rates in the province, as well as meeting the future demand of power and energy."

We now know that Labrador power will not come to the Island in the foreseeable future and the main project is in some doubt. Affordable energy from offshore natural gas is still somewhat speculative and many years down the road. So my question to the minister is: In view of this, does the Province have any alternate plans to meet the future energy demands of the Province on the Island or in Labrador?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the hon. member's quote is selective, but he has indicated one objective that the Province had in going forward with the Churchill project. One of them was to try to secure, if financially and economically viable, and if technically feasible, an additional source of power to secure the demands of additional growth on the Island and in Labrador. Also, there was the development of an enormous power resource for future economic development in the Province and to secure additional income for the Province by selling the power west. So that is only part of the picture.

Yes, there are various elements of that that may or may not go ahead. It is still at a preliminary stage. As for the future energy needs of the Province, yes, we do have a plan to meet those.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The availability of secure, reasonably priced energy is essential to any industrial development in this Province. It is especially critical to development of value-added activity in a resource territory such as our own Province. If we do not get power from the Lower Churchill what will be the affect on our capacity to attract new resource based processing and manufacturing industries to our Province?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the Province would want to be able to supply the additional needs of any industrial activity that might take place here. There is a separate question as to whether or not we use electrical power to subsidize that. Frankly, I am not sure that is a wise decision in any event. What we do need to do is to make sure that if there are additional energy usages which would be high in energy demand that we are able to meet those.

What has happened since the proposed development on Churchill, among other things, is that the Province has discovered that there is a tremendously larger resource of gas, particularly in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. One of the things we have to weigh into the cost of transporting electrical power from Labrador to the Island in particular is whether or not that source of energy is cheaper and can be brought on stream in time to meet any anticipated growth in demand.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to be more specific. If we don't have access to Lower Churchill power, I say to the minister, will there be enough excess energy on the Island to proceed with a proposed smelter-refinery complex or other facilities to fully process Voisey's Bay ore at Argentia?

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

MR. DICKS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the hon. member's question, yes there will be. It will come from a variety of sources. I have mentioned natural gas is a possibility. Wind power is another. There are also cogen proposals presently on the table with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There are several hydroelectric proposals right now. Finally, there is also the possibility of wind power.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education. The minister obviously likes to give some history lessons that are a bit more spin than fact about all the money and resources the government has put back into education.

Perhaps, I say to you, minister, you could do with an economic lesson. From 1993 to the present, per pupil funding for primary, elementary and secondary education increased by just over 4 per cent. Over the same seven year period, the consumer price index for Newfoundland increased by more than 8 per cent and the education cost index increased by 20 per cent. I ask the minister to do the math.

Is she aware that just to keep up with the normal CPI increases over the past seven years she would have to put an additional $25 million into primary, elementary and secondary education this year, and to keep up with the higher educational cost index would require an additional $80 million? Will she agree that the system is grossly underfunded, minister?

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

MS FOOTE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: I will have to keep my lessons going, minister. Right? Well, we will leave that for another day.

Perhaps you will understand this one, minister. Yesterday I asked the minister about her decision to remove 180 teachers from classrooms in order to provide units for guidance counsellor and learning resource specialists. Why, minister, didn't you take the $4 or $5 million of the $11 million you cut from the schools budget this year to pay for extra guidance counsellor and learning resource specialists instead - and I say, instead - of forcing school boards to rob units from the classroom, minister?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said yesterday, because clearly the hon. member opposite has no understanding of the commitment that this government has to education in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, at a time when we had 162,000 students in our school system we had 6,648 teachers in the system. Today we have 60,000 student less and we still have 6,317 teachers in the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, how can you call that underfunding a system? We put $700 million annually into education in this Province. We spend more per student based on our ability to pay than any other province in the country. We have the lowest student-teacher ratio than any other province in the country. For the hon. member to suggest that we are not committed to education, well, he obviously does not know what he is talking about or he is trying to play politics with the facts.

The fact of the matter is we are ensuring we can offer an essential program. The ministerial panel put in place a framework telling us the number of teachers that will be required to deliver essential programming throughout this Province. We are following that recommendation to the T. We are ensuring that we are keeping the number of teachers in the system that the ministerial panel told us to keep in so we can deliver essential programing to all of the students, no matter where they live in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Minister, your lesson is obviously not getting across to me because once again, I say to you minister, that the guidance counsellors, the learning resource specialists, the classroom teachers, are all necessary for quality education. I don't agree with that. However, what kind of educational reform is this government pushing forth where you force school boards into the position of choosing one teacher over another, one unit over another? It tells them that you can have a guidance counsellor but you have to give up a teacher. You can have a resource specialist but you have to give up a teacher. What kind of reform is that, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we have just gone through an extensive consultation process undertaken by two very credible individuals in the education sector, two individuals who went around, spoke extensively to all of the stakeholders in education, and came back with eighty-six recommendations ensuring that we had the appropriate number of teachers in the school system to offer essential programming, including increasing the number of teachers to be used as guidance counsellors. Today we have one guidance counsellor for every 650 students, not one for 1,000. We will have, as a result of the ministerial panel report, one guidance counsellor for every 500 students. We have better ratios than any other province in this country. We are down now to a teacher per student ratio of 13.9, down from 14.3 students to every teacher.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services. Yesterday we made amendments to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to recognize the needs of sixteen to eighteen year olds for services, but there is still continuing a serious gap in services to young people in the area of mental health. We have no residential treatment facility for our young people, and they are being either sent out of the Province at great cost to the Province or are forced to receive their treatment in the Waterford Hospital, Health Sciences or St. Clare's, which are totally inappropriate, and recognized to be so by health care professionals. Is the minister ready to announce that his government is prepared to establish a special mental health residential unit to provide treatment for young people with mental health problems?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we are not in a position to make such an announcement at this point in time.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that the government spends considerable funds on sending people outside the Province, and in fact that some young people who could go to such a residential treatment centre are instead sentenced by courts to Whitbourne where they don't get any treatment of this nature at all? Will the minister reconsider the priority for such a facility so that we don't have young people either receiving inappropriate treatment, going outside the Province for treatment, or ending up in Whitbourne where mental health treatment is unavailable?

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the issue is under regular and ongoing review. There are a number of areas where we do not provide - not only this area but several areas - a dedicated service in Newfoundland and Labrador. The assessment and analysis that is done repeatedly and regularly on an annual basis is to decide whether or not we can afford to provide the service in Newfoundland and Labrador, both by putting in place a facility and the trained staff, or whether it is still cost-effective, although somewhat inconvenient for the individual, to purchase the service outside the Province in already existing institutions. We do that not only for some mental health initiatives directed at young people but also in a range of medical procedures whereby we are not in a position, because of lack of facility or lack of specialists, to provide the service in Newfoundland and Labrador; but when it gets to a point where we can secure the specialists and it is cost-effective to do it in Newfoundland and Labrador, we would prefer to offer the service in our Province whenever possible.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

On April 4, the Chief of the Sheshatshiu Band Council, Chief Paul Riche, made a public appeal to the provincial government to help him and his community in their fight against solvent abuse. On the same day, in this House, I asked the Minister of Justice what steps the government were prepared to take in response to Chief Riche's request.

I ask the minister today: Other than writing Chief Riche on April 6, inviting the Band Council to put forward suggestions for possible solutions, what concrete action has the minister and the government undertaken in response to the Chief's public appeal for help?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I did, in fact, write to the Chief and ask if we could arrange meetings on this matter. He has corresponded with my department and advised that he would like to so, and that he would be providing us with the time that was convenient to him. We have made it quite clear to him that we are ready to meet with him wherever and whenever he wishes.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, has the Province taken any action to increase police presence in communities plagued by solvent abuse? Has the Province attempted to work out a local agreement on policing with the Innu nation so that the local communities have authority to help themselves in those matters? These are things that can be explored. Has the minister made any effort to explore those possibilities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a result of meeting that were held last fall, actually - and the Premier, himself, was involved in some of those meetings - there have been ongoing discussions and dialogue with representatives of my department as well as the Labrador Aboriginal Affairs officials. Those negotiations are taking place at various jurisdictions. Some have been in the Province, some have been in Labrador, and some, in fact, have been in Ottawa because the Department of Indian Affairs are involved in this matter as well.

Yes, the dialogue is ongoing. I understand they are making some progress, but obviously it is a very complex and detailed matter that takes time to be resolved. As of yet it hasn't been resolved but they are, in fact, involved in very complex and ongoing negotiations.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that a provincial group home facility in Sheshatshiu is currently being used to house solvent abusers, because there is nowhere else in the community to house them, and that it has been done at the Band Council expense? Why isn't the Province helping the Band Council to address this serious problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we realize there are very serious problems concerning substance abuse. Not only the Department of Justice but, of course, the Department of Health and Community Services have been involved extensively in these matters. We are trying to deal with the problems as they come to light. It is a very complex matter, a very tragic matter in a lot of cases, and we are attempting to resolve it through ongoing involvement with these groups.

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

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the annual report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities on operations carried out under the Automobile Insurance Act for the period April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with section 3.(2) of the Mineral Act, I am pleased to table the annual report of Mineral Licenses and Mining Leases for the period April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.

There are copies available for anyone who cares to review them.

Thank you.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move the following private member's resolution:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada in 1999 passed into law Bill C-82, "An Act To Amend The Criminal Code (Impaired Driving)", and that law came into effect on July 1, 1999; and

WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, requires the courts to prohibit those convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol from driving a motor vehicle for a specific time; and

WHEREAS Bill C-82, as enacted, also recognizes that some provinces have initiated, in conjunction with these prohibition orders, the use of an ignition interlock device installed in a vehicle which intermittently requires a driver to provide a breath sample for in-vehicle alcohol content analysis and disables the vehicle's ignition if the breath samples fail the alcohol content tests; and

WHEREAS the use of an ignition interlock device gives the public greater assurance that an offender re-entering the driving population will drive only when sober; and

WHEREAS provinces with the ignition interlock device have reported that the re-arrest rate among offenders using the device is appreciably lower than that of jurisdictions not using the device; and

WHEREAS drunk driving is the number one criminal cause of death in Canada and is the largest killer of youth; and

WHEREAS drunk driving is a serious criminal offence and must be treated with the full force of law and not merely as a matter of social impropriety;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the provincial government to implement the use in this Province of the ignition interlock device to help protect the public from death and disablement caused by drunk driving.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call first reading on Motions 3, 4, 5 and 6, if we could do them all -

MR. SPEAKER: Bills 21, 22, 24 and 23.

On motion, the following bills read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow:

A bill, "An Act to Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In The Province." (Bill 21)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill 22)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services." (Bill 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2." (Bill 23)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before I call the next order of business, I understand those bills will be ready for distribution this afternoon. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 15, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

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

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

I am pleased to introduce second reading of Bill 17. As many members are aware, the Municipalities Act was introduced in 1999 and it came into effect on January 1 of this year, and it contained a provision which automatically vacates the seats of municipal councillors if they fail to meet particular requirements of the act.

Prior to the enactment of this, councils were required to pass a resolution themselves at the council level in order to declare the seat vacant of a councillor who failed to meet these requirements. One of the requirements is for councillors to have all of their taxes that they are personally responsibility for paid before the end of each taxation year. The application of this provision of the act on January 1, 2000 resulted, as many of you will know, in about 135 councillors having their seats vacated because they were in arrears for their personal taxes for either 1999 or for previous years. In fact, there were some as well, as I mentioned here, who had previous years in arrears as well.

The Federation of Municipalities fully supports this legislative change. The whole Municipalities Act was one done in cooperation with the municipalities, administrators and other supportive groups that had an interest in the legislation. This legislative change provides for the automatic vacating of councillors' seats. Again, this was quite an issue a couple of months back. Government believes that the municipal councillors must be accountable, and they must set the example for taxpayers through the timely payment of their taxes. Any councillor whose seat is automatically vacated because of a violation of the conflict of interest requirements of the act, or is dismissed from council by the minister, cannot seek re-election to municipal office for a period of two years. In light of this - and this is one of the reasons why we are putting forward this amendment to the Municipalities Act - because of the timing of the next general municipal elections act being September 2001, these 135 people whose seat was vacated January 1 would really not be eligible to run in that general election and, in fact, would have to wait five-and-one-half years to offer themselves up again, if they so desired, for council. Unless by-elections were required in their respective municipalities after January 1, 2002, these people will not be eligible to run again until September 2005.

Because of the number of councillors involved and because the fact that many of these people, for the most part, would have been prevented from seeking re-election in September 2001, therefore resulting in about a six year period, in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities we are proposing remedial action in the way of an amendment. This bill addresses this issue by providing in section 12 that councillors whose seats were vacated on January 1, 2000, will be eligible to seek re-election in the 2001 general election. Additionally, the bill also contains a number of very minor administrative, mostly wording, amendments that were deemed necessary and appropriate for the effective administration of the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Minister for Cape St. Francis.

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

I want to say a few words on this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. J. BYRNE: Why? There are a lot of reasons, I say to you, why I want to say a few words on this. Back last fall when the new Municipalities Act was passed -

AN HON. MEMBER: What number is it?

MR. J. BYRNE: This is Bill 17.

When the Municipalities Act was passed, it was a pretty comprehensive review done over the past few years. I think it started out when the previous minister, Art Reid, was there. A number of years ago when Art was there he started the review. It took quite some time and there was some discussion on it here this past fall. I think the people of the House, when they were discussing this piece of legislation - I don't think the present minister was minister at the time; the Minister of Finance was the minister, I think, at that time - there were some concerns brought up, and some of the stuff that is happening here now with respect to this piece of legislation, where you have a lot of amendments being done here: clauses 1, 2, 3, 4.

That was the point that was made at that time. That hopefully, after spending so much time on that piece of legislation, we wouldn't be back here in a few months, as we so often are, when the legislation goes through this House of Assembly, making changes and amendments to the legislation, and we are here today.

The most important one is what the minister referred to when she introduced this bill a few minutes, or when she gave a second reading, when she spoke on it a second time I suppose. The Municipalities Act came into place January 1, 2000, and that was a key date because it was coinciding with the year end, basically, and the regulations that were in place -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: If you so desire, all you have to do is go out to security - we are on the camera here - and I am sure they will dig you up a copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, sir, I am here for the people, not for you. I am here to represent the people in my district, the people in the Province, and be speaking on their behalf, which is what I am doing.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen, I say to the Government House Leader, the people in my district know how good I am. They gave me a 2,100 majority vote the last time around, I say to the minister, so I don't need your assistance in telling the people of the Province how good I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Not likely. It might be my own. I say to the minister, she spoke when she was up about the 135 councillors who were thrown off councils in this Province, people who have served on councils for five years, ten years, as long as fifteen years. It was an oversight. It was something that should have picked up on by this House of Assembly. It should have been picked up on by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs when this legislation was going through the House of Assembly. We had a situation here where people who donated their time to the people of the Province, to their communities, were booted off councils, booted off with no formalities or what have you, just gone. It was really shameful, and I can understand why if some of those people would never want to run for council again.

MR. TULK: Listen, you are better than Tom Lush now.

MR. J. BYRNE: I don't know if that is possible, I say to the Government House Leader.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, these 135 people who had served their towns and municipalities for years were booted off the councils, were embarrassed when it should not have occurred in the first place.

Now the minister and the Federation of Municipalities are recommending this stop measure, I suppose, to allow those people to run in the next election, in September 2001. I fully agree with it, that they should be allowed to run. It was an oversight as far as I'm concerned with the legislation at the time, but here is something I could throw out for some people's consideration. Maybe the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs might be interested in this. If we have councillors - and we have hundreds of them across this Province, we have over 300 municipalities or regional councils - maybe those people who serve on these councils - because I served on a council for seven years. Seven years as mayor. I volunteered my time and wanted to do it. I loved it while I was at it. I put in thirty or forty hours a week in the first two or three years and we created a nice little town. We donated our time, used my vehicle, didn't charge a cent. Now under the Municipalities Act there is a certain percentage that the municipality can take out of their budget, out of the gross figure, and put it towards remuneration for councillors, but many of the councillors do not take the money.

With respect to some of the smaller towns, if you look at their budget - there is a council in my district and their total budget is only somewhere around $160,000. If you took a small percentage of that and you are going to divide it among seven councillors, it is not worth taking. That is the view that many councillors take. These people put in a lot of time. Maybe what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs should be doing is this: that anybody who is serving on these councils should not have to pay their property tax, their home now. If they have other tracts of land or if they have businesses or anything like that - but maybe - and it would be a way of attracting people to run for councils. Sometimes now we have councils -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The difference is this. If you have a property, your house, it can be valued at whatever. In the smaller rural communities your taxes might be $300, it could be $400, it could be $250. If you take a town which has a budget of $200,000 or $150,000 and they have that certain percentage, I am not sure what the figure is, but when you divide it out it might only be $50 or $100 for the year. It is not worth their while. If you allow them not to have to pay their property tax, for a starter you won't get into this problem where at the end of the year they don't have their property taxes paid. You take the time they put in, the hours they put in, and it is minimal. It really is. Now, that is sincere people who are prepared to work on the councils. There is a difference. Do you understand what I am saying?

MR. TULK: It seems to me that those people (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That's a good point, but that is what I am saying. I am only throwing it out for discussion. There are ways to look at it. What you could do is set it at a maximum that it would not go above a certain figure. There are all ways of looking at it.

MR. TULK: I think you are better off with per diems.

MR. J. BYRNE: Per diems? Well, whatever. To me, I think I was trying to create a situation where this situation would not happen, where councillors who have served their towns for five, ten or fifteen years would not be booted off and embarrassed.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is easy to fix.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is easy to fix. Well, hopefully. We didn't do it the last time, so what happened?

AN HON. MEMBER: They could have.

MR. J. BYRNE: They could have done it, I agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, that is another good point, but the minister is not considering people especially in rural Newfoundland. The Government House Leader is not considering people in rural Newfoundland, where the unemployment is pretty high. It is hard, at the end of the year, to come up with a few bucks, especially around Christmastime and what have you. There are all kinds of factors that can be addressed.

Further to this, the minister said that the Federation of Municipalities supports this, and rightly so; they should. There were a lot of negotiations and discussions happening over last fall and over the past four or five years. This is something that should have been stopped, pre-empted; it should not have happened.

Again, the minister talked about how early in the new year this was a major issue, and so it was. The clerks in the towns, or the town managers really, the people who are responsible for that, should have notified, I suppose, some of these individuals. Maybe they did and some people just could not afford it. There were never any repercussions in the past. Some people worked out that they would pay $15, $20 or $50 a month. They were still in arrears, even if they had an agreement worked out.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the ones where social services pay the taxes?

MR. J. BYRNE: Some, social services pay their taxes. Well, that is a different matter altogether.

We have a situation where the minister was on her feet today, basically, with a statement saying that they are going to make changes to the Urban and Rural Planning Act. Again, as I said, the Urban and Rural Planning Act is something that I wanted changes made to as far back as ten years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: We are on the municipalities one, but it is all encompassing. I hope the minister was listening to some of the comments I made earlier. There is no problem. We support this, of course. It is something that should never have happened. Seeing they were talking about councils, I think there should be some latitude here with respect to this bill. The Urban and Rural Planning Act certainly affects municipalities and affects the councillors on these municipalities.

I have always had a problem with town councils, these people who are donating their time being the forefront, being the front line, being the closest to the people - I have been there for seven years and know it - and every act or every action you had in the past, they had to come and run to municipal affairs for approval. I didn't agree with it at the time.

I remember when we were first incorporated and I had a meeting with some people at municipal affairs. We had a previous meeting with the minister of some concerns we had. We had one of the directors - he is not there now - come down to our council meeting and try to dictate to us what we wanted in our town plan. I put up my hand and said: Stop now. Go back to your minister and tell him it is not what we want. What we want is what we agreed to when we met with the minister. They were dictating. It was this attitude that the people running the councils didn't have a clue of what they were talking about when they met to have a council meeting. Maybe there are some out there who don't - maybe some.

When it came to our council down there, I had more rackets with municipal affairs and the previous ministers and a few of the directors over there when I was mayor than you can shake a stick at, because of the old colonial attitude that you did not have a clue what you were doing. We soon showed them. When I was mayor down there, we had probably one of the best run towns in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was this?

MR. J. BYRNE: The town I was the former mayor of.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were mayor?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Sir. The first Mayor of the Town of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove. It was September, 1986.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Make sure it is a big one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're awful.

MR. J. BYRNE: Awful. I am, aren't I? I will tell you what must be happening. The minister is saying I am awful for blowing my own horn, which I don't agree with at all. I am sitting on this side of the House, looking at the members on that side of the House for so long now, for seven years, and you hear people like the Minister of Health up today talking. Who else gets up over on that side of the House? The Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, when you are just being bombarded with those kinds of comments, I suppose some of it, sadly, must rub off.

I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Be your shadow? No, you should be in my shadow. That is the way it should be, I say to the minister. You would like for me to be your critic, in other words. Is that what you are saying? I wouldn't mind being your critic, to be honest with you, because I would have a few questions for you, I am sure. I am sure I would, and give the minister an opportunity to get up and blow his horn, that he always does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, you do.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill17, as I said, I made a few notes when the minister was speaking. We support it. There is no problem there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, he is awful itchy. I know why. He doesn't want to be in that seat there, for some reason or other. He wants to be out of here. That is where he wants to be.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TULK: I can't let my friend from Cape St. Francis get away with that. He knows the difference of that, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, if he looks back on the records of this House he will find that when I was the Opposition House Leader, the day we got out of here was July 8 - and this was when his party was in power - 1989.

I have to say to the hon. gentleman that I don't mind being here. If we are here until August, it doesn't bother me. I love the place, and I particularly love to hear the hon. gentleman speak.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader, the roles are reversed; his role is reversed. When he was in opposition and he was here until June or July, there was plenty and plenty of legislation to be discussed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I say to the minister, legislation. We are here and what do we have to discuss? A few amendments here and there, Mr. Speaker, no major legislation.

I remember a few years ago when they were trying to privatize Hydro. There was no trouble on this side of the House to keep her going.

MR. TULK: The truth of the matter is, (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly.

MR. TULK: Why don't you lay out (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, can you believe what is coming out of his mouth now? Can you imagine, that man has the gall to sit in his seat and lay out our platform when in the last election we had our Blue Book - all the policies in our Blue Book - and what happened? The minister there, the Premier, the Minister of Finance, all the policies we had were ridiculed. You couldn't look at the income tax to cut that, no way! You couldn't do that; but what did they do as soon as they came back? The first Budget, they cut the income tax.

The we talked about the NUGS, the rivers, the damming of the rivers. You can't do that to the people of Newfoundland. The first thing they did, bango! They followed our policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, a couple, more than a couple, according to what you have done since you got elected, I say to the minister.

Some other policies that they -

AN HON. MEMBER: The payroll tax.

MR. J. BYRNE: The payroll tax that they stole on us.

Mr. Speaker, we were in this House often - many, many times myself - speaking on the payroll tax, how that was a regressive tax, a tax on jobs, and when we suggested that we would cut that, phase it out over three or four years - it can't be done! Where are we going to get the money? That is what they said during the election. They ridiculed it. Now they have adopted our policy again.

The federal Liberals - the same thing in Ottawa when Jean Chrétien got elected up there. He is not going to be there much longer, by the way, when the boys get the knives out up there. NAFTA, the Free Trade Agreement, the worse thing in the world, the monster, the devil, is going to destroy the economy in Canada. Now, look. They are trying to take credit for it. Not only left it in place but expanded on it, and that was the worst policy in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes.

There are a lot of municipalities in the country of Canada. The taxation in Ottawa affects the municipalities, affects the provinces. Now the GST; you have to destroy that. We are going to get rid of that as soon as we get elected. What did they do, Mr. Speaker? Got elected and went and increased it. That is what they did. They called it the HST. They changed the name.

MR. SULLIVAN: What about free trade (inaudible)?

MR. J. BYRNE: I already talked about that.

Before, years ago, when Trudeau was there - John Crosbie. That crowd over there should be on their knees every day thanking God for John Crosbie and Brian Peckford who had the Atlantic Accord in place. You should be thanking God, that is what you should do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Trudeau up there, when he got elected. Was it Trudeau or Crosbie? Anyway, he was going to bring in the budget. He was going to increase the gas tax by 15 cents or 30 cents a gallon. The worst thing in the world. He called an election and the PCs were defeated. What did the Liberals do? They got in and raised it about two bucks together. That is the way this crowd works, and they are good at it. The problem is that the Tories are so honest and forward, and tell the people what they are going to do. This crowd steals our ideas, then goes out and sells it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Masters at (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Nice colour. I agree. The Government House Leader in his heart and soul, deep down in his gut, is a Tory. Every time he comes into this House, Mr. Speaker, he has a blue shirt. I commented on it earlier today but he did not hear me.

All these things affect the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, I think there is someone else who wanted to speak on Bill 17, which I agree with basically. The only problem I do have - I do have a problem, of course - is that this was not done right in the first place, which is what I said. I think if you go back and check my words, I said in the House of Assembly in the fall of last year: When will we be coming back to amend the Municipalities Act? Here we are, the first chance, the first time the House is opened, and we are amending the Municipalities Act.

(Inaudible) did you want to say a few words?

MR. SULLIVAN: Bob is (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Bob, do you want to say a few words?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I think there is someone here who wants to get up and say a few words to this piece of legislation.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on Bill 17, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, currently before the House. First of all let me say that once again we have a piece of legislation just passed in the last session of the House, last year in fact, a major piece of comprehensive legislation passed by this House. It is a very large bill, three or four hundred sections passed in this House, and here we are less than a year later and we have a number of amendments because of certain grammatical errors, typographical errors, one word substituted for another. We have before us twelve clauses amending the legislation.

Obviously this legislation should have been subjected to the legislative review process like we have suggested for the Environmental Assessment Act for a detailed study by a committee of this House. Because it is pretty clear that legislation that gets to this House does not get the kind of scrutiny that members of this House could give it in committee where members would be expected to review the legislation, compare it to their own experience, hear witnesses if that was thought desirable, and any controversial areas such as the one that the minister is dealing with here today, the automatic dis-entitlement of councillors from running because they have failed to pay their taxes.

We had a circumstance in this Province a couple of months ago where dedicated councillors who had served their communities well - especially in this Province where it is difficult to get people to serve municipally. Because there is very little in the way of rewards, and often nothing but trouble or complaints or ingratitude in some cases from residents of our municipalities because of the inability of councillors to overcome the serious problems facing our rural communities in particular.

To have 135 of these public servants, who are elected officials of municipalities, ceremoniously thrown from councils which they have served, it is unacceptable to have such an automatic thing happen. There are better ways of achieving the same objective. If the concern is that councillors may be abusing their position as councillors to get a free ride from the taxpayers, I don't think that is the case. In many cases individual councillors complained that they were not even aware that they were in arrears with their taxes, and certainly if they had been aware of the consequences of not paying them in a timely fashion would have, in fact, paid their taxes and not found themselves in the position that they did.

Even if they had been given thirty days' notice, even if the provision had said that a councillor or serving member of council, or mayor, who is in arrears of taxes shall be given thirty days' notice by the minister to bring himself or herself into compliance with the provision, failing which the minister will order the removal of a particular member from council, that would be a much more acceptable provision, I suggest. We don't have to have arbitrary, draconian in some cases, consequences for a person failing to meet a monetary commitment to a town or community. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances. A member could be ill or there could be a serious illness in a family member and certain things might prevent them - for economic or other reasons - from being a timely payer of municipal tax.

I think the minister should reconsider the draconian nature of the current legislation and not just deal with the issue of whether or not they are able to run again - now that the minister is in her place I will repeat my concern - that maybe instead of having an automatic and arbitrary removal from office that there would be instead a provision for a thirty day notice of removal from office for non-payment of taxes, failing which payment the minister would then declare the seat of the individual vacant. That would be a much more appropriate mechanism, particularly if there were provisions for some sort of appeal in extenuating circumstances that would allow people with good intentions and good faith to continue to serve their municipalities and serve the people of the Province, the residents of their respective communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Because we do from time to time in this House of Assembly pay special tribute to the contribution made by members of a community, town and city council for the service that they provide to their citizens in most cases, with few exceptions, free of charge, without any payment. It is a contribution they make willingly and they should not be treated in the manner they are treated by this legislation. Many of them were highly embarrassed, surprised and shocked to discover in January of this year that they were no longer able to serve. They were no longer a member of council. They were no longer mayor of their community. Some in fact went to court to challenge the effect of the legislation and one or two cases were successful, but we should not have municipal officials being required to go to court to continue to serve in elected office where they are providing a public service to the citizens of this Province.

I think this whole approach is wrong in principle. It is wrong in principle and ought to be changed. I would ask the minister to work with me to develop an amendment to this legislation before this bill completes its passage through the House of Assembly so that we could have, in fact, a more reasonable view of how the individual council members may be declared to be no longer members of council for the reason of non-payment of taxes. I am sure that a discussion with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities would lead to a better method of solving this particular problem. I don't know how much of a problem it in fact is, where there is any suggestion that councillors may be abusing their positions. I have never heard it said in this House of Assembly that councillors are abusing their positions by not paying their taxes. It seems to me to put councillors and mayors of municipalities in a position of public embarrassment for matters of this nature is unconscionable and ought not to be the public policy of this Province.

I think they ought to be given a warning, a thirty day notice at a bare minimum, by the minister or by departmental officials on the basis of a report to the minister from the council and that there should also be a provision for appeal based on extenuating circumstances or the making of particular arrangements with the municipal authority. Failing either a payment within thirty days or satisfactory arrangements for payment, then the minister might declare a seat to be vacant if the concern was there that this was an unsatisfactory example, if you will, to the residents of a particular town or municipality.

I think that would be fair, too, because I know that municipalities certainly make arrangements with taxpayers for payment of taxes over a period of time if they are unable to pay immediately, before taking extreme measures to collect taxes by a tax sale or otherwise. Equally that type of arrangement should be available to members of a particular municipality.

With those two comments, concerns that here we are within a very short period of time of having legislation here with a dozen amendments, only one of any particular substance, and even that not going to properly correct the problem that was identified, I think it is inappropriate that we be dealing with legislation like this, especially comprehensive legislation, without going through our legislative committee process.

I would ask the minister to consider further amending clause 12 of the bill to provide a mechanism whereby councillors in default are given thirty days notice of their default, and given an opportunity to either pay or make suitable arrangements for pay, or appeal to the minister based on extenuating circumstance before losing their seat in council. I think that would be a much more acceptable and a much more responsive and compassionate approach to recognizing the contribution that municipal officials make to their communities on a year after year, day after day, sometimes decade after decade, basis without, in some cases, a lot of gratitude and in most cases without any reward at all except the satisfaction of serving your own community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the minister speaks now, she will close the debate.

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

Again, we are very pleased to put forward the amendment. I think it is important to restate, and for information purposes for Hansard, that this piece of legislation that we are proposing is still based on the principle that we do need role models as elected officials. I think it is also important to say that many people who are finding it quite difficult to pay, and in fact many people on social assistance, found the money to come forward and pay their taxes. I think it is inappropriate to assume that because people are poor or are on social assistance they haven't been able to pay their taxes; because we have excellent role models in both of those circumstances, in fact, who did comply with the legislation. In fact, many of the very people who did not pay their taxes had attended numerous information sessions.

The department conducted numerous information and training sessions. The whole piece of legislation was under review since 1991, so over a nine-year period I think it is quite obvious and certain that the issue around taxation and your responsibility to pay your taxes and not be in arrears if you want to maintain a council seat was not anything new. In fact, the only difference in this piece of legislation and in the old was that it became an automatic vacancy as opposed to having council pass a resolution to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to pass this resolution today - or present this resolution - with the support of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities, recognizing the importance of role models and recognizing the importance of consultation in determining a new act.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 17)

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to Order 16, Bill 18.

I would like the rest of the members to listen with bated breath. I would hope that the minister, in introducing the bill, might take a minute to explain the significance and even the difference between the Municipalities Act, which we just dealt with, and the Municipal Affairs Act, which we are going to deal with. I know I am supposed to know that, so I will have to listen. I hope she will throw that in as a piece of information as she introduces the bill.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, 1999." (Bill 18).

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

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

I am very pleased today to introduce second reading on Bill 18, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act."

The Municipal Affairs Act, among other things, provides the authority for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to initiate disciplinary action, if deemed necessary, against municipal councillors for irregularities committed in the performance of their councillor responsibilities.

It is unfortunate but every now and then it has been necessary to exercise this authority, very infrequently albeit. There are, nevertheless, circumstances that arise from time to time where the magnitude of the irregularities committed warrants ministerial intervention. The current provisions of this act limit the minister's authority in that action can only be initiated against a councillor for irregularities that he or she have committed while serving during the current four-year term of office of the council. No ministerial action can be initiated if the irregularities, irrespective of their significance, occurred while a councillor served during a previous term of office of the council.

This bill addresses the circumstance. Again, it is an issue that was discussed and done in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. It addresses this circumstance by providing the necessary authority for disciplinary action if it is warranted to be initiated against a councillor for irregularities that he or she may have committed in a previous term of office, because the ability to exercise the right in the current term already exists in this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this Bill 18, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act.

I say to the minister that I was hoping she would give us a few examples of what she was talking about, when she was on her feet, which would require this piece of legislation.

I know that oftentimes - and have probably dealt with it in my own district to some extent - certain actions taken by previous members of council or, I suppose, their staff, could require some disciplinary action, but I do have some problem with this.

For a starter - I highlighted this when I read it - under section 1.(1.1) (a) it says: The minister may, by order in writing, direct the municipal authority to take the action against the member that the minister considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, what does that mean?

MR. HARRIS: Hanging, jailed.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi says it could mean hang, it could mean whipping. I don't know. I don't think so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he should know. He, being a lawyer, should know. I agree.

The minister should listen now to what I say here. I don't know if she was paying attention, but it says: The minister may, by order in writing, direct the municipal authority to take the action against the member that the minister considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances.

Really, that is a pretty broad statement, I say to the minister.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Bellevue just woke up again, Mr. Speaker. He has been here now about an hour-and-a-half and he woke up again.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious clause in this piece of legislation.

The minister made the statement that in the act, if there is a present council and there is something going wrong with the present, existing council, and they do something that is outside their authority, they misappropriated funds or whatever the case may be, they can take action. She can give direction. Now they are going back to previous years. The other question is: How far back are they going to go? Are they going to go back two years, five years or twenty years? We don't know.

The Department of Social Services, with their welfare police, are going back as much as twenty years. If we have a councillor who is elected, say, fifteen years ago, maybe, who figures he will retire in five or ten years, he is still on the hook. The minister can go back any length of time they can according to this piece of legislation to the previous council. I don't know if the minister heard that. How far back are we going to go, really?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I am something like the Minister of Health today, and what he was the other day. If you know what I am talking about.

MR. BARRETT: You are the critic for everything.

MR. J. BYRNE: I am not the critic for everything, but for all intents and purposes today I am acting critic for municipal affairs, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and a right one too. I have been there. I have been on council for a number of years, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. ANDERSEN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Listen here, I say to the Member for Torngat Mountains, I have no fears whatsoever along those lines, I can tell you that. When I was Mayor of Logy Bay-Middle Cove-Outer Cove things were done right. Everybody discussed it and it was voted upon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, this piece of legislation does concern me, I have to say, with respect to the statement here under 1(1.1)(a). If there is no guidelines set down, what can the minister recommend? What can she recommend? I don't know. It could be anything. It could be dismissal. It could be: Go over and stand in the corner for four hours with a dunce cap on your head. What is she talking about?

Again, this is another example. When we passed the Municipalities Act last fall in the House of Assembly the minister said it was worked on for nine years. Here we are again making amendments the very first opportunity we had. This Administration - and it has been brought up in this House of Assembly so often by members on this side of the House, and I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi - we have spoken many times with respect to pushing legislation through the House of Assembly in the dying days of a session that has to come back to the House of Assembly for review and amendments.

Hopefully, this time around, I would assume that whoever reviewed the Act, again, got it right and that the minister has it right. Obviously the Minister of Health, the previous Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, did not get it right. I though that while he was there he was doing a good job. As a matter of fact, I often complimented him in the House of Assembly.

MR. SHELLEY: You were fooled.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I was fooled. He tricked me. He was not doing a good job at all and I thought he was. I am here seven years and I am getting too soft, I say, but we will soon learn.

Mr. Speaker, now to the disciplinary actions against councillors. It is getting to the point where we are going to have trouble getting individuals to run for council. In the last election a few years ago - the next election I think is in September 2001 - there were many councils that did not have enough people to run to form a quorum. They had to have by-elections and they had to persuade individuals in the town to run. Then, as we were just speaking on the last bill, when the legislation came into being in January of 2000, 135 councillors were kicked off the councils.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: They were. All councils.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I did not even use your name. Oh, no, I did even use your name. Pay attention.

I was saying when we were talking about the legislation, the last Bill 17, 135 councillors across this Province were kicked off the council. Embarrassed to tears, I would say some of them, when it should not have happened. How are we going to get people to run for council when everything now is all going to zone in on these individuals? If they do the slightest thing wrong they are going to have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on their case. When, in fact, under the Municipalities Act, I know situations where Municipal Affairs won't take their job seriously and go into certain municipalities and talk to the councillors if they are not running things right. They should have some kind of a system in place, in my mind, where if a council is not operating smoothly - oftentimes it is nothing other than personalities. If one councillor is going to say something, councillor B will disagree. Automatically, no matter how right it is, they automatically disagree. Personalities. In situations like that, Municipal Affairs should be able to go in and do something about it.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Exactly, right. Everything in due course.

I had discussions with representatives from Municipal Affairs, that they do something, put something in place, where they are given the authority - when things are not running smoothly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I think everyone in the House should pay attention now and look at what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, you better watch out, there might be some THMs in there.

MR. J. BYRNE: There may be more than THMs in there, I will tell you that.

MR. TULK: I will get you a fresh drop.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can someone get me a different glass? Thank you, I say to the Government House Leader. Thank you very much, I needed that. It is only half a glass, though. Is that half full or half empty?

MR. TULK: With you it would be half empty.

MR. J. BYRNE: Wrong, I was going to say half full. I say to the Government House Leader, thank you.

The minister made a statement when she was on her feet introducing this piece of legislation that when circumstances arise this legislation would be implemented. Certain things have to happen. I think this one needs to be clarified, and the minister is going to have to clarify it when she speaks to close debate. What are the actions that will be taken or being advised by the minister to take? I know it is going to depend on a given situation. The minister now is going to be the ultimate authority, really. What recommendations is she going to make to a council? What are the punishments? What are the disciplinary actions that can take place? We don't know. What are the regulations? Are there going to be regulations to go along with this to let us know? Who is going to make the decision of who is guilty and who is not guilty in a given situation? Is it going to be after the result of a court action? Is it going to be after a review by the department? Is it going to be after an investigation by, say, the Auditor General? Is it going to be after an investigation by members of Municipal Affairs? When is she going to take action? What basis is she going to take action on? What action is she going to take, I say to you, Mr. Speaker?

In any given situation the minister we have here today, well, that minister can change tomorrow. They might take the Minister of Health and he may become the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Obviously, for the omni-minister, no sweat there. Not only that, he went into education and he screwed that up. He is into health, and according to our critic he screwing that up big time. He was the Minister of Mines and Energy for some time, and where is Churchill Falls? Where is Voisey's Bay? Where is the great negotiator? BT come home. The Minister of Fisheries, he may be Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs tomorrow. Then people on this side will have to ask him for money -

MR. EFFORD: I guarantee if I do you won't get any! (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: See? The Minister of Fisheries rose to the bug, just like the salmon. Hooked, and I will reel him in now. I hooked the minister, I got him. If you were in the river and I saw you swimming up the river I would have you hooked long ago, I say to the minister. No sweat.

MR. EFFORD: I guarantee you (inaudible) transportation.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am going to go on record. Everybody in the House of Assembly heard the Minister of Fisheries say that we got no money for pavement in my district when he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I am a bigger man than that, because when he was Minister of Works, Services and Transportation I paid him a compliment for going ahead with the Outer Ring Road, but he is too small-minded to understand the way this system works here. Tit-for-tat, what goes around come around. He thinks people have with short memories, but they don't. They don't have -

MR. MATTHEWS: I treated you fairly.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Finance, I have to say, if the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs lives up to him and what he set over there, Mr. Speaker, there will be no problems on this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) right?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes sir, he was all right. I had no trouble with that fellow, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker, when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, although we did have a little racket once and I am still upset over it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are?

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh yes, I have a memory. He knows.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not going to hold it against me now, are you Jack?

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I wouldn't do that. I know how the situation works. What goes around comes around, I say to the minister.

That is all I have to say on this piece of legislation. I don't know if anybody else on this side wants to say a few words. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will just sit for a few minutes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am motivated to speak on this legislation for one reason and one reason only, and that is to object to the broad powers being given to the Minister of Municipal Affairs under this legislation. Now, I have just reviewed the Municipal Affairs Act and there is no indication whatsoever in that act of any limitation on those powers.

MR. BARRETT: Did you get a legal opinion?

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Bellevue likes to make snide remarks about lawyers, but let me tell the minister one thing. I have practiced law in this Province for twenty years, and one of the things that you learn practicing law is that when people have legal rights to do things, they often carry out those things in accordance with those legal rights. Here we have a recipe for arbitrariness and, I would go farther, a recipe for abuse; not by this particular minister. I don't expect this minister to do that sort of thing.

We have very broad wording which I find offensive to the notions of a democratic society, where the minister is given the power essentially to be judge and jury. She could, under this legislation, order a municipal authority to fine a councillor, for example, or to make an order: I hereby order you to fine a particular councillor or former councillor for acts done in a previous administration..., or suspend them or take other actions, and arrogate to herself the right to be judge and jury without any determination, without any requirement that a determination be made, other than her satisfaction with a report from an inspector. So, she gets a report from an inspector. An inspector goes out, figures something out, sends a report to the minister, and the minister is entitled, without any hearing, without any right of response by the individual concerned, without any rules of natural justice applying to the determination, the minister is going to be entitled to sentence, if you will, and order a municipality to carry out that sentence on a particular councillor.

I find that offensive. I find it offensive as a citizen of this Province and I find it offensive as somebody who understands how the law works and how the law is supposed to protect people, not give authority and power to a minister such as being given here. This is nothing personal against the minister, and I hope the minister doesn't respond in a personal way to it. This is a matter of democracy. This is a matter of legal rights, and I think it is the kind of wording - and there is no trouble to change it. There is no trouble to make a modification to that wording that would limit the actions that could be taken by the minister to a suspension or a dismissal for irregularity after an individual has been given a chance to respond to a report.

There is no trouble to amend it to reflect a more appropriate recognition of the rights of people who are offering themselves to serve for councils. Elected positions we are talking about. We are asking people in this Province to serve their people in elected positions on city, town or community councils or regional municipalities, and we are now giving the minister the power to order a municipal authority to take action against somebody without any right of the individual even knowing that there is a report on them sitting in the minister's office.

I do not see anything in this legislation or in the act itself to say that an inspection report that has been given to the minister under section 6 has to be given to the individuals involved, with an opportunity to respond. I do not see anything there that says that. I do not see any rules of natural justice limiting the power of the minister under that. It may be, and the minister could tell us that: Oh, the courts would require us to do this or that.

Well, the courts may require that after the fact, after somebody finds himself on the wrong side of a ministerial order, or a councillor finds himself on the wrong side of a ministerial order. They might spend $2,000 or $3,000 to go to court and have a court decide that the power of the minister to exercise is unconstitutional, but do we want that to be the way that our municipal affairs are governed, by someone having to go to court to have a judge pass on the rightness or wrongness of a ministerial action when we here in this House today can assure that proper procedure is put in place before such actions can take place?

I am not here attacking this minister, and I hope she won't attack me, either under her breath or publicly, for making these statements. I would say, Mr. Speaker, these are matters of high principle. These are not technical, legal points here. These are matters of principle that power, and strong power such as this - unlimited power when you read the section of the act - without any right of a municipal council or municipal authority to know what it is that appears in an inspectors report, and being given an opportunity to respond to that and to go ahead and do something.

It is one thing to give a council the authority to take disciplinary action against a member of that council for something that happened in a previous council. That is fine, give them that authority. In fact, you could go further and say if the council fails to act, do something. That might be interesting.

I encourage the minister, before she goes any further with this legislation, to consult with the Minister of Justice to look at this wording - very broad wording. I would submit that the wording is so broad as to offend a sense of justice that we should, in this House, be here to protect; to ensure that our citizens are not subject to arbitrary actions without the right of knowing what it is that they are being charged with.

Section 6 of the Municipal Affairs Act talks about procedures on irregularities with ministers being satisfied on the report of an inspector; nothing about the right of individuals to respond to what is in a report from an inspector; nothing in this particular section to give individuals who are accused of some irregular action in the conduct of their affairs as a council without any right to respond. I think this offends my sense of justice as a citizen, and I think anybody in this House who looks at this - I would assume that everybody in this House has a keen sense of right and wrong about matters of procedure.

I know the Government House Leader would not want to be accused of something and have a right of a minister or some other person to act on that without him having a chance to respond to whatever allegations might be contained in a report. I know the minister understands and has a keen sense of justice about that, as do other ministers and other members of this House. I don't think you have to have a legal background to understand that, and I would ask hon. members to give serious consideration to this.

I say this is a non-partisan way as a member of this House for nearly ten years, who has viewed legislation, looked at legislation as it comes forward. I find this offensive. I find this offensive as a member of this House and I find this offensive as a leader of a political party. I find it offensive as a citizen of this Province, to see that kind of power being placed in legislation to give a minister of the Crown the authority - without any opportunity of the individual whose conduct is in question to respond - to issue an order to a council to take action against this person, such action as the minister considers necessary or advisable in the circumstances. As broad a power as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, curtailed only by the possibility of someone going to court to get an injunction or an issue, or order of prohibition against the minister to prevent actions being taken, without giving people the opportunity to respond to reports that may be made against them.

I submit that this is a very serious matter and I raise it for the consideration, and for the honest consideration of all members of the House, to consider obtaining some further advice. I would suggest that this be given serious consideration and that it be put on hold for time to allow some reflection on the consequences of this type of legislation without providing any opportunity for individuals to respond, or without limiting that power in some way so as people who read this legislation are aware of what consequences might take place to them if they run afoul of an inspector and run afoul of the minister.

We are trying to encourage people to be involved in municipal office, as part of our democratic institutions. I think to subject them to this type of - I would call it tyrannical legislation, giving rise to a power in the minister to act in a manner that is contrary to people's rightful expectations to have an opportunity to respond to any complains made against them, to any inspection reports that may be sitting on the minister's desk, and to have some knowledge as to what limitations might be placed on the powers of the minister under this proposed new section 1.1 of the act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, she closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

I would like to say, in response to some of the comments that were made - first of all, a comment or a question that was asked by my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services - the difference between the Municipalities Act and the Municipal Affairs Act.

As members would know, the Municipalities Act is an act that governors the municipalities. The Municipal Affairs Act is what gives the minister the authority to oversee her responsibilities or his responsibilities as minister. They are quite different.

In this particular amendment, what we are asking for is that the minister would have the authority to address, if warranted, an action based on information that would have been brought forward, and this is very clear. Another member asked for examples. We do have examples of conflict of interest, misappropriation of funds, or theft, which occurred in a previous term but the limit of the legislation was such that the minister was not able to act upon those irregularities even though they came forward to the justice system.

There is no intent, and I would say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, I am sure he would like to see the law upheld, as an officer of the court, and would suggest that councils would have members, elected officials, working on their councils that again are role models and are upholding the law. I think that the only intention here is to broaden this particular legislation so that the minister has the ability, particularly in cases of overlap, where information is brought to the minister's attention on examples such as theft or other forms of misappropriation of funds, or conflict of interest, that the minister may, upon advice of justice - because it isn't an arbitrary process. It isn't a tyrannical piece of legislation, as the member opposite from Quidi Vidi-Signal Hill commented. In fact, it is about ensuring that we have people running our governments, whether it is at whatever level - in this case it is at the municipal level - that are in fact role models and who have not violated or broken the law. I think that is a reasonable expectation for constituents and people to expect.

Again, as the member alluded to in the opening comments, there is no suggested hanging associated with this amendment. What we are suggesting is that when information is brought forward that really should expect a minister to act appropriately, this piece of legislation, this amendment, will give the minister the ability to make the appropriate decision based on advice, whether it is by justice or by an inspector and, again, with the dismissal of a councillor, through the Cabinet process.

I think it is very much in order. It is about protecting the rights of the constituents and by the municipalities and its members at large. It is certainly not a violation, and people who feel their rights are violated always have the recourse through the courts, as we know. Again, this is about reacting and responding to information that has been brought forward - and with recommendations, I might add, made from justice - but renders the minister unable to act upon those recommendations because they crossed over the previous term when in fact the same person, for example, who misappropriated funds has been elected for another term, and everybody is aware of it, and that minister has no ability to act on that information.

That is the basis. That is the kind of example that we are referring to, and that is the basis for this amendment, not to exorbitantly influence or enhance the ministerial powers but to allow the minister to act upon recommendations as such.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, " read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 18)

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

MR. TULK: Order 17, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 19)

The Minister of Municipal Affairs will wax eloquent again.

On motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 19)

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

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

I am pleased today to introduce second reading on Bill 19, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act."

The City of St. John's, unlike other municipalities in the Province, carries out its own property assessments under the authority of the St. John's Assessment Act. The assessment of property in other municipalities is carried out by the Municipal Assessment Agency under the authority of the Assessment Act.

A fundamental aspect of the property assessment function is the right of a property owner to appeal the assessed value that is affixed to his or her property. This rate is currently afforded to the residents of the City at no direct cost, notwithstanding the high cost associated with the administration of the appeal process.

The cost can be attributed, in part, to the number of frivolous appeals that often are filed annually, and the number of cases where an appeal is filed and the property owner fails to even appear at his or her own scheduled appeal hearing.

The City feels that the imposition of an appeal fee would reduce such occurrences as it relates to the frivolous appeals, and would therefore reduce the overall cost of the appeal process. It was these same factors occurring in other municipalities that in fact prompted the 1998 amendment to the Assessment Act to provide for an appeal fee in all municipalities except St. John's.

Again, I think it is important because it is not just the imposition of a fee for the sake of imposing it. The bill would provide the City the authority to impose an assessment appeal fee consistent with the authority contained under the Assessment Act as applies to all other municipalities in the Province.

This fee would be refunded. This is important to note. It would be refunded to any property owner who appeals his or her assessment and subsequently reaches an agreement with the property assessor as to the property value, or withdraws his or her appeal at least ten days before the scheduled appealed hearing, or is successful in having the assessed value of his or her property reduced in the appeal hearing.

Again, this is not meant to deter the appeal process - legitimate appeals. What it will do is make people take stock and, if they are going forward with an appeal, they will at least make an appearance. They will not cause increased administrative costs and work and then not show up to even attend the hearing. It does make provision to refund any monies that would be paid if the property owner appeals his assessment and reaches an agreement with the property owner or, in fact, if he is successful in having the assessed value of his property reduced in the appeal hearing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The minister has a busy day. I want to say a few words with respect to Bill 19, An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act. When the minister was on her feet, what she was saying certainly appears to make a lot of sense. The City of St. John's itself wants this assessment fee implemented for an appeal.

I do have a question, though, I suppose. The City itself would assess the appeal fee. I would imagine, we have a number of councillors down there and we should not have too many worries about how much that fee would be. I would say it would be something that would deter, as the minister says -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the minister says it is the same as other fees with other areas. It certainly would be enough, I hope, to deter frivolous appeals.

We experienced, ourselves, as a small town down there, when we had appeals and people did not show up and we had to have an assessor or a mediator come in, or whatever the case may be, to hear the appeals. Of course, the City should not have to foot the bill for something of that nature.

It is hard to argue with this, other than to say that maybe a person could be entitled to have at least one appeal in, say, five or ten years. Because if, in fact, a person does have an appeal for an assessment and it is borderline and they do happen to lose it - I mean, they are going to have to foot the bill. That situation can certainly arise, but where you have appeals just for the sake of appealing, just because someone got their back up or whatever the case may be with the city council, yes, I think that we can live with this.

The minister says also that if the appeal is successful and their assessment is reduced or whatever the case may be the appeal would be refunded, or if they withdraw their appeal within at least ten days before the appeal hearing, and that is fair enough. I think that is only right and just.

When the minister was on her feet she compared this assessment - the City of St. John's does its own assessments, and she mentioned the Municipal Assessment Agency which does assessments for other municipalities. I remember when this Municipal Assessment Agency was put in place and there was a number of layoffs at the assessment division of Municipal Affairs, and I think they were rehired through this new agency. My concern at the time - and it is applicable to this - is that the smaller municipalities, in due course, would see their assessments cost go up. I think that there were some$500,000 a year given to the Municipal Assessment Agency for three years or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Last year was the last year, that is right. I think I've asked questions on that. My concern of course is that now that they are not receiving $500,000, this Municipal Assessment Agency is going to end up charging that to the municipalities. They are going to pass it on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Fee for service. Yes I know, and that is the way this government is going. There is a lot of stuff that is fee for service now. There are all kinds of fees being charged for services that were never charged before. We had the Minister of Finance, over the past two or three years, saying there was no new taxes, but I remember two or three years ago when there was two or three pages of fees and permits that were doubled and tripled, and fees for services that had never been charged for before. Again, this is where this government is heading, where they are charging fees for service. All kinds of it is going on, but that is life I suppose. We can argue all we want. They have the majority. They are going to do what they want in the end anyway.

No, I don't see anything major with that other than to say that maybe a person could be entitled to an appeal say, once every five years, that if they win or lose they would not have to foot the bill for it. Then again, where we have the problem -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) you shouldn't have to pay anyway if you win.

MR. J. BYRNE: If you win you are not going to have to pay. No, or if you withdraw your bill and what have you, but what I am saying is that if it is borderline, if a person appeals and it is borderline and they lose, they were just as right, almost, as the City of St. John's in that situation. Yet again, because the majority have to suffer for a few people; this is what we are seeing happening in the country, that the majority are always suffering for the few. I don't know if we can argue that one or not.

That is pretty well all I have to say on this piece of legislation. I don't know if anybody else wants to say a few words on this. I expect we will end up supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the hon. minister speaks now she will close the debate.

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

I'm happy to move second reading of Bill 19, An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 19)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

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

CHAIR (Walsh): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 3, Mr. Chairman, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act," Bill 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible). Anyway, Mr. Chairman, in the debate on the principle of this bill I don't think that our colleagues on this side of the House expressed any displeasure with the bill. The clauses themselves just give effect to establishing the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities with three full-time members and not more than six part-time members. There is nothing to that. There are another few more positions for the party faithful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Absolutely. At least that is what I like about the Minister of Fisheries. He calls it as it is. When somebody put a microphone in front of his face and asked him about bringing cheques out to Trinity North he said: You are darn right I did, and I will bring out everyone I can get my hands on. Unlike some other ministers, Mr. Speaker, when the microphone went in front of their face they said: We wouldn't do the likes of that. My God, that is not what we would do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not you, but you have a colleague over there who did.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I have been tempted to stray.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: That is right. It is like horseshoes and hand grenades.

The second clause, of course, is the exemption clause for the members of the commission, indemnifying them from personal liability for carrying out their work as commissioners or employees of the commission.

We do not have any further questions on those particular clauses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, if we do, get up.

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: Order 4, Bill 5, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act."

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have just a couple of brief comments on Bill 5 on behalf of my colleague the critic. I pretty well made my points earlier so I will keep it very brief. We support this particular bill. The bill has served industry well for the past couple of years. There is an orderly harvest and a processing in the fishing industry due to this particular pilot project that has been going on for some time. Now we are going to enact it in legislation and hopefully it could be a model by which maybe other provinces and other people can settle those disputes. Maybe there should be similar methods involved, probably, or some mechanisms to get fair settlements when it comes to wage disputes and things like the Gulf Ferry. It talks about strikes. That alone sends a shudder across everybody, and it affects tourism and so on, so maybe there are similar mechanisms we can look at overall in the industry on a broader basis there.

Mr. Chairman, I made the particular points of why I support it at fair length in second reading so I will just conclude with those few comments.

CHAIR: I thank the Member for Ferryland for his comments.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act." (Bill 5)

On motion, clauses 1 through 14, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act." (Bill 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pippy Park Commission Act." (Bill 9)

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak briefly on this act and to say that I certainly want to offer my support for the option of including one of the landowners as part of the Pippy Park Commission because, despite the fact that there have been grandfathering clauses and other things that affect them, they have never had a role on the Commission itself. It seems that there is going to be a permanent group of people for some considerable time as residents of Pippy Park, and I think it is only right that they have their concerns represented at the table of the Commission so that when matters that affect their circumstances come up, there is a voice there for them, an opportunity to be directly involved in decision-making. Obviously they are not in a position to outvote the majority but they are certainly going to be in a position to bring to the table the issues that relate to landowners who live within the park boundaries or are associated in some way with the park.

I just wanted to go on record as supporting the inclusion of Pippy Park residents, landowners, to have a place at the table of the Pippy Park Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 6, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act." (Bill 10)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly on this amendment. I am assuming it is the amendment that was asked for by city council. I have not heard any representations from anybody on this, but in looking at the amendment and looking at some of the things that have happened at city council, it seems to me that by reducing the requirement for a quorum to a majority of council members, there are going to be increasing opportunities for some of the things that seem to happen at city council where one week, depending on who happens to be at the meeting, a particular motion might pass and then the next week, with a different group of people, something else happens.

I don't say this with any regret from not having been chosen by the people of St. John's. I say it as a Member of this Legislature who watches, along with many, some of the things that happen. If you have now a quorum, a quorum might be five members of council and, depending on who happens to be on vacation or away on council business on that particular day, a particular resolution might get through whereas the next week, if a quorum was a little larger, then a different resolution would get through. It seems to me that makes the quorum very small and a majority of that quorum very small indeed to pass a resolution that may be something very controversial.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the City has asked for it, if there are no strong objections and representations made by other members of council as to the change in quorum, I am not at this point ready to oppose it, but I would say that we have to be cautious when we talk about an organization, a municipal government, with the kind of power that this organization has, a very large degree of power.

We are moving now to the summer months and council will meet throughout the summer months and has a large amount of decision-making power. There are often controversial matters that come before council and it may be, in these circumstances - I don't know what the actual quorum would be; perhaps it would be five or six - that the majority of that group would be maybe three or four councillors. It seems to me to be quite a low number to be able to effect a very serious and potentially controversial decision that affects the future of the City of St. John's.

Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any strong representations from members of the public or other councillors about this amendment, I would approve it and support it but I think it is something that we should have a careful look at, and if we see that this particular provision causes problems and controversy where small majorities are being used to do things that may be done at a particular meeting because of the presence of certain members and not others, then I think we should be willing to have a second look at it and be vigilant to ensure that the full democratic process of elective representation is given effect to in the City of St. John's.

CHAIR (Mercer): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just want it clarified. I think the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi might have sort of just missed the particular wording. What the amendment states is a majority of the council elected. Eleven, I think are on council. They can never get less than six. If someone is on vacation and there are only six there, or let's say seven people there, six out of seven would have to support it, under this new one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, this would strengthen it rather than weaken it, and would ensure that you can never get a decision without the majority of elected councillors. That is my understanding.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It says -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The bill would amend the City of St. John's Act to change the requirement for a quorum at a meeting from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority.

In other words, you cannot have a majority of the councillors elected; two-thirds of the majority of members present. Two-thirds present now would constitute a quorum, would it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, okay. Two-thirds of eleven, right now, I would assume, would it be? I think there are eleven. Are there six ward councillors? I just want to get it clear now. Six ward councillors, I would assume, four at large and a mayor. Are there eleven on city council in St. John's? Can anybody tell me that?

AN HON. MEMBER: The deputy mayor and the mayor are elected separately.

MR. SULLIVAN: The deputy mayor is elected separately. There are nine others besides the mayor and deputy mayor.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: And four at large, yes; there would be eleven in total.

Right now, according to this, it says here "...to change the requirement for a quorum at council meetings from a 2/3...."

Okay, two-thirds of eleven, basically, now, which would be actually more than seven. You would need eight people now to constitute a quorum. That is right. "...to a simple majority of the complement of the councillors elected." Which means, in order to get a quorum now, you must have six. That would be my understanding now. You could get a quorum with less than six before but now you can't.

That would be my understanding of this, although it says here in section 1.(2), "A majority of the members of the council constitutes a quorum for the purpose of a meeting of the council." The following substituted.

The explanatory note is a little different, isn't it? It says, "...a simple majority of the complement of the councillors elected." The word elected is not used here in that amendment but it is used in the explanation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I notice that what is mentioned in the explanatory note, my interpretation of it, is not reflected in clause 1.(2) that is mentioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: What bill is that, Loyola?

MR. SULLIVAN: That is Bill 10. There is only the one clause. It says, if the City of St. John's wants to amend or take away a two-thirds majority to a majority of elected members, which means.... The intent that is stated in the explanatory note is that there must be six councillors to constitute a quorum.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: What?

MR. HARRIS: Six councillors present at a meeting.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: And then a majority of them can pass a resolution.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct.

MR. TULK: The explanatory note is wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: The explanatory note is wrong. That is what I am saying, the explanatory note and the clause -

MR. TULK: It says, "This Bill would amend the City of St. John's Act to change the requirement for a quorum at council meetings from a 2/3 majority to the members present...."

I don't know; maybe the City of St. John's Act now says a quorum is two-thirds of the members present but is going to change, "...to a simple majority of the complement of the councillors elected."

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it can't be two-thirds of the members present for a quorum. It must be two-thirds of -

MR. TULK: It wouldn't in my book, but I don't know what is on theirs. Seriously, I don't know of anywhere else in the western world that it is, but maybe it is down there.

MR. SULLIVAN: You can't have two-thirds of the members present to have a quorum because everybody is present. How can you have two-thirds if everybody is there?

MR. TULK: The point is that, in the legislation itself, a majority of the members of the council constitutes a quorum for the purpose of a meeting of the council.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know, but right now it is my understanding that two-thirds of the members of eleven would make a quorum. Right?

MR. TULK: I would think so.

MR. SULLIVAN: It would make a quorum, and they want to change that to, according to the explanatory note, a minimum of six. If council has eleven members, six would now be a quorum. We can't have a meeting if there are five members there, which means you can have six now and have a meeting.

According to the clause it does not reflect that. It says, "A majority of the members of the council constitutes a quorum..." Okay, an elected body, so that would be six. Basically, the point we are saying now is that six can constitute a quorum and it was two-thirds earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, well, four out of six voting for it can carry it, whereas right prior to this you needed to have five.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) six.

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you needed five before to carry it because two-thirds of eleven is a little over seven so I guess you have to round to the higher one, which was eight.

AN HON. MEMBER: You had to have two-thirds of those present.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) members constitute a quorum, to pass it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, currently now eight would constitute a quorum. If you need two-thirds of eleven it is over seven so it must be eight people. If you want to carry that, you must have five voting in favour to carry, basically, if all participated.

Right now, under the new arrangement, you can get by with one less. Basically that is correct, yes. What you said is essentially correct there, yes. You can get by with a decision now - with only four of the eleven people on council supporting something, you can get a decision through.

MR. HARRIS: What we see happening, I know, is that sometimes, depending on who is there that particular week, (inaudible) one way, and next week someone (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure, and if you have four carrying it, if you have a certain four taking one stand, they might be the very four who are there when you only have six people.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Sure it can.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it can happen, but basically the point is - I am not sure if it is going to have any effect on the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi any more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The point I am making in second reading on this bill, I said the City of St. John's -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Could I remind members that, when they speak, they be recognized? The debate across the floor is enchanting, I am sure, but let it be recorded for posterity.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I am the only one recognized. The point I made in second reading is that if the City of St. John's and Andy Wells want to change the quorum requirements for how they conduct business down there, and they are dealing with their own council matters, so be it. Let the taxpayers or the voting public of the City of St. John's take them to task if they make decisions there. We should not be putting, necessarily, impediments and making it more difficult for councils to run their own affairs. We should be as cooperative, if you agree -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is it, yes. Anybody who would like to change that could get in a position -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was close, I must admit. It was only a cell phone away, I would say, from a victory. That is probably what it was, and that is probably true.

AN HON. MEMBER: Andy won because of modern technology.

MR. SULLIVAN: Andy won because of modern technology. Thank God. Andy must be praying every day now that cell phone are a part of the new technology, the new age. If that wasn't there, maybe he would have come up with some other thing.

It wasn't the statement, I said to him before, that he made. It was the time in the debate that he made it. Had he said it during a confrontational stage of the debate he would have gotten away with it because it was one on one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. In his closing comments, when it turned to a more serious approach, a more formal approach in closing comments, it was the timing and the location in which it was said that cost him the victory there. I guess he has learned from experience, and the next time he runs he won't make that mistake, he can guarantee you that.

If the city council want to change their quorum, let it ,so be it, unless they are going to put it down so low that it is not going to be democratic or outside the realm of democracy. Then I think we have a role here where we governor municipalities to step in and say: No, there is a certain bottom line in which you cannot go. I am not sure that we have exceeded that. I think we are in the realms of a democratic process here and will support it.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City of St. John's Act." (Bill 10)

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: Order 7, Committee of the Whole on Bill 11, "An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises."

A bill, "An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises." (Bill 11)

On motion, clauses 1 through 50 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Order 8, Committee of the Whole on Bill 6, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act."

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act." (Bill 6)

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) second reading on Bill 6, An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Service Act, in support of the legislation, in particular the recognition of the needs of young people between sixteen and eighteen, and the potential for entering into arrangements beyond the age of eighteen for youth who are in receipt of services.

I just want to elaborate a little bit on some of my concerns, and some of the concerns that government follow through on reaching out to these young people and provide services that they have been needing for some time in that age group. It has been a group that has been neglected for some time and I want to, I suppose, belatedly congratulate the government, even though the bringing in of this legislation is quite belated and unfortunately large number of young people have fallen through the cracks of our social assistance regime for many years. At long last, these young people are going to get some help, particularly, where it comes to the need for housing and the need for support to be able to live and no longer end up virtually homeless, going from bed to bed, or couch to couch, or floor to floor amongst their friends, or in some of the cases their friends' families who take them in for a night or two here and there.

We have had that going on for many years in this Province to a larger degree than most people realize - not only here in St. John's, but all over the Province - young people leaving their own homes for whatever reasons, unable to cope with the family situation they find themselves in, or unable to abide by the rules that their family has imposed on them. Whether they are good or bad rules is not for me to say. In particular circumstances, obviously, they may be good rules. In other circumstances they may be rules that a young person finds impossible to accept or go along with, and they end up out on the street.

Now we have an opportunity for these young people who have the right under the law to be separated from their parents, but now have the ability to access services such as money to provide accommodation for them and to get the kind of help that they may need to get their lives together, and to have a chance at least of developing into a contributing adult member of our society. So it is important that we recognize that this is a significant step forward. As I say, despite the fact of its belated nature, obviously the minister and the government should get some credit for having brought this measure forward at this time.

However, I would like to refer to two concerns that I have. Number one is whether or not we are going to get the kind of agreements that we need between this department and the Human Resources and Employment to ensure that people who go into access of services at age seventeen or seventeen-and-a-half are going to get them beyond age eighteen. That is dependent upon an agreement between the minister and another department. We would like to see a stronger commitment from government on that than we have so far.

The second one is one I want to elaborate briefly on, on the concerns I raised today to the Minister of Health and Community Services, and that is the issue of mental health services for young people. Many young people are in crisis. The age group, sixteen to eighteen in particular, have specific problems. They are not able to access services at the Janeway Hospital because they are over the age of the Janeway facility and services. They are in an area where they are too young to be considered adults for the purposes of mental health treatment, but yet they end up in the Waterford Hospital, in the Health Sciences or in St. Clare's to access mental health services in a circumstance where they are in units or wards with adults with all sorts of problems.

I think the minister would recognize that there are special needs of this particular group. In fact, it is recognized to the point of sending young people away to other provinces for residential treatment in this particular age group when they have mental health needs that certainly cannot be addressed in our Province.

It is a concern. I don't think it requires a tremendous amount of money. We are talking about a dedicated unit that might house six to eight beds to look after the specific needs. I am told that the demand is sufficient in this Province for that, that there is a need for it. That we now have people going before the youth court, for example, who when the judge is presented with the option of getting a young person some residential treatment, the judge is willing to make such an order as a diversion from a closed custody sentence. That option is often not available and young people end up in closed custody in Whitbourne where the kind of treatment that they need in terms of psychiatric assessments and treatment on a residential basis is not available to them. They may be out two or three months later on the streets for reasons of being unable to resolve their mental health problems and find themselves once again in trouble with the law and end up in the revolving door syndrome, ultimately ending up being incarcerated in the Penitentiary as an adult.

So we have to try to take a proactive role and fill this gap in service needs for the people of our Province, young people who have specific mental health needs that are not now able to be addressed. We have filled the gap, as it were, in the provision of social services to young people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, but we have not filled the gap in the need for psychiatric services, mental health services, for young people who have problems beyond those that might be addressed in a group home, and problems beyond those that might be addressed with counseling that might be available once a week after a waiting list of four to six months has been gone through; people whose needs for residential care, residential treatment have been identified but can't be met except in inappropriate circumstances in an adult facility or at great expense to the treasury.

Also, the minister used the word inconvenient today. It is not just inconvenient for a young person to receive residential mental health treatment in another province. In fact, it is certainly not an optimal level of treatment because if they are in this Province they can be integrated more easily into other services that are available. If they are sent to Ontario or Alberta for residential treatment, when they come back to this Province not only do they have to re-orient themselves to being back in Newfoundland and Labrador, being back here in their community, they have to go about to access services without being eased into the process, which you could be if you were in a facility here in the Province.

I would like the minister to give this his urgent attention, put it to the top of the priority list and look at the kind of money that the government has been spending to provide services out of the Province for individuals, look at how the Province is allocating its resources in this area, and to use some compassion in assessing the needs of young people which are now not being met. In fact, instead of receiving treatment they are receiving a closed custody form of sentence and end up in Whitbourne where they can't get the kind of treatment, the kind of psychiatric services that they made need for treatment.

This has been identified to me by people who work in the field of services to this particular age group that this is, probably, the most significant need right now, having resolved, at least, the access issue with respect to social services. I commend the minister for that particular action, but ask him to take seriously the mental health needs of young people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen, and look to immediately develop a residential treatment unit. I'm not talking about a new centre, we are not talking about major capital expenditure here, but we are talking about a facility that might be a part of, or attached to, a psychiatric unit at the existing facilities at the Janeway even, but at the Waterford, at St. Clare's, at the Health Sciences, or at the Janeway to ensure that the special residential treatment needs of this particular age group are able to be addressed properly.

Thank you.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Child, Youth And Family Services Act." (Bill 6)

On motion, clauses 1 through 18 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 obviously skipped one coming down the Order Paper. Order 9, Bill 12, "An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment."

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: You are dealing with the definitions in this act. Is that what you are dealing with in clause 2? Just to be clear.

CHAIR: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Go ahead.

On motion, clauses 2 through 6 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

In second reading on this piece of legislation yesterday there was some debate, and this is an opportunity in Committee to go, I guess, directly to the minister on a clause by clause basis to talk about the concerns that we have with the individual clauses contained within this act.

Clause 7, for example, is under a heading called Registration, and I will read it for the record. Clause 7(1) says: "A proponent shall, in the form that the minister may require and before proceeding with the final design of an undertaking, notify the minister of the proposed undertaking and that notification shall be considered to be a registration of the undertaking under this Act."

I would just like to ask the minister about this. In terms of the language contained in this clause, it seems to be contrary to what you are actually looking for, and I will explain what I mean. The proponent shall, which means he must, "in the form that the minister may require and before proceeding with the final design... notify the minister of the proposed undertaking and that notification shall be considered to be a registration..." What I am looking for is just an explanation of what circumstances or instances in the form that you "may require." In terms of "may require," that leaves it, obviously, in your discretion to judge each individual sort of registration process on its own merits. Is that what that clause is actually looking for?

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

MR. LANGDON: What happens here, Mr. Chairman, is when the project gets registered then we would look at the characteristics that would be needed to see if there was further assessment to be done. Then the next stage in that would be a environmental preview report and you look at what was required. So in that sense, if the environmental preview report would do the job, then you would outline the guidelines that the particular proponent would have to follow in order to do that.

If you wanted to, in a sense, do an EIS, then you would give the directions then to the proponent, set out the guidelines, and those particular guidelines that had been set out would then be the requirement that the person would have to be able to register that project.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, while I just stepped out for a minute we roared past clauses 4, 5 and 6, and I wonder, with leave of the House, could I deal with clauses 4 and 5 of the act?

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I can give some convoluted reason. I can talk about it under another section with a real convoluted argument but I do not see much point in that, Mr. Chairman, but if there is leave, clauses 4 and 5 seems to me to be quite convoluted. I wonder if the minister can explain how clauses 4, 5 and 6 actually work together. Because clause 4(1) says: "This Act applies to all undertakings carried out in the province, unless it is of a class of undertaking exempted under this Act." I am not sure what ones are exempted under the act.

The next clause, 4(2), then says: "An undertaking to which this Act applies may be designated by regulation." Well now, which is it? All undertakings except those exempted, or undertakings that are actually designated by regulation? Those to me are contradictory terms. Either clause 4(1) applies, in which case it is all ones except the ones that the act specifically exempt, or it is only those which are designated by regulation. Then clause 4(3) basically contradicts clause 5. Clause 5 says: "The Crown is bound by this Act," but clause 4(3) seems to say that the only ones of the government that are going to be bound by the act are the ones that are specified in regulations.

This is very confusing, I say to the minister. I, as a lawyer, have difficulty trying to understand what the act applies to. Does it apply to everything except those things that are specifically exempted under the act? In which case I would like to look to which parts of the act that says which ones are going to be not exempt and which ones are. Or are there additional ones, even if they are exempted under the Act - can the minister, or can the regulation, require them to go through the process? Why do we need 4(3) if the Crown is bound by the act unless there is some special exemption order? I wonder if the minister could explain how clauses 4 and 5 actually work?

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

MR. LANGDON: In 4(1) it says: "This Act applies to all undertakings carried out in the province, unless it is of a class of undertaking exempted under this Act." Let's say, for example, that we have a Christmas tree farm in one particular area of the Province and we have done an environmental assessment of that particular farm. We know the ramifications of it. You are just planting trees. Then the department, when under regulation, would have the ability to exempt that particular tree farm from going under full environmental assessment. I guess in that sense what we are saying is because we know there is no environmental implications on it, it is just planting trees, why would you want a proponent to go through a full environmental assessment in that particular situation?

Whereas, for example, in clause 5, "The Crown is bound by this Act," let's say, for example, Newfoundland Hydro was going to do a particular hydro project. Then they would not be given an exemption any more than if company X or company B came in to do that particular project. In that sense, from a particular project point of view, then we are all bound by the Act.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, clearly something that has already passed environmental assessment, and somebody who is looking for an extension of that, it seems to me that is already covered by the definition of "undertaking" in clause 2(p) which says: "‘undertaking' includes an enterprise, activity, project, structure, work or proposal and a modification, abandonment, demolition, decommissioning, rehabilitation and an extension of them that may, in the opinion of the minister, have a significant environmental effect..." The minister may be able to say: A Christmas tree farm has already been approved and someone is extending that for another two acres or whatever, and that, in my opinion, is not going to have a significant environmental effect, therefore it does not even come under definitions of undertaking and therefore it is exempted under the Act.

My concern here is, what have we got here? Either the Act applies - unless it is exempted under the Act. What is the process of exemption if in fact 4(2) is there saying that the act applies to something that is "designated by regulation"? That could be read as meaning that only those which are designated by regulation, in fact, come under the Act and everything else is exempted.

I'm just looking at 4(1) and 4(2), and then saying the Crown is bound by the Act, but only under 4(3) are there any undertakings that the regulations specify which, in fact, come under the act. That is a contradiction in terms.

It should read that the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could make exemptions. That would be understandable. If everything is covered except that which is exempted by regulations, that would be understandable, but what we have here is, first of all, the bold statement in 4(1), that "This Act applies to all undertakings carried out in the province, unless it is of a class of undertaking exempted under this Act." I don't see any section of the act that exempts classes of undertakings except those classes of undertakings which, in the opinion of the minister, don't have any significant environmental impact. That is the only class that the act mentions that is not applied to. Because when you look at the definition of undertaking, excluded from that, are those that, I presume, by exclusion do not have a significant environmental impact.

So I wonder if the minister is really able to explain what is the purpose of 4(1). If, in fact, the undertakings to which the act applies are to be designed by regulation. If they are to be designated by regulation, then presumably only those designated by regulation are applied to it, or maybe additional ones. I don't know what additional ones you could require to come under the act if 4(1) in fact is valid. If 4(10 is valid and says that all undertakings come under the act, why do you need 4(2) which says: "An undertaking to which this Act applies may be designated by regulation"? What is the purpose of 4(2), I ask the minister? What is the purpose of 4(2) to designate, by regulation, undertakings to which the act applies if 4(1) is there saying the act applies to everything?

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

MR. LANGDON: The application of the act to undertakings carried out in the Province, unless exempted, is carried over in the bill. The bill further clarifies that undertakings may be designated by regulations and that government's undertakings which are specified in regulations continue to be subject to registration.

Mr. Chairman, I have out in the common room also a person from Justice that I can refer to. Hopefully they are there and are able to give further clarification on that for me.

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

MR. HARRIS: I appreciate the minister saying that there are officials available but it is pretty hard for us to go through Committee reading of the bill and consult with the officials at the same time. Unless the Government House Leader is prepared to stand this down and debate something else. If the minister is prepared to stand this down and debate something else while we can could carry out that consultation, I would be very happy if we could discuss another bill at Committee stage. I could go ahead and consult on this. It seems to me to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) six month hoist, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: I don't know if we can do a six month hoist in Committee. That will only prolong debate and have a longer debate. I don't think we can do it in Committee. I have been here long enough to know that by instinct without having to refer to the rule but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I still say, Mr. Chairman, this is a very strange provision. Clause 4(1) says: "This Act applies to all undertakings carried out in the province, unless it is of a class of undertaking exempted under this Act." Now I don't see anywhere in the act that classes of undertakings are exempted. Now I might be wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, that is the difficulty that I had with clause 4, and this is a pretty basic provision. What undertakings to which the act apply? If I were a stranger to this Province, or if I was looking at the act for the first time and I wanted to know: Gee, do I have to go through an environmental assessment?, well, 4(1) says: "...all undertakings carried out in the province, unless it is of a class of undertaking exempted under this Act." So I would say: Okay, I guess I have to do it, unless there is an exemption in the act. I look throughout the act to try and find the exemptions and don't find them. Then I say, in the words of 4(2): "An undertaking to which this Act applies may be designated by regulation." Then clause 5 says: "The Crown is bound by this Act," but clause 4(3) says: "An undertaking of the government of the province of a type specified in the regulations shall be registered under section 7."

Is the Crown bound by it or is it not? Is it only bound by it if it is specified in the regulation? It seems to me to be some sort of either overlap, under lap, or something or other, that something is not clear here between clauses 4 and 5. Because the exempted under the act, I suppose the act - there can be an action by the government, I suppose, to exempt a particular undertaking. I guess the government has the power to do that, but if they are exempting them but then have a provision to designate them by regulation in addition to that, and that only those undertakings of the government shall be registered under section 7, then I'm just curious as to what the intention of government is in that regard.

Is it to exempt whole classes of actions, such as roads, from this? Is it intended in clause 5 which says the Crown is bound by the act to the extent that regulations under section 4(3 ) provide that it is? Is that the intention? If that is the intention, why fool people, Mr. Chairman, into thinking that the Crown is actually bound by the act, when the Crown is only bound by the act if the Cabinet says it is. If that is the intention, then say the Crown is bound by the act to the extent that the regulations require it to be bound.

If you want to give the Cabinet all this power, let's say it up front. Let's not fool the people into thinking that the Crown is going to find itself bound to environmental assessment when the Cabinet has the power to change it at any time, by regulation.

I note that the minister has an opportunity to go and consult for a moment. Perhaps he is in a better position to explain how section 4 and section 5 work together.

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

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Chairman, the act applies, as I said, previous to all undertakings carried out in the Province unless it is a class of undertaking exempted by the act. Really, in a sense, I would have the ability to exempt a particular thing from going under environmental assessment.

It says here, in section 4.(2), "An undertaking to which this Act applies may be designated by regulations." Everything that is under regulation is outlined. Section 4.(3) states, "An undertaking of the government of the province of a type specified in the regulations shall be registered..."

For example, in section 4.(3) here, when they did the clean-up of Long Harbour out here we didn't do a full environmental assessment of the plan beforehand and they did accordingly. Section 5, every department of government, whether it is the Department of Environment, whether it is the Department of Transportation, whatever the department is, they are always bound by the act, so that is the definition. Every department of government is bound by the act. The Crown is bound.

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

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps the minister could help by pointing out which section of the act gives the minister the power to exempt a class of undertakings from the act. Unless the minister is suggesting that all activities, all undertakings, are subject to the act unless it is exempted by the minister, could the minister point out which section allows the minister to exempt a particular undertaking? Because section 4.(1) talks about class of undertaking, not individual, specific undertaking.

On motion, clause 4 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 5 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Clause 5. Again, I don't see myself getting any answers from the minister. The minister reads out the section of the act again and again. I don't think that is a satisfactory response to a legitimate question, Mr. Chairman.

What I am asking is: Where, under this act, are a class of undertakings exempted? I don't see anywhere in this act where the minister is entitled to exempt an entire class of undertakings from this act.

We have legislation that the minister doesn't appear to be willing to explain, or officials available to explain, while this is being debated. This only received second reading yesterday.

I have asked, and the Member for Lewisporte has asked, that this to be sent to a committee so we could have proper study and so far the government has been unwilling to present this to a Legislation Review Committee to understand fully how these provisions work and exactly what is it that this government intends to have covered by environmental assessment or not.

We have clause 5 saying, "The Crown is bound by this Act." In fact, we have a clause, section 4.(3), which says "An undertaking of the government of the province of a type specified in the regulations shall be registered under section 7." What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? Does that mean that anything that is not specified in the regulations shall not be required to be put under section 7? Or does clause 5 have any meaning at all?

If the Crown is bound by the act, it should be superfluous to have section 4.(3) there. Section 4.(3) says that undertakings of the government of the Province of a type specified in the regulations shall be registered under section 7.

Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to say that only those undertakings which are specified in the regulations are required to be registered under section 7. If that is the case, section 5 says the Crown is bound by the Act. What does that mean? Does it mean it is bound by the act or not bound by the act? If it is bound by the act, presumably all Crown undertakings are required to be put before a registration process and go through the same process as anything else. Can the minister tell us what the intention is here? Is it the intention of the Crown to be bound by the act, or is it only those items that are contained in 4.(3)?

If the minister is not going to respond, I will keep talking until I run out of time. Is it the minister's understanding that the Crown is bound by the act under all of its undertakings, or only those undertakings which are of a type specified in the regulations? Is it intended that only those that are specified in the regulations -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: That is the intention? So the Crown is not really bound by the act, except to the extent that the Cabinet says they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are bound by the act (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put my objection on the record to this type of loose operation of legislation that is intended to protect the environment. You don't see that very often, where the application of an act is subject to the whim of the Cabinet; that the operation of this particular act, and whether or not environmental protection is to be given, actually takes place, is at the whim of the government of the day to decide whether or not their own actions are going to be bound by environmental assessment procedures or whether or not the act applies, or whether or not the government is going to be required to follow these provisions. I want to put my objections on the record that this is the type of environmental assessment legislation that we should not be passing in this House here today.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to delay this matter very much but I want to say this: I am surprised that the minister is not on his feet over there, trying to explain legitimate questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, he hasn't. I have sat here very closely and put in the earplug the couple of times the minister responded, and the minister has not responded to legitimate questions put to him by a member of the opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what Committee is about.

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what Committee is about. That is the purpose of this phase of the process of the bill through this Legislature.

The question, as I see it, is this - although they are passed, the member is still talking about sections 4 and 5. Section 4.(1) says, "This Act applies to all undertakings carried out in the province, unless it is of a class of undertaking exempted under this Act."

Now, the member is asking: Where are the classes of undertakings exempted under the act? The minister is not answering. Where are they? All we want the minister to do is to get on his feet and answer the question: Where are those classes of undertakings?

Then it gets more convoluted after that. Section 4.(2) says, "An undertaking to which this Act applies may be designated by regulation." Section 4.(3) says, "An undertaking of the government of the province of a type specified in the regulations shall be registered under section 7."

The definition of undertaking includes everything but the kitchen sink. Now in section 4.(1), 4.(2), and 4.(3), you have exemptions, you have certain classes that are exempt, you have exemptions by regulation. Then the legislation goes on to say, "The Crown is bound by the Act."

How many ways can you have it here? This is the wording. This legislation is going to be before a court one of those days. There are going to be ordinary mortals interpreting this legislation, either for a proponent or against a proponent. Statutory interpretation is an art. You can only interpret what the Legislature sends out to you to interpret.

I do believe - not that my friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi needs anybody to come to his defense - but I do believe that the minister has a ministerial responsibility to this Legislature to answer the question; and if he doesn't know the answer, for God's sake, go find it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is being questioned here -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What is being questioned here is a provision which purports or suggests that the act applies to everything, that the Crown is bound by it unless they are exempted. Then we see, in section 37, that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, by regulation -

MR. TULK: Section 37?

MR. HARRIS: Clause 37 of the act says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations designating undertakings and classes of undertakings to which the act applies. Is that in addition to everything, or is it less than everything?

AN HON. MEMBER: The classes are not in the act (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, so if section 4 says that everything is covered unless it is exempt, why does the Lieutenant-Governor in Council have to make regulations designating undertakings and classes of undertakings to which the act applies? We are doing two things here, Mr. Chairman.

Then we have clause 37.(i) which says that the Lieutenant-Governor may make regulations - and here is the key - "exempting a person...", a particular person, "...class of persons, undertaking or class of undertakings from this Act or a section of this Act".

What they are saying is that the act applies to everyone in the first instance and then it says that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations designating who the act applies to. Well, which is it? Is it everyone or is it only those people who are covered by the regulations and not exempted by the regulations?

This legislation is designed, I would submit to the Member for Lewisporte and to the Chairman, to drive a MACK truck through it if the minister or the government wants to set up a situation to pretend to have a rigid environmental assessment process but, at the same time, allow them to do whatever they want, willy-nilly, with any particular project or any particular designation.

It is one thing to recognize that there may be occasions in which the minister or the government would want to exempt the whole act and say we are going to exempt the whole act because there is an agreement with the Government of Canada, for example, to apply the federal environmental assessment process which has safeguards, and there is an agreement between the participants to go through that process and we will allow one process to go and not another.

I see this legislation, and particularly the application of the act, so loosey-goosey as to ask this Legislature to give the Cabinet power to decide when the act applies and when it does not. That is basically what this government is asking us to do. They say: Give us the power, give the Cabinet the power, after the House closes, all summer long, all winter long, anytime at all that the House is not in session, to pass regulations, to amend regulations and to gazette them on Friday morning, and on Friday afternoon they are in effect, which exempt a particular undertaking because it suits particular government's agenda, because it suits their political agenda or those of their friends to exempt a particular undertaking, to exempt a particular person, to exempt a particular project, to avoid someone having to go through a particular project, and to do that by regulation.

People in this Province who see an Environmental Assessment Act say: Okay, we have an Environmental Assessment Act. They think they have the protection of an Environmental Assessment Act for proper determination. They find out on a Monday morning: Oh, that undertaking was exempted by something that was gazetted last Friday morning. On Monday morning, all of a sudden, oh, the Environmental Assessment Act does not apply.

All these concerns that we were raising about the environmental impact of a particular undertaking, a particular development, a particular activity, all the concerns, all the letters that we have written, all the matters that we were expecting to have a full opportunity to review and expect to be considered under the Environmental Assessment Act, all of a sudden the Cabinet has met last Wednesday or Thursday morning - I guess it usually is Thursday morning - the Cabinet has met on Thursday morning and on Friday morning it has gazetted a decision to amend a regulation, and all of a sudden it is discovered that the act does not apply to a particular undertaking.

I want it to be known that this is the kind of legislation that this government is passing to protect the environment, that this is the legislation that is before this House, an Environmental Assessment Act. It only applies when the government says it is going to apply. That is like an Alice in Wonderland type of situation where the Queen of Hearts, I think, says that words mean what I say they mean and whatever it is that I say, as the government goes, and this act applies when I say that it applies.

Whether it is in the present act or not, I say to the Government House Leader, we are being asked to recognize this as an act that is a modern act, that responds to the needs and recognizes the expectations of the modern day public, the expectations of people in this Province that are more conscious of the environment than they have ever been before. They want to see that the environment is protected.

We have seen a great cataclysm in our fisheries. We have seen the decimation of the fish stocks as a result of a lack of proper respect for the environment and environmental principles. We see, in this legislation here, government approaching this matter by saying: We have environmental assessment but it only applies when we say it applies. We are prepared to make bald statements that it applies to everything. Then when you read between the lines you find out that it only applies to those undertakings or classes of undertakings or persons that the Cabinet has by regulation identified or by regulation exemption. That is something that could be done at any meeting of Cabinet, whether this House is in session or not. This is the kind of thing that will be done, I would submit, when this House is not in session more likely than not. There is no real opportunity to challenge - aside from the public media or through press releases - what this government is doing about matters that may be of grave public concern to a lot of citizens.

I say this is legislation that I can't support. I can't support this type of approach that is saying: The act only applies when we say it does. It places no procedural safeguards there, no opportunity for the public to have any say about whether or not a particular undertaking will be exempted or not. We will just read the Newfoundland Gazette, and I am sure it is on the table of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian on a Monday morning. The Newfoundland Gazette, I say sarcastically, is a widely read document. The fact of the matter is it is really the official publication which recognizes that government has to gazette regulations and (inaudible) legislation so that the public has some way of knowing what the government is doing by regulation under acts. We are giving extreme levels of power to determine whether an act applies or not, and I think it unacceptable in this era to have that kind of broad power for a process so important as environmental assessment.

On motion, clauses 5 through 7 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 8 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Clause 8 is an interesting clause that needs some debate, and the minister to respond. It clearly says: "The minister shall examine the information provided by the proponent under section 7 to determine if the undertaking is contrary to law or to a policy that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has declared to be the policy of the government of the province." An interesting section when you think about the implications under section 8, isn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) list of policies (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: This is the question. Does the Lieutenant-Governor in Council exactly know where the government stands or what government policy is on any issue, at any time, at any given day? Let's use a current example. What was the policy of the government related to bulk export of water? What was it? It took a year to find out. It took a full year, if not longer, to find out.

The Member for St. John's South, in his place, eighteen months before it became an issue publicly, before the remainder of the public saw it as an important issue, was on his feet asking questions. How that applies to this section obviously is very clear. The minister will examine, first of all, if the information put forward by the proponent, under the conditions outlined, the registration process - which is pretty clear - "if the undertaking is contrary to law or to a policy of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council," which is the Cabinet. For example, the proposal that was put forward by the proponent on water export, when was that put forward? No one really knows when that was ultimately put forward to the minister. When was it decided? When would the minister examine it - "shall examine" - and what is the policy? The policy is judged by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, by Cabinet, which could change from one week to the next. I'm not saying that it shouldn't, but I'm saying that it does depending upon circumstances, the environment, what would be potentially proposed by anybody.

Again it comes down to the question: What is the policy of government on any given issue? Is it contrary to law or to a policy? If any proponent comes in with a proposal to develop anything that requires going through an environmental assessment process, obviously if it is contrary to the law - any proponent worth his or her salt is not going to put forward a proposal that is contrary to the law. Being contrary to government policy, now, that is a different question, because government policy could change.

I would like to ask the minister if he could take a few moments to explain clause 8(1) for me, please.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will speak to clause 8(1). As I suggested yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition when we were going through that, let's say, for example - even though the legislation is passed now and there is no bulk water in the Province, so we already have a policy in place as in Gisbourne Lake - suppose another proponent, company X, comes forward and basically says: I want to do export in bulk water from project Y in another area, a particular part of the Province. Once that particular project has been given to the department, I would then have to say to government that particular project has been registered with the Department of Environment and Labour. Now if government still maintains its policy and does not change that policy, then I would go back to that particular person and say: Don't bother now to go through that environmental assessment process because even if you do go through it you are not going to be accepted, because government policy is no bulk water.

Now if government decides in the sense its policy, and then down the road somewhere, a year or two or three or whatever, whatever government is in place, a proponent takes that to the government or to Cabinet and says they want to do it, Cabinet says: We have looked at it now and we want to change back our original policy, then the minister can then accept that particular proposal from that proponent, and at that particular time tell him that he has the opportunity to go through the full environmental assessment.

Unless that is the case, then there would be no point for the proponent to go through it. Now as the legislation exists there is nothing stopping anybody. Everybody that is over here, every person, if they wanted to register for bulk water the authority is not with the act to say to the person: You can't do that, even though government policy is not to do it. The present legislation still gives him the opportunity to go through the full particular environmental process, use up his money and time and effort and all the people in the department, when we know that this legislation will be able to say to the proponent: It is not a policy of government so therefore we are not going to accept it. Unless government directs the minister in a sense to change the policy and therefore accept the proposal.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

It is interesting commentary. If what the minister says is true, then I will ask him this question. Would that have saved us $1.2 million or $1.3 million on Northwest River? Would this clause have saved the Province from being liable in paying out, I think, $1.2 million or $1.3 million to Genergy Inc.? Because Genergy Inc. went ahead with the proposal, as you are aware - most people in Cabinet would have been aware of it - the latter part of 1996-97 to put a proposal for a non-utility generator, a private generating power station basically, for about eight or nine megawatts. It spent a lot of money as a private company from the environmental assessment process and promoting the project and dealing with the regulatory regime and the legislative regime associated with it. Then in August 1998, ten months after, we had released a policy and a number of questions we asked to the House about: Why are we letting them do it? The government, the minister of the day, who is now the Minister of Tourism -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) paid for policy changes.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, we paid for policy changes. This is the point I am making. When government changed its mind we were liable legally.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't avoid it.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I know we can't avoid it, but we can go to the extent that we can try to avoid those situations.

What I am asking the minister is: Does section 8, then, based upon your clarification to me, go further than what existed before in avoiding the situations where the policy of government may change from time to time, and should? Does it go further in terms of providing more of an insurance, I guess, to the taxpayer? If it comes to a point where we have to change our policy that negatively impacts a business or a proponent, does this protect us from further liability? I guess that is the question I am asking.

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

MR. LANGDON: Under this proposed legislation the proponent would know now, up front, that it is government policy, and therefore that particular person could not go through the environmental assessment process because the minister would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Pardon?

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the minister just taking his seat for a moment.

Clause 8. Look at the circumstance of what happened on Northwest River in the Terra Nova Park area, where there was a private developer wanting to develop the river to generate power for private use. They had a contract with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The policy of government for over a year was to let them proceed. Public pressure always influences public policy by government, and so it should. It has a legitimate place in the affairs of this Assembly.

In August 1998 government policy changed. Government policy changed from open access to rivers because there were a number - Torngat River, Northwest River, Pinware River, Eagle River - of proposals in to develop them. The Premier, and then the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is now the Minister of Tourism, stated on behalf of the government that there was a policy change, that there would be no privatization of any of the river systems in the Province.

As a result of that policy change, some eighteen months later we were open to liability which we paid. What I am asking is: Does clause 8(1) go as far as it can to protect us from a situation like that happening again?

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

MR. LANGDON: For example, right now, if a proponent would come forward wanting to do a project on one of these small rivers, the present act - not this here - will still allow him to submit a project and go through the full environment process at a cost to him. This act will prevent him from doing it. He will be notified up front that there is no chance of succeeding.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fair enough, you have answered the question.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On clause 8 of the bill, my understanding of this bill is this. I support clause 8. I think clause 8 is a reasonable one, with some questions of qualification. Clause 8 says: For example, right now our government policy is we are not going to approve any projects or undertakings that involve the export of bulk water from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so forget it. Don't bother to submit anything. Don't force us to set up a committee to respond to your proposal to do all these things because you are wasting your time and you are wasting our time. Because government has already said, as a matter of policy, we are not going to approve this type of project. It could, for example, be a government policy that we are not going to approve any undertaking that allows the escape -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) environmental (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What the Government House Leader said on the record is - it is not on the record - but what the minister - I don't interpret clause 8 as the change of circumstances over the Northwest River issue. Because if a policy changes after a proponent has made -

AN HON. MEMBER: Then it becomes the policy.

MR. HARRIS: If a policy changes, it becomes the new policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: But that doesn't exempt - if someone, under an existing act or policy, proceeds with an undertaking, and then government changes its policy, then I don't think that avoids any liability or any responsibility of government.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least it is a safeguard (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I think at least it allows the government to say up front to someone who is a proponent for something that is contrary to policy, or someone who is considering proposing something, and the government of the day - I don't mean this government - sits down in Cabinet and says: Look, we have decided, as a matter of policy, we are not going to permit this type of undertaking to go forward, then we avoid a situation where a proponent goes out and spends all kinds of money and then comes to the government and says: Look, we have spent $50,000 on this and you are not going to approve it.

They will say: We are not going to approve it because we told you up front, as a matter of government policy, we are not going to approve it. Neither are we going to give you your money that you spent on environmental assessment because you have wasted your money knowing that it was contrary to the policy of government.

So clause 8, as I understand it, would not affect the Genergy type situation but it could prevent it if government changes its policy fast enough on the basis of public comment or its own wisdom at the time a particular proposal was being made.

I would also, since we talked about Northwest River - my understanding is, that proposal could have never gone ahead anyway because there was an agreement between this Province and the Government of Canada over the development of the Terra Nova National Park that said the head waters of the Northwest River were never be used as a watershed for the purposes of development of hydroelectric power anyway. So government wasted its money when it gave it to Genergy because they were not going to be able to go ahead with such a proposal anyway. If they had done the kind of due diligence that they could have done, or if government had, in fact, advised them of this particular agreement with the Government of Canada, they would have never gone through that procedure anyway, but that is a side issue.

With respect to clause 8, I think it is a reasonable one, although I suppose there ought to be some provision that would make sure that government policy is known in public and not something that they make from time to time and thus they declare it to be the policy of the government, so I would expect that would require some sort of public declaration.

It does seem to me to be a safeguard that I would support, that the government can in fact have a policy statement that would prevent the process from being engaged where it was already decided in advance that the particular types of proposal were not going to be allowed, regardless of their environmental acceptability.

It may be that certain things might not have a significant environmental impact but for policy reasons government is not going to support a particular type of activity; and it may be, for example, in an area where government has decided that certain areas of the Province are to be protected from development, as a matter of policy, and therefore an environmental assessment process should not be engaged by a proponent going ahead and putting forth a proposal and causing the whole process of the environmental act to be engaged.

I would think clause 8 is a reasonable one, and supports the kind of protection that we should have when government policy has been determining a particular activity not to be acceptable.

On motion, clause 8 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 9 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Very quickly.

Clause 9 is an important section because it deals with determination of a proponent. Basically it says, to paraphrase, essentially that where, following an examination by the minister - so the minister looks at the proposal by the proponent "...under subsection 8(1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not make a direction under subsection 8(2), the minister, using criteria prescribed by regulation,..." - this is the point - "...shall determine whether (a) an environmental preview report is required..." - no problem with that - "...there is an environmental impact statement required" - no problem with that - "...the undertaking may be released."

The problem with section 9 is that we do not know what the regulation is today to debate it. So, what is the criteria by which a proponent will be judged? It is not spelled out in the legislation. It is a regulation that will be decided by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, by Cabinet, after this bill is passed presumably. So we are being asked to pass a section that future proponents or any proposal that may be good for the Province is going to be judged not by this Legislature but by some future regulation that will be decided by Cabinet.

I would just like to ask the minister for his commentary on section 9, and my comments specifically on section 9.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is just like, for example, where now we have the situation where we follow a process like into Main River where the company came in and registered an undertaking. They presented information to us and then we went back and asked for an environmental preview report. That particular report is under review until May 15, I think it is, before all that information is deciphered and gone through. After you get that particular procedure gone through, you look at it then and the minister has to determine then whether a fully EIS is done. So, you follow -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I said: Like, for example, in the Main River situation now. When the company submitted their proposal, for example, to harvest wood in the area, they presented a proposal to us and we wanted more information. Therefore, we asked for an environmental preview report. On May 15, for example, if that comes in and it is not what is needed and we need more information, then, of course, you can extend the EPR or you can ask for a full environmental assessment.

Obviously, any project that is environmentally sensitive in the Province would have to go through an environmental process whether it is a preview report or an environmental impact statement, or asking it to be released.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There is a bigger issue at play here and I would like for the minister to listen for a second, if he would. There is a bigger issue at play here and my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, is correct in raising this particular question, because regulations made under the act is subordinate legislation. It has the same force and effect as if it were spelled out in the act. Here, we are providing the minister with the means of saying yea or nay to a particular proponent, using criteria prescribed by regulation.

Now, if this Legislature had the same control over regulation as does the Parliament of Canada, I would not have any difficulty with this. Every regulation made under federal legislation has to go before a Committee of Parliament and those regulations, before they are published and have the full force and effect of law, as subordinate legislation does, has to pass the scrutiny of Parliament; but in this jurisdiction it never has been, and it is not the case now, that subordinate regulation, that subordinate legislation has to pass the scrutiny of Parliament.

Regulations made under this legislation, like regulations made under any other regulation, will pass only the scrutiny of Cabinet. That is the only scrutiny that the regulations will pass; so therefore never again will this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: Accountability.

MR. RIDEOUT: Accountability. Never again will this House have the opportunity to scrutinize regulations that the minister is going to use to say yea or nay to a proponent on an environmental assessment basis.

MR. TULK: You are wrong.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is absolutely not wrong, Mr. Chairman. When are the regulations going to come back to this House?

MR. TULK: You know better. If a government passes a regulation that allows something to be undertaken that is going to hurt this environment, what group of people holds them accountable?

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, is that what I said? That does not make what I am saying wrong. It might be a difference of opinion between the Government House Leader and myself but it does not make me wrong. The fact of the matter is that there is no accountability to this Legislature for regulations, for subordinate legislation passed under the act - none - only the Opposition raising it in Question Period or presenting a petition, or, like one former Premier said, call Open Line shows. That is the only accountability, but regulations might....

The point I made when I stood here, the point I was making, is that there is a way for regulations to be accountable in the House of Commons. We don't have that particular method here, and because we don't have it the minister is seeking carte blanche, across the board, authority to be able to do in secrecy what will never see the light of day in public. That is the point that the Leader of the Opposition is making.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to speak as well on clause 9 of the bill. The same point has to be made by me, on behalf of my party. What we are doing here is allowing not just the government to make decisions but to make the rules. Clause 9.(1) says: "Where, following an examination by the minister under subsection 8(1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council does not make a direction..." - that is the Cabinet - "...the minister, using criteria prescribed by regulation...."

So the criteria on which a decision is made - and these are important decisions. Will there be an environmental preview report? Yea or nay? Will there be an environmental impact? Yea or nay? Or will the undertaking be released? Those are three very important decisions. The basis on which these decisions are made are, in fact, the rules; but, what are the rules? We don't know, Mr. Chairman. We don't know what the rules are. The rules are going to be made by the Cabinet and they are going to be made by the Cabinet through regulation.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader talks about democracy. I suggest to him a little bit of light reading. It is a book by Senator Eugene Forsey, a Liberal Senator, I might add. He wrote a book called, Life on the Fringe. It was about his political career, ending up in the Senate of Canada, having been appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau. He was a researcher for the CCF for a long period of time, but he was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Trudeau. He said, out of respect for Prime Minister Trudeau, he would sit as a Liberal in the Senate.

One of his most important activities in the Senate was to spend a lot of his time studying regulations, because what he said - this is a long time ago. He is dead now, but a great Newfoundlander, a very thoughtful, intelligent, constitutional expert, and we are talking about democracy. We are talking about the constitution. What he said was that so much of government and rule-making goes on through regulation that it deserves the scrutiny of Parliament. He put forth the notion that there should be a committee to study regulations. Now there is a Standing Committee of the House of Commons and Senate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am giving you a lecture now. You can call it a lecture if you want. If you don't like it, that is too bad. I am going to give you a lecture now and it is going to be a lecture on Eugene Forsey's book. I commend it to the hon. member. I commend it to all hon. members. Have a look at Eugene Forsey's book. It is based on a long experience and understanding of this country and the constitution; a great Newfoundlander and Labradorian who comes from the Burin Peninsula, from a great family of great patriots who understand how democracy works. He said that there had to be some parliamentary control over regulation because of the great powers that regulations gave to governments. So there was established a Standing Committee of the House of Commons and Senate on subordinate legislation, and their job was to study legislation, study subordinate regulations, study all these things. In fact, they used to bring in before this Committee, deputy ministers and officers of departments to look at regulations, to make recommendations to change regulations where they deviated from the kind of powers that ought to be given to Cabinet.

This is not something that the Leader of the Opposition is bringing up out of thin air, or the Member from Lewisporte is coming up with on the spur of the moment. This is something that greater minds than sit in this House of Assembly have studied, looked at, and given their opinion upon. I think it is something that deserves consideration. What we are talking about here is legislation that I think we all consider very important, and it is considered very important in this Province today.

The minister talked about Main River, we talked Gisborne Lake, and we talked about other matters where the environmental concerns were a major issue.

Honourable. members will remember a proposal to import garbage. Remember that, Mr. Chairman? There was a proposal to bring garbage by barge from the United States and to burn it in this Province. There was a group called the Say No to American Garbage Group, SNAGG. I think the government of the day was snagged by this group because they had a proposal that was unacceptable to the people of this Province. It wasn't until a majority of the members opposite had a great caucus meeting one day and they sent out the current Minister of Forestry and Aquaculture to advise the press that a great decision had been made in caucus to do away with this proposal and they weren't going to consider the American garbage burning proposal for Long Harbour. That was as a result of massive concerns in this Province about the environmental consequences of bringing American garbage to Newfoundland and burning it. That was a proposal that the proponent said: It is perfectly environmentally friendly. A lot of people were insulted by it, I suppose, bringing garbage to Newfoundland instead of burning it down in the US. If it was so environmentally friendly, why weren't they doing it down there? That was a major issue.

So if you look at the kind of decisions that the previous government had to make, the government of Premier Wells, his government - with many members opposite sitting in that caucus - had to make a decision about an environmental project based on concerns raised by environmental groups around this Province. They had to make that because the public required them to make it. They themselves in their caucus forced the government to change its mind and not go ahead with the proposal that had been given a fair bit of encouragement by the government up until then.

The same was with Gisbourne Lake. When did this government have to make U turns on apparent policy? On the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro sale, on environmental projects, on Gisbourne Lake, on the say no to American garbage project, projects that apparently the government was supporting, then all of a sudden had to - well, in the case of the Hydro they had two pieces of legislation before this House that had to be withdrawn because there was significant public pressure to prevent them. We should not have to go to that. If there are criteria that the minister is going to use to decide whether an environmental preview report is required, or whether an environmental impact statement is required, or whether the undertaking may be released and go ahead, then those criteria should be put before at this House and debated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I don't know what the minister is mawing about over there now. He won't take his place to speak in the debate but he wants to maw about something when I'm up speaking.

There is a proper procedure, and certain matters can be left for regulation, the details. It is often an opportunity for details to be put in regulation. That is the usual procedure: procedural matters, sometimes time limits, or fees and that type of thing are put in regulations. This is a very substantive issue, almost as substantial as what types of undertaking or what classes of undertaking shall be covered by the act. I believe that to be a substantive issue that ought to be in the act, not to be left to regulation as to what the act applies to.

We have got an substantive issue here in clause 9 as to what the criteria are that ought to apply when decisions are being made to determine whether an environmental preview report is required, on the one hand, an environmental impact statement is required on the other hand, or whether - the third alternative - that the undertaking may be released.

The rules that govern that are substantive issues and ought to be on the floor of this House for open debate, and not some things that are decided by the Cabinet in a secret Cabinet meeting, and promulgated by virtue of the Newfoundland Gazette on a Friday morning, and no doubt on the breakfast plate of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian the next day. The Newfoundland Gazette, a widely circulated paper, widely read. In the Member for Lewisporte's district they talk of little else but the latest edition of the Newfoundland Gazette. Every Saturday morning it is the topic of discussion at the Tim Horton's and down at the local store. At the local store they talk about what was in the Newfoundland Gazette the day before and what regulations have been put forth by the government on the latest Cabinet meeting.

I say that with tongue-in-cheek obviously. The Newfoundland Gazette is a publication that meets the legal requirements of ensuring that (inaudible) legislation is not secret, that in fact at least it has an official publication, and the official publication is through the Newfoundland Gazette, just as the official records of this House will tell you what legislation has been passed. Because they are in fact available from the Queen's Printer, as is the Newfoundland Gazette. The policies of this government are not available from the Newfoundland Gazette, or from the Queen's Printer. You have to find them by asking a department. You have to find them by sometimes going to the Freedom of Information Act. You have to find them by reading newspapers or press releases by ministers as to whether or not particular policies have been decided by government.

I would say that the principle objection to clause 9 is the fact that we have the power of the minister, the power of the Cabinet, to not only apply the rules but to make the rules up. To decide on what the rules are, to change them if they see fit, to amend them from time to time without consulting this House. It is an issue, as the previous speaker for Lewisporte has said, of accountability. If we are going to have rules that the Cabinet must abide by in making decisions, and criteria that would apply, well then we should have an opportunity to debate those rules here in this House before they are decided upon.

I think that we have a further example, a further reason -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - that this bill should be put to a legislative review committee, Mr. Chairman, to get improvements made as are required.

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

MR. LANGDON: In clause 9, Mr. Chairman, right now the minister has the discretion on what projects go under environmental assessment. There is no criteria regulations, none in the legislation. What I am proposing to do here is to set out the criteria in regulations so that we will know what projects are expected to go under EPR and what is expected to go under full environment assessment. When that is done, these regulations will be set out and everybody will know. They will be up front. It will not be at the discretion of the minister any more whether a project should be registered or not. They will follow the regulations that have been set out. This legislation will not take place until the regulations are developed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I acknowledge what the minister has said, that they are going from a position of total discretion to the minister being required to follow some rules that are set down. We still have a situation where those rules are not subject to debate in this House before they are put into force. I still take the position that the criteria that are to be applied - the minister hasn't even made available a draft regulation for consideration. If we had a draft here before this House saying: These are the regulations that are going to apply, because these are the regulations we intend to apply, we intend to put forward, at least we could discuss them here. We could say that we approve them, that we think they are reasonable, or we think that they should be included in the act. I recognize that we have an improvement to the legislation, not by removing the discretion but by having the discretion subject to criteria, but that criteria ought to be made public, and that criteria ought to be put before this Legislature before it is being passed.

On motion, clauses 9 through 11 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 12 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

This is just a minor point dealing with the environmental preview report section of this piece of legislation. Right now I am interested in clause 12(2) of it, where it says: "The proponent shall, in accordance with the guidelines, prepare and submit to the minister an environmental preview report within the time period required by regulation." Again, it is a similar point to the point that we were discussing before. Depending on the regulation again, what is the time period? Each and every one of us in this Legislature is going to be held accountable, and the Government House Leader is right when he talks about accountability in this House, but what happens if one proponent on a particular project - and this can happen and it has happened - in terms of time frames required to submit or require according to the clause 12(2) as outlined here, what happens if they are given a week's notice, in one sense, and another project comes along and it is given two months' notice in another sense, and somebody cries foul: I was not given enough time?

The Member for Lewisporte, or the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, or the Member for Cape St. Francis -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Clause 12(2) says: "The proponent shall, in accordance with the guidelines..." Where are the guidelines?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, I understand. Where are the guidelines?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is the minister saying that the guidelines are going to be set out?

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You know what the question I'm asking is, obviously. The time frame is not set out here obviously but -

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

MR. LANGDON: (Inaudible) proposed time limit (inaudible) environmental assessment -

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. LANGDON: The proposed registration date is thirty-five days. We are giving the public five days extra over what they have now. Under the environmental review report, EPR stage, there are 105 days, and under the environmental impact statement there are 215 days. So from the time it starts until it is all finished it is 215 days. You know, up to now, before this was in place, there was no time limit. You could drag on continually.

MR. E. BYRNE: For two years (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: The limit is what we outlined here.

MR. E. BYRNE: Okay, you have answered my question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment." (Bill 12)

On motion, clauses 12 through 15 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 16 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) 5:29 p.m. Are we agreed? Is it worth our while to stop the clock or do we want to carry it forward to another day?

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn debate.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I move that Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report Bills 1, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 6 passed without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to it referred and has directed him to report Bills 1, 5, 9, 10, 11 and 6 carried without amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I presume we are going to debate the Member for St. John's East private member's resolution. I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

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