May 11, 2000 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 25

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today, as all hon. members know, there was a recent by-election and in this Chamber there used to be a parliamentary tradition to introduce a new member to the House when he was elected in a by-election. This tradition is still followed in Ottawa and other jurisdictions and the Chair thinks that it would be very appropriate to reinstate that at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I have the honor to inform members that the Clerk of the House has received, from the Chief Electoral Office, a Notice of Return of Mr. Ross Wiseman, the Member for the District of Trinity North. The new member has taken his Oath of Allegiance and signed the Members Roll.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to present to you, Mr. Ross Wiseman, the member elected for Trinity North. He claims the right to take his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the member take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

As well, members who were elected for the first time in the general election of 1999 and the recent by-election will find, placed on their desks today, a copy of the Bible, compliments of The Gideons International. For the occasion, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's galley, Mr. Guy Olaisola, the National Director of Stewardship for Canada, accompanied by Laurie Chaulk, the Atlantic Regional Director, along with members from the Newfoundland delegation: David Cook, Mr. Max Humby, Norm Henderson, Bruce Winsor, Aubrey Pike, Sid Stacey and Elmer Harris.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on behalf of the members on this side of the House, and I believe I speak on behalf of all of the hon. members of the House, in also acknowledging the presence in the Speaker's gallery today of the members of the Gideon organization who have been introduced by the Speaker.

The Gideons International, of course, is an organization that has been in existence for many years and is an organization that is representative of and open to, in terms of membership, literally all of the churches. We have membership therefrom, from the Christian community, and their mandate in the organization itself has been in place with some very specific objectives in the history of its ministry. Some of the objectives and some of the areas where they have provided Scripture placements historically, of course, are well-known to all of us by virtue of our travels and our everyday moving around. I am sure anyone who has stayed in a hotel room more than once, or at least one night, anywhere in the world literally would have found a copy of the Gideon Bible. If you have been unfortunate enough to be in a hospital, or unfortunate enough - I don't think any of us have in this House - to be a penitentiary or some other place of public occupation, you would have probably come in contact with a copy of the Holy Scriptures as represented by the Bibles that many of us have on our desks today as a result of being placed there in 1996 by the Gideon organization.

One of the newer areas where they have decided it would be appropriate to place Scriptures is in the Legislatures of the country, and in 1996 the Gideons in Newfoundland provided all the members in the House at that time, under the leadership of Laurie Chaulk, our zone leader, with new Bibles. They deemed it at this point to be appropriate to make placements to members who have been elected to the House since then; hence the occasion of their appearance and visit with us today.

Certainly we want to thank the organization for their courtesy. We all recognize the value of the Holy Scriptures in terms of our Judeo-Christian society, what it lends to our lives, the direction and the blessings and the benefit that accrue to all of us as we pay reference to the Holy Scriptures as a point of reference and as a guide for spiritual and even civil direction in the discharge of our activities.

I am delighted today to have amongst us our local Gideon brethren, Guy O Law E'Zo Law from Guelph, Ontario, whom I have known for many years. Of course, I am a little partial and a little parochial, I guess, in making the comments because I have been a member of this organization for about twenty-two or twenty-three years, and their contribution is one that is respected and appreciated by our society generally. I take pleasure in not only associating myself with them as a member of their organization but I am pleased, as a member of this Legislature, to be able to recognize them, to welcome them, and to thank them for the Scripture placements, and to assure them that the ministry in regard to the placement of the Scriptures in this House is not an unimportant event. It is something that, if you sit in the galleries from time to time, as we hope you do because we need crowds - every day we are not filled and we would like to have you every day for attendance purposes - but beyond that you would look down and see some of the members browsing through and reading their Bibles. I think as a result of what has happened in 1996, the placement of these Scriptures, I would like to think we have all been better boys and girls as a result of the Scriptures that have been placed in our hands.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

We on this side of the House are delighted to join the Minister of Finance this afternoon, and others in the House, to welcome our friends from the Gideons, many of whom are personal friends of mine. The Gideons International was formed in 1899, actually, and it serves as an extended part of the church's mission. They are an international group of businessmen, primarily, and lay volunteers who work together to provide Scriptures to more than 170 countries internationally.

They place and distribute 45 million copies of the Scriptures worldwide every year. That means that this group of Christian volunteers place 1 million copies of God's word in the hands of readers every eight days or, as Laurie Chaulk just told me a few minutes ago, eighty-six copies of Scripture are distributed every minute worldwide. Gideons are a non-profit organization and are generously supported by the Christian churches and other clergy.

On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, we wish to thank the Gideons for their sense of outreach ministry to all of those in need, including the persons the Minister of Finance mentioned, the people who are in hospitals, people who are studying in our schools, people who are in prison, and to all others who have need for the consolation and the wisdom that is offered in the Holy Scriptures.

Their presentation in this House today reminds all of us, as the minister has said, of our Judeo- Christian heritage and the role we all have individually and collectively, sometimes in our individual and different ways, to ensure that our society continues to reflect the values that are offered to all of us in the Holy Scriptures.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join with the Minister of Finance and the Member for Waterford Valley in welcoming the members from the Gideons society to the House of Assembly. All of us, I am sure, have been to hotels or various other places where we have seen Bibles. This is the first time I have had the honour of actually, in the flesh, seeing those who spread the word. As politicians, I suppose, we can have nothing but respect for the ability of the Gideons to actually spread the word, and I can say that knowing that it has a theological and spiritual meaning as well as a social one.

Certainly the Bibles have been here in this House since.... I should say, though, I have not heard them quoted very often in the Legislature, except indirectly, but there is a great deal of wisdom both spiritual, political and societal to be obtained in the Bible. It goes back many millennia to the very basis of our Judeo-Christian society and has a lot to offer to present day people as well as it did over the centuries.

I want to thank them for their work and for being so considerate as to make available to current members, and to me and other members in 1996, copies of the Bible. Thank you for your work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to offer congratulations to the entire cast and production team associated with Etcetera 14, an outstanding achievement of students at Mount Pearl Senior High and Mount Pearl Intermediate Schools.

Etcetera continues to celebrate the creative excellence of today's youth, and when combined with the tireless and talented artistry of the Musical Director, Carl Goulding, the Production Manager, Jackie Goulding, and the Stage Manager, Robert Power, the musical becomes synonymous with unbelievable energy of youth and outstanding quality.

Student involvement in Etcetera brings a demanding rehersal and production schedule but it also brings many opportunities for personal growth and a strong sense of self-worth. The spirit and collegiality achieved through participation transfers positively to other aspect of school and community life.

Etcetera 14 is again performing to sell-out audiences at the Mount Pearl Glacier. Congratulations to the Mount Pearl Chorale, the Mount Pearl Show Choir, the Mount Pearl Graduate Choir, the Show Choir Band, the Chorale Orchestra and to the entire cast of Etcetera 14 and its production team.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform the House of a very important event that is taking place in the community of Nain in the beautiful riding of Torngat Mountains.

Starting this past Sunday, over sixty youth from the aboriginal communities from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Nain travelled to Nain for a symposium to discuss their future and employment career. The theme of the symposium is Journey Quest 2000.

I had the opportunity Sunday to attend the meet and greet and, on Monday morning, to speak as a guest speaker. Someone one said that the greatest resource that any province or country could have is youth. I am proud to be the member who had the opportunity to speak to the youth in Nain on Monday. I want to inform this House that the youth in Torngat Mountains are alive and well, and through all the hardships that they have gone through they are taking their place to build a better community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring best wishes and congratulations to two residents of my district. One is a young lady by the name of Anne Jefford - she is the daughter of Roger and Yvonne Jefford - who on this past Tuesday was voted the top female softball minor player in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is all congratulations to Anne and to her family who have spent numerous hours and all kinds of time getting around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: She might be a Liberal youth. They all vote Conservative, I say to the Minister of Fisheries.

As well, I would also like to bring greetings to Mr. Paul Smith of Upper Gullies who works, I believe -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: Maybe in the minister's mind, not in mine.

Paul Smith on Tuesday afternoon was voted the male executive of the year for minor softball in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Paul has done everything from coaching young men and young women in this very fine sport to being a groundskeeper, to being a coach and a friend. He has done a tremendous job and he certainly is very deserving, as Anne is, of these two very prestigious awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Always in order.

I stand today to congratulate two teachers from Bishop's College in my district who recently received the 1999-2000 Prime Minister's award for teaching excellence. Mrs. Rene Boyce was the recipient of a certificate of excellence and Mr. Brian Vardy was the recipient of a certificate of achievement.

Eight different teachers from Bishop's College have now won these prestigious awards so the students there certainly can be assured they are in good hands. These awards include cash prizes for the school to be used under the recipient's direction in consultation with the school board or the board administration.

Mrs. Boyce has been highly praised by former students for her ability to work with all students and for increasing enrollment and enthusiasm for physics at the school. Mr. Ed Arnott received rave reviews from co-op employers and students alike for his work in the areas of entrepreneurship and cooperative education. These innovate teachers deserve this recognition, and they also deserve our sincere gratitude for their proven teaching techniques and their obvious dedication to our youth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the ministerial statement I want to notify members opposite that I sold my boat yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the approval of a Code of Ethics for our Province's fish harvesters, which is the final step in the official professionalization process for the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. A Code of Ethics is the traditional hallmark of a profession, and this Code outlines the standards of practice for fish harvesters and will serve as the guiding principles under which they conduct their profession.

There are several key elements contained in the Code of Ethics, including conservation, quality, respect of the laws controlling the resource, improving safety and training, disciplinary procedures, promotion and enhancement of the fishery as a true profession and support for organizations that represent professional fish harvesters.

The Code of Ethics has been developed and approved through Province-wide consultations with fish harvesters, meetings of a special committee on a Code of Ethics, and has the full approval of the Board of Directors of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board. As the minister that introduced legislation in the House of Assembly in 1996 to professionalize fish harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador - and as a result we became the first province in Canada to formally recognize fish harvesting as a profession - I am very proud to approve this Code of Ethics, which will indeed further strengthen the professionalization program.

Since its inception in 1997, the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board has been working to establish and implement procedures and mechanisms required to professionalize the harvesting sector of our fishery. The Board is dedicated to the ongoing process of professionalization, certification and educational development of all fish harvesters in the Province.

I applaud everyone involved in the development of the Code of Ethics and commend them for their efforts to ensure that the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be conducted in a professional manner. This Code of Ethics will provide fish harvesters from all fleet sectors with a common set of goals to govern their work environment. Professionalization is indeed a key element in the future prosperity of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague the Member for Bonavista South, who is our critic on fisheries matters, I first of all want to thank the minister for providing us with an advance copy of his statement.

I must say to the minister before I make a few remarks that if the minister thinks he is going to get out of his contractual obligations to the members of the Opposition, and to a particular charity which asked us to bid on that boat trip, by selling his boat, he is going to be faced with a court injunction ordering him to direct perform the contractual obligations that he undertook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Or, Tom, he has to arrange the Coast Guard as a substitute.

MR. RIDEOUT: Or arrange the Coast Guard as a substitute. You agree. The Government House Leader seconds that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a Liberal (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: You are going to get a Liberal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have them started now. I can't get them calmed down.

Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty here, in fact we applaud this particular initiative that the minister outlines in his statement today, introducing a Code of Ethics for professional fish harvesters in this Province. That is something we are pleased to have seen evolve and develop over the years. We compliment the minister for the role that he played in bringing that about.

This Professional Fish Harvesters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: By leave, just for a second or so if the House doesn't mind?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RIDEOUT: The only thing I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this Professional Fish Harvesters Board is a concern to a lot of fish harvesters in the Province. It seems that they have a great deal of power to not only request - no, demand - from fish harvesters a lot of information that no other professional board I am aware of - it certainly wouldn't be the Law Society getting the information, it wouldn't be the medical society getting the information that fish harvesters have to provide to their professional board. That is the one concern that I hear consistently as I talk to fish harvesters around the Province. I would hope that the minister at some point would address that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the minister's preface to the remarks on the Code of Ethics for fishermen, I wonder is there a code of ethics for fisheries' ministers?

This is a very important step and it is a final step in a long line of actions that have been taken over the last couple of decades in raising the status of the fishing people in this Province from what it was regarded, in some cases, as not being a profession, now to the point where we have a collective bargaining regime for fishermen. We have the Fishermen's Union, which strongly represents fishermen throughout this Province, and nationally and internationally. Now we have recognition, through the professionalization process and the Fish Harvesters Certification Board, and a Code of Ethics, of a fully professional group of men and women who conduct the fishery in this Province, one of our most important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and historic industries. I think it is a very important step to acknowledge in the House of Assembly today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform hon. members today that government and the Province's three ambulance associations - namely, the Newfoundland and Labrador Community Ambulance Operators Association, the Newfoundland Ambulance Operators Association, and the Newfoundland Association of Ambulance Services - have formally signed a $9.1 million, three-year contract to provide road ambulance services in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: This represents a 50 per cent increase in overall funding for the ambulance services budget.

The contract signed with ambulance operators will bring stability to ambulance services for the next three years. More specifically, the people of this Province will benefit from upgrading to ambulances, and operators will work toward improved training for ambulance attendants and improved overall safety.

Patient care has always been, and still remains today, our number one priority. That is why we have provided this additional 50 per cent funding to the ambulance operators. Together we will work toward improved standards so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can look forward to continued improvements in our road ambulance system of the future.

At this time, I would like to take the opportunity to thank ambulance operators, their attendants and volunteers for the critical role they play in our health system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just delighted that this agreement has been reached. I have been saying for the last four or five years that it is the most underfunded system in the Province, and it has been ranked in some magazines as the worst ambulance service in the entire world, in one particular article. I am delighted to see it. I am just wondering why it took so long. I have been calling for it for years. Why did it have to take - maybe he can tell me - four years, and three health ministers later, to get the result I have been calling for since four years ago?

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We too are glad to see that a three-year contract is in place with the ambulance operators. It was long overdue but it has finally arrived and will provide stability to the ambulance operators in the Province, who at many times are the front line people that in many cases determine the life and death of a patient, as they are the first people on the scene to bring them to a health care centre. It is important to us as a province that we have an agreement in place for the next three years. I am sure that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - the service that is delivered over that three years will certainly reflect the agreement that is in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Oh, I am sorry.

MS KELLY: Actually, there are several other ministerial statements.

MR. SPEAKER: Reverting to Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

As hon. members are aware, Premier Tobin and I led a delegation of ten provincial companies to New England for the Team Canada Atlantic trade mission. Today, I am pleased to update my hon. colleagues on this trip.

The mission began on Monday, May 8, in Boston, Massachusetts, and included visits to Providence, Rhode Island, and New Haven, Connecticut. It concludes today in Braintree, Massachusetts.

With this type of initiative, it often takes months, if not longer, for companies to finalize deals, but the Team Canada Atlantic trade mission gave our Province and our local businesses an opportunity to develop strong contacts and leads for potential deals with New England-based companies.

During the mission I participated in a Venture Capital Forum which involved five major US venture capitalists. One of those companies focuses primarily on venture capital for small and medium-sized businesses. This firm expressed an interest in coming to Newfoundland and Labrador to meet with local businesses, and I expect this company's officials to visit our Province this summer.

Meetings were also held with CEOs and executives of major US companies. These discussions produced strong leads for potential investment in Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly with one company in the area of biotechnology.

Our local companies met with approximately one hundred businesses in New England during the mission. These meetings are the foundation for building new partnerships, increasing trade and investment, and forging strategic alliances between our companies and businesses from that region.

While on the mission, both Premier Tobin and I participated in meetings with other Newfoundland and Labrador companies which were also visiting the New England area. One of those companies was Newfoundland Bonding and Composites of Gander. While in Connecticut, Tuesday afternoon actually, the Premier and I and company officials met with representatives from Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation of Stratford, Connecticut. As a result of that meeting, officials from Sikorsky will be in Gander on Monday, May 15, to tour the Newfoundland Bonding and Composites facility to assess its capabilities to produce components for existing Sikorsky.

A deal is expected to be finalized between the two companies by mid-June which will see Newfoundland Bonding and Composites enter a long-term contract to fabricate and supply helicopter components to Sikorsky.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has strong historic ties and trade links with New England. The Team Canada Atlantic trade mission provided another excellent opportunity to continue business and export development with this region, and I look forward to reporting on the results of this mission in more detail in the upcoming weeks and months.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing really what is nothing more than an itinerary of travel arrangements and a schedule of meetings that have taken place recently involving the minister the Premier. Maybe what we could ask for is an itinerary and the travel arrangements of the Premier in recent weeks, and maybe one of the Pages in a box can bring to us exactly what the itineraries and the arrangements have been in the recent past.

What is important, I say, is not so much the travel arrangements, it is not the itinerary, it is the final agreements, the final contracts, the final partnerships, the final arrangements. Then we will see if in fact these great tours are worthwhile and if the people in the Province have indeed benefitted. That is what we await to see. We do not need an itinerary, I say. We need results and we wait to see exactly what these arrangements, agreements, partnerships and contracts are indeed for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If, as I understand, that businesses who participate in these trade missions pay their own way, I don't regard the expenditure of public funds for the minister and the Premier to accompany them an undue use of taxpayers' money. I think these can be very fruitful, and the prestige of having the minister and the Premier attend with them is probably very useful. However, to continue to tell us in the House about the trip she has been on is not much help to us. I would rather hear of the changes in our ability to manufacture and trade goods and have a report on the changes that take place there. Perhaps the minister can provide us with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - reasons why the Government of Canada is looking to this Province as not having an increased manufacturing base over the next ten or fifteen years and is going to be relegated to minor impacts in economic growth.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform my hon. colleagues that $495,000 has been allocated for the 2000-2001 Tutoring for Tuition program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: The program, which has been funded by the department for the past four years, have the dual benefit: primary to high school students in the Province whose grade average can benefit from the boost of some academic support are tutored by high school students, who earn vouchers toward their post-secondary tuition. This students-helping-students approach is the crux of the program.

Started as a pilot project in 1997-1998, the program sees the participation of more than 1,200 students annually - about 600 tutors and over 600 pupils. Nearly $2 million has been invested in this program since its inception.

The K-12 students in the program benefit by the academic support they receive. The mentoring relationship that is built also encourages them to pursue post-secondary education, since that is what their tutors are clearly working toward. The tutors benefit by earning vouchers toward the cost of their post-secondary tuition but also gain responsibility and organizational skills, hands-on experience that may help with career planning, and the satisfaction that comes from helping others.

Tutoring for Tuition is a win-win program that we are pleased and proud to support. To participate, high school students who wish to be tutors apply to the designated program coordinator for their school. Students who could benefit from the support of a tutor are identified by school staff and selected by the school program coordinator.

Tutoring for Tuition is administered by the Youth Services Division of the Department of Education with the input of the Provincial Advisory Committee, comprising representation from the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, the Province's school boards, the Department of Human Resources and Employment, the Department of Education, and Human Resources Development Canada.

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.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement, and I join with the minister in indicating that, yes, the Tutoring for Tuition is a very positive program for the students; a program that allows them, as you said, to win-win. Both themselves and their clients are getting good instructions.

The only down side, I say to you, Minister, is that this program is indeed run by the designated program coordinator in a school. It is a teacher who volunteers their time. It is an extra-curricular activity, and it is getting increasingly more difficult to get teachers to volunteer their time. I say to the minister that I would like to see this go a little bit further. In your curriculum development, perhaps it would be possible to include tutoring into the curriculum so that the students will get the credit or credits for it and the teachers can adequately instruct them in classroom for the tutoring.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: Overall, it is a positive thing and one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEDDERSON: That is like going back to 1972, Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, this is indeed a win-win situation. It is win-win for the school system, for the educational system in general, and particularly for the students who are providing tutoring and those being tutored. I think it is very important that students interact with each other in the classroom and that students benefit from each other.

I also think that one of the other things, when we are talking about education and we are looking at the funding that is made available for students with their tuition, it is also important for the minister to realize that the most important part of the education system is lower costs. If we look at lower tuition, like was announced yesterday in Manitoba where tuition has been lowered by 10 per cent, I think that is a good break for students in that Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, pleased!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: I think it is also important in this Province that we look forward to lowering the cost of education.

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise hon. members that I have directed my Superintendent of Pensions to make changes to locked-in retirement funds that will give retirees greater control of their pension incomes.

Over the past year or so we have received a number of complaints from individuals who retired early, and because of the current rules with respect to locked-in retirement accounts, could not withdraw sufficient funds to have a satisfactory standard of living until they qualify for Canada Pension Plan benefits.

Changes to our rules for Life Income Funds are being made to correct this problem and to provide greater income options for retirees under the age of sixty-five. Current rules are creating a problem for many individuals who retire before being eligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits, when the amount accumulated in their pension plan is relatively small. The key change will enable pensioners to have increased yearly withdrawals. In effect, under the new rules, the retirees who reach age fifty-five, or those who are permitted to retire earlier under their pension plans, will now be able to receive a minimum income of approximately $15,000 per year from their locked-in accounts.

Also, if the total amount of the retirees locked-in accounts, regardless of age, is less than approximately $15,000, then the entire amount can be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, in order to provide more investment options for retired persons, we are also authorizing an additional locked-in retirement income fund which can be provided by financial institutions, similar to those allowed in several other provinces. Basically, a locked-in retirement income fund has a yearly withdrawal limit equivalent to the pension fund's investment rate of return and does not require a conversion to a life annuity at age eighty.

Mr. Speaker, these changes will be welcomed by many seniors who take early retirement, and provide a good balance between the need for retired persons to have a pension for life and the need to have adequate income until they are eligible for Canada Pension Plan benefits.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We didn't get an opportunity to know specifics, so it is just what I picked up there in the statement. The minister made reference to several particular things there, but I will comment on some of the basic things I heard.

I do support allowing certain flexibilities with people, because at certain points in their life they do need to access funds, and when they are locked in they cannot have that flexibility. I have heard of people who have had to mortgage their houses again to help pay for their children's education and for other expenses that may come up of a very urgent medical nature, and numerous instances, so we certainly cannot refute that.

If it is under $15,000, the long-term benefits of a pension are not going to accrue to be significant anyway. To allow them to draw that out seems to have very positive overtures in that particular one. (Inaudible). When we talk about current pensioners, there has been no increase for the public service pensioners since 1989. They have been with no indexation of pensions occurring and no movement afoot to do something there. I did hear reference by the Minister of Finance that they were willing to entertain that, but I have not heard anything since.

I think we do need to address, too, people who are pensioners under the system here and are losing out every year with the cost of living increases.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is certainly good news. I commend the minister on taking this initiative. I know people personally who, over the past few years, have postponed their retirement. They wanted to retire but simply could not access funds from their savings. It is important, and another aspect, that as these people retire it is creating openings for younger people.

This provision here is certainly of vital importance to workers who, through their lifetime of working, probably changed employers on a number of occasions, or changed jobs, and are probably not entitled to much of a pension from any particular employer. Even though they may have had savings themselves, it is just as well to allow them now to retire and access the money when they need it at a time and age when they are able to enjoy it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today about a new partnership that my department has entered into with Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and Human Resources Development Canada. It is a partnership that will not only help young people find employment in the tourism industry, but will educate them about career planning and customer service.

Tourism Careers for Youth is a national youth internship program that helps prepare young people between the ages of eighteen to twenty-nine for jobs in the tourism industry. It is an initiative of the Canadian Tourism Human Resources Council, co-ordinated by Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador. My department, along with HRDC, is providing funding for the program.

Tourism Careers for Youth features a mix of classroom and on-the-job training that provides young people with the skills, knowledge, attitudes and experience required for long-term stable employment in tourism.

Mr. Speaker, the funding that my department is providing amounts to about $130,000 and comes through NewfoundJOBS, the program for income support clients that helps them acquire the skills and training they need to enter or return to the workforce.

The central region is piloting this new partnership in Bonavista, Clarenville and Marystown with about thirty-five young people taking part. Tourism Careers for Youth includes a three-week classroom component and then a six-month job placement. Young people perform their own job search, but they are also supported by a program coordinator.

When the young people are hired in entry level tourism occupations, local businesses receive 50 per cent in job wages or 60 per cent for non-profit organizations through NewfoundJOBS.

Young people are not only learning about the tourism industry; they are developing career planning and job search skills that are transferable, whether or not they choose to remain in tourism or pursue a different career path.

Mr. Speaker, we all know how important the tourism industry is to our local economy and we all know how important it is to train our young people for careers that will allow them to remain here in Newfoundland and Labrador. My department is committed to helping our young people find employment here in this Province. We are spending $7.5 million this year on youth employment programs that will serve over 3,500 post-secondary students and youth.

I look forward to keeping you updated on the Tourism Careers for Youth project and other important youth employment initiatives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement.

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the minister that it is very good to see money going in to help train young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the tourist industry. As the minister has said, it is a growing industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I am sure the Minister of Tourism would agree with that.

I can only say to the minister that these are the things that we should be doing. We should encourage our young people to get out, find, and seek proper training for this very important industry and I would urge the minister that if it is humanly possible to expand this program outside of Bonavista, Clarenville and the Marystown area, that we would do this in all haste so that people in our Province can train.

The only fear I have, Minister, is that about a year or so ago the federal minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Baker, came into this Province, encouraged people in the Argentia area to go out and to upgrade their education for jobs that would be coming on the new ferry, and these things all seem to have gone by the wayside. I hope, in this proposal and in this agreement that we have signed with the tourism ministry, that won't happen.

I would encourage you and the rest of the people involved to continue this very worthwhile project.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we would support and encourage the training of our young people so that they can find jobs and work in the hospitality industry. I do have a concern -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ireland.

MR. HARRIS: As the member mentions, a lot of people are going to Ireland because there aren't jobs in this Province for people in that industry, but I also would caution the minister that when we are designing training programs we ensure that these training programs are going to be capable of training people to operate in full-time, year-round jobs and not just fall into a situation where they are only able to work two or three months of the year, not qualify for unemployment insurance because of the seasonal benefits, and not end up in marginalized occupations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, at the expense of being accused of being picayune, and I have been accused of being much worse, I just wanted to bring up a point of order.

Among some of the major reforms that we made this year was Statements by Members, making provision for Statements by Members, which was to legalize the kinds of things that we had permitted in the House; and to bring some further order to the House we brought in members statements.

I just wanted to read for members one of the very important guidelines of that, from section 25.(2) of the Standing Orders, which says: "A Member, other than a Minister of the Crown, may be recognized to make a statement for not more than one minute."

I just wanted to point out to the House that this provision is primarily for members. I recognize in this particular case, I believe that - and I am not even sure that the Speaker had called for Statements by Members, but I just wanted to make that point for the House to point out the importance of this major reform, and that it is reserved for members. For a minister to speak on this occasion ought to be indeed a rarity; but with the leave of the House, of course, we can do anything. I suppose I could be giving a Ministerial Statement, with the leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the House so that it is followed in the way that it ought to be. It is a standing rule of this House and I think it should be adhered to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order raised, we advocate it is not a point of order because, of course, unanimous leave was given. We would certainly give leave if we think it is necessary and it does not jeopardize three of our members who wish to make statements, and they would not be jeopardized because of that. We have accommodated that, and it is not a point of order because leave was given. The minister did not stand without appropriate leave.

As the hon. member said, that can be done with just about anything, I guess, with unanimous leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the Chair recognizes that this period set of time is for private members, and we have been following that practice, but on occasion ministers have asked for leave and leave has been granted. If members of the House want to give leave, then we are at liberty, I guess, to do anything within reason that we want to do. Whenever a minister is making a statement under Statements by Members, it is by leave only and that is the practice we have been following.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary has been downgraded as an operational police force, both in personnel and financial resources, since 1990. Sixty-six police officer positions have been allowed to remain vacant since 1990. Eighteen of these positions have been converted to civilian positions with a net loss of forty-eight police officer positions. Since the fall of 1999, sixteen police officers, not including the chief, have left the force. The five RNC officers presently serving in Kosovo, whose salaries are paid by the United Nations, were just recently replaced on shift.

My question to the Minister of Justice is this: What plans does the minister have to stop this serious erosion of RNC personnel, and when will recruitment begin to return the force the personnel levels that will allow it to provide appropriate police protection in areas of the Province under its jurisdiction?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in my short time I have had several meetings with Chief Power of the RNC, as well as with the RNCA. This matter has been discussed on virtually all of those occasions. It has been made quite clear to the RNC officers and rank and file that it is simply a matter of fiscal possibilities. The downsizing took place as a result of fiscal restraints some years ago. We have, as of very recently, as the hon. member has mentioned, refilled five of those positions. It was very recently. Again, we want to ensure that the RNC - they are a very professional force, they are properly trained, and we provide RNC in places in this Province as our fiscal abilities allow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister: Discussion is one thing, a plan of action to do something about it is something else.

The minister is aware that just recently an RNC officer was recruited directly into the RCMP. Is the minister aware that nine other RNC officers have already written the RCMP entrance exam? Is the minister aware that an additional five or six RNC officers have applied to write the exam? Is the minister aware that an $18,000 salary difference exists between a first-class constable in the RNC vis-à-vis the RCMP? If the minister is aware of those matters, can he inform the House what he proposes to do to arrest this drain of RNC officers to the RCMP and to other police forces across Canada?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Member for Lewisporte certainly missed my interview with CBC last week, in which all of these issues that he raised were dealt with, and we are (inaudible) to the public of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: First of all, regarding the RNC, probably one of the most important undertakings recently was the completion of a strategic plan for them for the next five years. That has been done with the input of the officers again, of the rank and file, the RNCA, and with the Department of Justice, so that we know exactly where we are going, and we chart our course of where we are going with the RNC in the future.

Regarding the RCMP recruiting effort, yes, the RCMP in this country are recruiting approximately 800 members as a result of attrition that they are going to experience within the next year. The RCMP have, in fact, offered two RNC officers in this Province employment. One of those RNC officers has accepted. The other RNC officer, who was offered a position with the RCMP, has not yet accepted. There are issues here that have to be discussed, once they are even offered acceptance. For example, some of these RNC officers have applied, but once you get accepted by the RCMP they are then subject, of course, to mobility and transfer within the RCMP. Some of these officers, I understand, are having some second thoughts of: Yes, we may like the RCMP in terms of their monetary gains but there are some downsides to it as well. We may not get to live in our Province of Newfoundland, where we wish. We may, in fact, end up being transferred anywhere the RCMP wishes.

We also have the issue of portability of pensions. Many of the RNC are not interested in transferring to the RCMP because they can't transfer their pensions. The RCMP would love to attract RNC officers who have in excess of ten years, are well-trained, and can come into the RCMP without any expense for training. There are a whole host of factors that go into consideration of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: - who goes and who doesn't go. We have no control over if an RNC officer, or anybody else in this Province, chooses to work with whomever they wish, wherever they wish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Let me ask the minister something that he does have control over. In view of the fact that the RNC has the lowest police-to-population ratio of any police force in Canada, will the minister tell the House how he expects fewer RNC officers to respond to an increased workload, increased work related stress problems, and an overall force morale that I am told is lower than at any time since the 1960s and 1970s? That is something directly under the control of the minister. What is he doing about that, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't know that the hon. Member for Lewisporte has become the spokesperson for the RNCA. I have had extensive meetings with the RNCA and the issue of wages is certainly one of the top priorities there, but we have to live within the fiscal responsibilities of this Province.

We have two police forces in this Province, one of which is a national police force, the RCMP. We cannot possibly compete in terms of what we pay the RNC to what the RCMP is getting paid. We just don't have the fiscal ability to do it.

We realize that the RNC are probably underpaid, and are indeed underpaid in comparison to a lot of other police forces in this country. We try, we wish and we want to pay the RNC better than they are being paid. It is simply a matter of, we don't have the money to pay what they, at the present time and in the past, have been demanding. We live within the fiscal responsibilities and abilities that we do have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if we had the money that this hon. crowd wasted on lost court cases they would be able to be paid. There would be no question about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary for the Minister of Justice.

The latest concept in providing police protection is that called district policing. Is the minister aware that while the RNC supports the concept of district policing, the force has in fact informed his department that it cannot endorse the implementation of district policing within its jurisdiction because it doesn't have the resources, the personnel, or the equipment to appropriately implement district policing within its jurisdiction?

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

MR. PARSONS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the court cases, the hon. member is well aware that in the Estimates Committee I gave him a full accounting of what has happened from this government vis-à-vis court cases, and that evidence is there.

With regard to the concept of district policing -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the hon. member would like to have an answer to his question, if the other Member for Cape St. Francis might allow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: With regard to the concept of district policing, this is not new. District policing has been implemented in Canada by the RCMP, for example. We now, in this Province, have eleven different divisions called district divisions. We have district policing implemented on the Avalon here. It is only about one month old, at the most sixty days.

I met about a month ago with all councils on the Northeast Avalon, representing the city, CBS, and every area on the Northeast Avalon who are policed by the RNC. The concept was explained that we have four districts. The purpose of it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the RNCA aren't happy. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water. We just started the concept and, as I explained at that time - and if the RNCA wait, probably they will see the results as well - we have to make the most efficient use of the resources that we have. There are four districts, four district commanders. The idea now is that, with the help of the advisory committees in these areas, each of these districts, what the priorities are in policing will now be made known readily to the district commander. The district commander can then mobilize whatever resources he needs from the whole of the Northeast Avalon to react to that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. PARSONS: Yes, there may be some complaints from certain members but we are making better use of the resources that we did have, and with the concept of district policing you can still deal with the local problems but at the same time, have the general and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - specific resources, like fingerprinting, for example, and (inaudible) all still available to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Several days ago, members of the RCMP requested of students and student organizations that they be interviewed with respect to the upcoming visit of the Prime Minister. I ask the Minister of Justice: Were you aware of the fact that this type of contact and interviewing process was to take place with students and their organizations? And were you, in any way, a participant in this decision that students be questioned and interviewed in this fashion?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like it made quite clear for the record that I, in no way, was aware of any attempts by the RCMP to question any students or anyone else in this Province as a result of the intended visit of the Prime Minister, at no time whatsoever. Yes, I am aware that it is a standard procedure by the RCMP, whenever the Prime Minister is visiting anywhere for any reason, that they make preliminary checks to determine if there may be some problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was not aware, and I accept the fact that he was not aware, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for this Province, are you concerned about the fact that the approach taken by the RCMP may, in fact, have intimidated many of the students and their organizations who were questioned, to the point that their fundamental rights and freedoms, as guaranteed and protected under the Charter of Rights in this Province, in their minds, were at risk? Are you concerned, as the chief lawmaker in this Province, Mr. Minister, that students and their organizations felt this way in response to the approach taken by the RCMP?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly think the RCMP acted properly in what they did. It is their procedure to check out things in advance whenever the Prime Minister is going anywhere. I don't think we should fearmonger. I can't control how the students or anyone else might have felt about this approach by the RCMP, but if the RCMP is doing whatever is reasonable as an advance check to secure the security of the Prime Minister of this country, I have not problem with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Why is it that students in our country - and recently, apparently, even in our own Province - from media reports and from the students' responses themselves, that they feel their ability to voice an opportunity, or to freely assemble in a peaceful way, or to express a point of view - why is it these students feel jeopardized to do what they want to do freely and voluntarily in their own jurisdiction?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, these students did exactly that; they exercised their right to say nothing and not cooperate. They were asked and, as I understand it from the media interviews that I heard of the student representatives, they declined the RCMP invitation to have such a meeting. That is totally within their rights to do so, and I applaud them for exercising their rights if that is what they wanted to do; but let's not make an APEC situation here in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, or the Premier, or the minister of everything, or the acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for today.

There are many concerns regarding road conditions in this Province, not just this year but in the past years. The fact is, the minister himself has confirmed that there are over 900 kilograms of gravel roads in this Province. Concerns for provincial roads are beginning to pop up all over the Province. One example is the La Scie highway where demonstrations are taking place by residents of the communities in the area. If something is not done, there will be many demonstrations like that of the La Scie and area residents.

This year's budget is spending $12 million to $14 million on provincial road systems. Members on both sides of the House are receiving telephone calls regarding road conditions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, something has to be done. My question for the minister is: Are there any plans to put more money, this year, into the provincial road system?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Leader of the Opposition was here to ask some questions. Then we would probably get some sensible questions from the Opposition over there.

Did I hear the hon. member say 900 kilo-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, he referred to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get on with his answer.

MR. EFFORD: I couldn't hear the question, all the points he was making. Did I hear you say 900 kilograms of roads? Nine hundred kilograms. I am sure that is what he said.

MR. TULK: He said kilograms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to get to his answer.

Mr. Speaker, I always have them at hand.

We have more roads in this Province, per capita, than any other part of this country of ours. Every time I drive over the highways in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I drive somewhere on the mainland, particularly Atlantic Canada, I have said 1,000 times that we have better roads in this Province than anywhere in Atlantic Canada. On a per capita basis, we put a reasonable amount of money into road construction in this Province. I believe it is $20 million. It will be approximately, provincially, about $20 million this year plus the Roads for Rail agreement. I will stand up with any other works, services and transportation minister in Canada with the quality of roads and the condition of roads we have here in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's own words, he has received some 380 requests this year for road monies. There is a crisis brewing because of a minimal amount being put into roads. Newfoundland is sold on its scenery and tourists are not going to coastal communities if there is not work done on some of these roads.

I would now like to ask the minister: Would he and his government consider putting more money from the contingency fund into the provincial roads?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have a population of approximately 560,000 people. This year, $136 million will be spent in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on roads. That is a lot of kilograms for roads in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know where this particular minister gets his figures, because they certainly are not the ones of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They are certainly not his figures, when he says there is $16 million of provincial money this year going into roads.

I would now like to ask the minister this. The federal MP, Mr. Gerry Byrne, has said on the radio and to people in his own riding that there are monies available. My question for the minister is: Are these monies ready and available to go? If these monies are ready, when are we going to start using them?

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

MR. EFFORD: M.r .Speaker, I have heard these comments several times in the past number of weeks about what our friend, MP, Mr. Byrne, will put up for roads in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let me, for the record, say what this government will do. For every single dollar that the federal government, through Mr. Byrne, will put for roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will put up our 20 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. The minister, I am sure will agree, as will all hon. members, about the importance of literacy in this Province, and the particular efforts being made by adults to obtain literacy through the ABE program.

Why, then, is the minister's department reducing the support for people on social assistance, and income support, in their efforts to obtain basic education and literacy training through the ABE program by reducing this support by more than two-thirds, to less than one-third of what it is today?

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

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what specifically the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is referring to.

As members of the House are aware, it was during the last fiscal year and approximately seven or eight months ago that responsibility for the ABE program and the provision of basic education for adults was transferred from my department to the Department of Education.

It was with the concept and the understanding that the overall responsibility for literacy rests with the Department of Education.

Regardless of whether somebody is simply looking to government for income support to assist them when they have no other means of supporting their own financial needs, the concept of how we administer and provide for adult basic education rightfully belongs with the Department of Education.

It has been there for a number of months up to this time. I understand that there has been a considerable expansion in the ability of government to provide for adult basic education as a result of that transfer of funds from my department to education.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Individuals on income support would receive $175 per month as a supplement while attending adult basic education courses. This has been now reduced to $50 per month. I believe it is the Minister of Human Resources and Employment's department that provides this supplement.

Why are some of the people at the lowest income levels in the Province, in particular single persons who are on social assistance, who sometimes make little more than $100 per month, being treated in this way and not being given any incentive to pursue basic literacy, which they should be able to do? Removing this incentive is driving people away from programs that they need to have in order to be able to improve their lives and possibly access the job market.

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

MS BETTNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a different issue and a different question from what was previously asked.

I think what the member is referring to is the placement support allowance which my department provides to income support clients when they are taking advantage of any kind of training opportunities. The whole change to this program is part of our income support reform. It is a question of equity and fairness.

The way that the system had been structured in the past was for anyone on income support, regardless of their needs, regardless of whether they had transportation needs, regardless of whether they had childcare needs, regardless of what their circumstances were, to receive a flat rate of $175. What we have done now is to change that system entirely so that we take into consideration peoples transportation needs and we provide support for that. If they have children and they have daycare needs, we have increased the rate there and we provide for that. If people have special circumstances that require an up-front spending, we provide a special one-time $200 to meet those particular needs. In addition to that, we provide $50 a month, which the member referred to. So, we have dramatically changed the system (inaudible)-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: In conclusion, what I would say is that for some people who have all of these kinds of needs they will, in fact, receive considerably more than $175 a month to support them in their training efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. A clause in October 1998's Memorandum of Understanding with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association put the onus on government to bring to the Cabinet table the issue of doctors being allowed to incorporate. Over one-and-a-half years have elapsed since that time. I want to ask the minister: Will he tell this House if this matter has been addressed in Cabinet and if so, when can we expect to hear the result?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The matter is contained in the memorandum and is still under discussion with physicians. The government has no objection and that is why it is in the Memorandum of Understanding, to allow physicians to incorporate. We are trying to work with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association just to make sure that when we allow for that it is done properly.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Memorandum of Understanding indicated that it must be brought to Cabinet. The minister did not answer. I am assuming it has not been brought to Cabinet and they have not moved on it in a-year-and-a-half in that regard.

Incorporation, I would say to the minister, is beneficial, particularly in the recruitment and retention of doctors in certain sub-specialties where overhead costs and equipment is very expensive, where it is hard to get doctors in our Province. Every other province in Atlantic Canada, and every other province in the country, except one, allows them to incorporate, and that province is moving now to do so. I want to ask the minister: Will he move now immediately? Will he level the playing field? Will he allow this to happen in our Province and will he stop the drain of medical professional specialists from our Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have, in fact, not had a drain of medical specialists from the Province. The information actually is that since the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding just over a year or so ago, we actually in the Province today have somewhere between fifty and sixty more specialists than we had at the signing of the MOU. So the language with respect to a drain of specialists is not exactly accurate.

As I said, in answer to the first question, the fact that it was placed in the Memorandum of Understanding indicated that the government does not disagree in principle with the idea that physicians should be able to incorporate. Right now we are working prudently with the NLMA to make sure that when we bring that provision into Newfoundland and Labrador it is done appropriately and to the greatest benefit of the physicians.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Minister, for years the federal and provincial governments have been cooperating by entering into forestry agreements to give a boost to the industry. Is the minister involved at this time in discussions with the federal counterparts on the future of forest agreements? I would also like to add on to that: What specific help does the Province want from Ottawa to ensure this key industry is here in the Province, is sustained, and continues to create many thousands of high quality jobs long into the future?

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

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

I would like to thank the member for the question. Yes, we are working with the federal government now. The federal minister responsible for forestry in Canada has indicated this year that they are looking at getting back into forestry development. We have been after them for the last two or three years to do so. So there are discussions being initiated across the country with the different forestry ministers to try to get the federal government to look at more funding for silviculture.

We have had an agreement with the HRD offices here in Newfoundland and Labrador, negotiated by the previous minister of forestry who did a very good job and with HRD and the Premier, and there was $11 million to $12 million in that agreement. It has been very progressive. Silviculture work is excellent work in Newfoundland and Labrador and we are looking forward to getting more done this year, but we would like to have the federal government back with an agreement where they would help fund rural projects in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to help our forests, which we are managing as good as anywhere on the planet.

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me remind the minister that during the election of 1999 he, the Premier and some of his colleagues and an opponent of mine went around the Province, in Central Newfoundland and rural areas of Newfoundland, and committed to a large silviculture program for last year and this year. I would like to ask the minister: What happened to all the thousands of jobs that were promised last year, and when will these jobs start this year?

We see today in rural Newfoundland, with the collapse of the fishery and that downturn in the crab fishery, where a lot of jobs are certainly needed in Central Newfoundland and rural Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: So, minister, when are these jobs going to happen? At what time are you going to announce the projects for these jobs?

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the last three or four years we spent more money in silviculture projects than in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: This year there is going to be, again, the equivalent dollars as we spent last year, pretty well. We are working on more funding with the federal government through HRD and other organizations.

Mr. Speaker, the amount of silviculture work that we have been doing has been continuing to be the amount that we need to do. We are working with the forest industry. Both Abitibi and Kruger Inc. are both participating with funding of silviculture projects along with the Province and along with the federal government.

The commitment we have made and we continue to make and continue to carry out is to creating employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in the forest industry. We will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

MR. EFFORD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my fifteen years in this House of Assembly we have enjoyed debate back and forth, in particular during Question Period. There is a lot of things said back and forth in the House and through debate. The one thing that we have all had, in my fifteen years that I have been here - and I expect long before I came - was respect for procedures in the House and respect for members on both sides of the House of Assembly when it comes to parliamentary procedures.

One of the things that has been precedent setting in this House is that we have never and should not refer to members absent from the House. When the Member for Conception Bay South stood up today he referenced the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who is most commonly in his seat. Today he is out of the House to attend a funeral of a distinguished Newfoundlander who is being buried this afternoon - and he is accompanied by the Premier - a distinguished business man, Arthur Lundrigan.

I should ask the member opposite to stand and apologize, one, for breaking the procedure, and two, for respect for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and his attendance at a funeral.

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

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not uncommon if a minister is unavoidably absent to ask the acting minister. That is certainly an acceptable thing, and it has not happened. I know it doesn't make it right that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made the same reference. It still doesn't make it right. We don't agree with it basically overall. It is accepted.

So if there was anything from this side that was not considered parliamentary, certainly we will apologize for that. The member certainly will, if he so desires. I speak on behalf, as House Leader, that it gets carried a little bit too far on certain times. There was no intent. The minister was unavoidably absent. It is our right to ask the acting minister, the Premier, or anybody, and it is the right of government to stand who they wish to stand to answer that particular question.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Opposition House Leader referencing that it is the right of a member to ask the acting minister. I never referenced the question to the acting minister. I was glad and quite willing to answer the question. That is not the point. The point is referencing a member of this House to be absent from the House when he is most commonly in his seat. The reason why he is out of the House of Assembly is because he is today attending a funeral on behalf of a very distinguished Newfoundlander.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I spoke, and I am sure Hansard will bear me out, I did not say that the minister was not in his seat. If I indicated that or said it, then I certainly would retract it.

I did not say that he was not in his seat. I gave a question to four ministers. I said: the minister, the Premier, the minister of everything or the acting minister. We ended up getting the acting minister. I did not get any answers, but I did get the acting minister. If I did reference the minister not being in his seat, then I would certainly retract that.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order.

The hon. member has retracted any statements that he may have made, but all hon. members know of course that referencing members from this House ought not to take place. I ask hon. members to keep that in mind as we debate the issues here.

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I would ask Mr. Speaker to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to also retract. When he (inaudible) if the Leader of the Opposition was here too he said he might have some better questions. I would just ask him to do the same thing.

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

MR. EFFORD: Most definitely, Mr. Speaker, I retract it.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House today the copy of the annual report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Public Service Commission for the period 1996-1999.

Thank you.

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table the Annual Report 1999 of the Workers' Compensation Review Division.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and in accordance with section 41 of the Hydro Corporation Act, I am pleased to table the 1999 Annual Report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation.

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

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act," Bill 26.

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

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

Today I rise to present a petition on behalf of 517 people from the communities and the towns of Pouch Cove, Flat Rock and Bauline. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Bauline, Flat Rock and Pouch Cove;

WHEREAS the residents of Bauline, Flat Rock and Pouch Cove have had funding approved for a new school; and

WHEREAS the school board has promised students would be in a new school in September 2001; and

WHEREAS the design of the new school is not acceptable for a number of reasons such as classroom size, multi-use of rooms for lunch and music, no allotment for growth and other concerns;

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support the school board, the parents and the children of these three towns in having the new school built to address these concerns and to allocate sufficient funding to permit same.

Mr. Speaker, 517 names were on that within a couple of days from the area, most of the parents down there, I would say. The funding for this school was approved two years. The people in those communities were working on a new school for some twelve years. There was $5.5 million approved for a new school in that area. It was to be a K to IX, it is now going to be a K to VI. That has been accepted. It was forced down their throats but they have accepted that.

What is projected for the new school is $3.2 million. That is some $2.3 million less than what was approved for the school, and the funding was in place. The problem with the new school was addressed: the school board, by the way, rejected the design, the layout and the size of the classrooms some two weeks ago. They had a public meeting down there last week and there were 200 or 300 parents there in Pouch Cove Elementary, when a presentation and the concert plan was put forward. The size of the allocated classroom space is too small. That is one point we have. With the northeast Avalon growing - the population for the school is 270 students in those two schools, St. Agnes and Pouch Cove, now. The new school is being designed for 270. They are not allowing any room for growth.

The northeast Avalon is probably the only area in the Province that is growing in population and they should be making allotments for the increased student enrollment in the years to come. People down there want a separate music room. That is required. What is being proposed is a cafeteria that is going to require three lunch meals because of the population, because of the small size of the cafeteria. Not only that, the cafeteria is going to be alternating between a cafeteria and a music room, with three lunch periods. Can you believe this? This is what is coming forward from the Department of Education. They are being dictated to. I have to ask the question: Why do we elect a school board when we have the Department of Education forcing stuff down the throats of the school board.

I have a meeting set up for tomorrow to discuss this with the deputy minister and the ADM, I believe, and Mr. Lester and Mr. Shortall from the school board to try and get this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have leave just to clue up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Now, some other things. As I said, $5.5 million allocated and they are only going to spend $3.2 million. What is needed down there to make everybody happy is $250,000. They are not allowing enough money for desks, equipment and furnishings. They are not even talking about fencing. The site they have is on a pasture land and they are not even going to allow enough money for fencing of the school property. That is what they are talking about. The cafeteria size is way too small, with three seatings.

There was a question of kindergarten enrolment. This year there are some forty-two children registered in kindergarten. That is going to require basically two classrooms. There is not even a design in the building for two classrooms. The staff room is not nearly large enough. As a matter of fact, they are not even going to have enough room in the school for a maintenance person. They are nickel-and-diming this facility to death.

The people in this area deserve more. They have been working on it for twelve years. The government has promised it to them. The former Minister of Education, the present Minister of Health, allotted $5.5 million for this school. As I said, $250,000 more is all they need to have everybody happy. If they allow that $250,000, they are still going to save $2,150,000 from the original allotment for the school.

Hopefully the department will come to its senses tomorrow when we meet, and I meet with the school board and representatives from the Department of Education. Hopefully they will listen to the petition that was presented here today. I am sure there are lots of other people out there who have signed petitions that didn't get to me in time to present here today.

We want to say, from Pouch Cove, Flatrock and Bauline, and the whole area of the Northeast Avalon down there from Torbay on, there are supposed to be three K-VI feeding into a VII-XII high school in Torbay. This has to be done. It has to be done as soon as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, I thank him for the leave.

In the meantime, in conclusion, I will say this. I hope the Department of Education and the school board, with me there, will try and negotiate some reasonable solution to this problem.

Tomorrow evening, after the meeting, hopefully I will have good news for the people. If not, I hope that other areas - as we have seen in the Province, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If that is what it takes, so be it.

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): The hon. the Member for Burin-Peninsula West.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition in this House today signed on behalf of some 500 residents in the District of Burin-Peninsula West. The petition is addressed as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador assembled, we petition, the undersigned residents, humbly sweareth, that:

WHEREAS, the road to Petit Forte forms a very important and essential link to no less than five communities, namely South East Bight, Great Paradise, Little Paradise, Port Anne, and Petit Forte; and

WHEREAS much concern is expressed for the transportation of goods and people, especially the safety and comfort of school children who travel some fifty kilometers daily to attend school in Rushoon; and

WHEREAS the hazards and hardships presented by a gravel road are numerous;

We, the undersigned, wish to ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pave the Petit Forte road as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, quite recently, I traveled to Petit Forte to meet with the residents of that community, as well as several constituents from South East Bight and other communities in that area concerning this petition.

Any person who has visited the community will agree with me that this is one of the most scenic and friendly little communities in our entire Province, one of our greatest tourist attractions. More than 100 people attended the meeting. The meeting was exceptionally well-organized and very cordial. The chairperson was Mr. Heffernan, and he had gone to great lengths to gather information and support for the paving of the Petit Forte road. In addition to this petition, a petition signed by some 500 people, residents and travelers to the area, I was presented with some fifty letters of support from councils, businesses in the Burin Peninsula, and also professionals who must travel the road frequently to provide goods and services.

As stated in the words of the petition, the Petit Forte road is an essential link to five mentioned communities. Three of these communities have livyers year round and the remaining two are home to fishermen and their families during the entire fishing season from April to November of each year.

For these communities, the Petit Forte road is the only link to the outside world. The hazards and the hardships presented by a gravel road are almost too numerous to mention. Vehicle owners continuously face high repair bills and residents plagued by high levels of dust are two of the consequences of having to contend with a dirt road.

Each year, millions of dollars worth of fish is landed at the wharf in Petit Forte to be readied for transport over road to processing facilities. Rough road conditions do little to enhance the quality of the product when it finally reaches the plant. However, of all the points raised in support of this road, the greatest concern expressed and recognized was for the children who must travel the road daily to attend school in Rushoon. Parents and teachers supported the theory that paving of the road would reduce travel time and provide a level of comfort conducive to better learning.

I sympathize with the fine people of these communities and, as I expressed at my meeting, nothing would please me more than to be able to announce funding for this road. I advised my constituents that from the public consultations we have had in this Province since I was first elected in 1996, the message has been to try and do with the infrastructure that we have in place at this particular time for as long as we can, and that the dollars go into health care and education, and that is exactly what we have been doing.

This year, the total budget for roads was somewhere in the area of $15 million. The share provided to any one district does little to address the total problem, and at the rate that we are going right now it will take us a long time to be in a catch-up position.

I have been honest with my constituents and advised them that unless there was a much greater infusion of funds than we have been receiving, I cannot foresee an immediate solution. However, I did announce $25,000 at that time towards Class A material for the road in Petit Forte and I have consulted our engineers and a superintendent with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to have the road closely monitored for rating and for maintenance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, while funding is not available to pave the road at this particular time, I ask my government that, should additional funding become available, the Petit Forte road be given every consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: I thought I saw him jump up. I thought there was another petition

Mr. Speaker, Order 18, second reading of Bill 21, "An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In The Province." The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In The Province." (Bill 21)

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

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

It is a pleasure today to stand in this House to introduce second reading of Bill 21, An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban and Rural Planning In The Province. Just a couple of days ago a package was distributed to all members of the House, outlining the major changes in the bill as well as a synopsis of the changes and associated press release information and summary statement.

This bill, if enacted, will replace the current Urban and Rural Planning Act which was in effect since 1969, and will be the enabling legislation governing the Province's land use planning system. This legislation has been developed following a very comprehensive review. Consultations were held across the Province, including involvement of the NLFM and the NLAMA.

The involvement and commitment of these stakeholders have been very important and, in fact, invaluable to ensure that this legislation has evolved from a process to one that has given us the legislative tools so that municipalities can strive to meet the current and the future challenges in local government. The endorsement of the bill by these stakeholders was quite evident in our joint press conference which we held a couple of days ago, outlining the major changes within the act.

When this current act was proclaimed, it sufficiently delineated the powers and responsibilities necessary at that time for municipalities. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, changing times and realities of municipal governments now have necessitated these extensive amendments over the years. This, together with a significant new issue such as the need for a greater autonomy in municipal government, as well as the desire for public involvement in development of local planning policy, as well as the need to provide a level of protection for property rights of those of private owners and the changing role of my department, clearly illustrates the need for this comprehensive legislative review.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to, just very briefly, identify the major objectives - identify ten, at least - that this new legislation should address. Clearly, it will strengthen empowerment of municipalities to make land use and development policy obviously more simplified for them; it will minimize provincial involvement in municipal planning; it will increase the flexibility of the municipal planning system so that it is better suited to both large and small municipalities; it will expand opportunities for public input and consultation at all levels. Again, this is a very important piece, consultation. It will establish provincial benchmarks for equitable and fair planning of administration. Also, it puts a provision in place to recover costs for this planning administration and development, these costs which would be set at the municipal level. As well, it will facilitate inter-municipal cooperation and regional planning and clarify provincial land use policies, as well as streamline time frames and provide a user friendly act.

These provisions, in our view, address each of the objectives. The positive reaction that we have received so far from the Federation of Municipalities as well as from the Association of Municipal Administrators, clearly demonstrates that this has been a consultative process, one that has occurred over time, and one that has been significantly reviewed with a number of stakeholders.

The Federation of Municipalities have endorsed this bill and they state that the legislation is what municipalities have asked for, what they want, and what they clearly need to carry out their administration. As well, it has been subjected to considerable consultation and the municipalities are very comfortable with its provisions.

The municipal administrators are also supportive of the legislation. In fact the Past-President, Mr. Mike Pinsent, also joined me in the press conference on Monday morning. This new legislation will improve their ability to manage the change process. It also gives them greater autonomy. I was very impressed, in fact, with the way this new act was structured and the way it flows. It is much easier to make reference, and this was a major complaint associated with the old act. It was very cumbersome.

Some of the more significant provisions of the bill include, within the scope of empowerment, municipalities will be assigned more direct responsibilities to mange the hearing and notice procedures; to prepare and approve plans and development regulations as well as amendments. This, of course, I believe, will certainly eliminate a lot of the red tape associated with the preparation and approval of plans.

The provincial role will change to one of reviewing for consistency, with the provincial policy, the laws and the subsequent registration. The municipality does not have the expertise or resources in many cases, and they may request that the Province assist them with the approval process.

As well, a municipal plan will have to cover very basic topics and these will now be able to be expanded to include other optional contents which would actually meet the particular needs tailor-made to that particular municipality.

Within the scope of expanding opportunity for public input, I think the bill has very much addressed this in a very clear way by allowing the municipality or authority involved to design, carry out, and document a public consultation as part of the planning process. Once the regulations and their amendments have been considered, they will also require further public notice and they will conduct an opportunity for interested persons to provide their comments but no hearing would be required unless, of course, the municipality would determine so.

Within the scope of establishing the provincial wide benchmarks for equitable administration, the bill provides that the municipal development regulations contain procedures and administrative requirements to ensure fairness and necessary record keeping. Again, this is something that is very important.

Regional appeal boards will hear all appeals except for the three grandfathered cities, including Mount Pearl, St. John's and Corner Brook. The appeal procedures are specified in the act and there is also a new clear section on non-conforming uses. There is a part which will be grandfathered in and it will now specify how these development regulations can deal with non-conforming uses and structures and actually set limits for their protection.

Municipalities can otherwise develop their own policies and provisions in developing regulations. Variances will be limited to up to 10 per cent of specified standards. Again, this is a fairly standardized approach that will be overseen by the provincial guidelines. Also, purchase notice provisions will ensure that freezes on developable land can be compensated but that the process will not be manipulated to force a purchase of large parcels of rural land where development is premature or otherwise indicated.

The bill provides that, in terms of cost-recovery, the municipality may recover all or part of the cost for plan amendments and development regulations, particularly if it is for private interests. Application and permit fees can be set and financial guarantees may be required and include newer instruments such as irrevocable letters of credit.

The inter-municipal cooperation I think is obvious, because it certainly outlines the opportunity for regional planning by authorities and will also give them the procedures they need for public consultation and the requirements associated with it.

In terms of clarifying provincial land use policies, the policy statements, both municipal and regional, as well as provincially initiated planning, will be required to conform to policy set out in the bill. According to the scope, and within the scope of streamlining time frames, the bill provides an appeal period of fourteen days after the municipality makes its decision. Appeal of this appeal board decision can be made within ten days to the Trial Division of Supreme Court, and the delegation by a council or regional authority to a staff member has the ability to approve or refuse the classes of applications. Again, this is a streamline approach.

In conclusion, the scope of providing a more user friendly act - as I mentioned, there has been a fair bit of consolidation in this act as it relates to expropriation provisions, appeal provisions, and also it identifies a logical progression through the planning system from the policy development all the way through to regulatory implementation and appeals and enforcement.

I have only outlined some of the more significant provisions of the bill. There are numerous others that, together with those outlined, make for a new Urban and Rural Planning Act for this Province that is strongly supported, as I pointed out previously, by the principal stakeholders, both the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators. Mr. Speaker, government is very proud to bring to this new bill forward.

Thank you very much.

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

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

We on this side of the House want to acknowledge that we have been waiting a long time for this particular piece of legislation to come before the House. As the minister noted in her opening comments, the present legislation dates back to 1969. Those of us who have been continuously elected since 1969 have many years to reflect on these many ways in which the urban and rural planning act has been an instrument of success but also has been, in many cases, an instrument that has caused great frustrations.

I note that the minister said that she has had great numbers of consultations. I just want to note that the last time the minister stood in this House and said that she had had great numbers of consultations was when she was introducing the act called the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Last year the same minister stood in her place and said: I've had extensive consultations with all the stakeholders and there is unanimous consent among all of these that we will now bring this bill forward.

At that time I stood in my place and said that it might be advisable if the minister were to go and send this piece of legislation to the social services review committee as was the practice committed by Premier Clyde Wells when he became the premier in 1989. As a consequence of not referring the legislation to a committee of the House, the social services review committee, we noted that just a few days ago there were some twelve or thirteen amendments that were necessary to the Child, Youth And Family Services Act after this same minister, in her prior role, had assured us that all the consultations had taken place and that there was no need for this act to be referred.

I believe the minister when she stands in her place and says that she has had dialogue with the Federation of Municipalities. I believe her as well when she says there has been dialogue with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Municipal Administrators. However, we know that this piece of legislation will have to be enforced by many town managers, many clerks, who have limited exposure to this particular act. We know there was need for tremendous revisions to the whole planning structure in this Province.

However, we know as well that the department has been downloading its responsibilities onto municipalities. As a matter of fact, the entire Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is now nothing more than a regulatory agency. The way it is going, there is so little left in that department by way of decision making that requires an input of a minister that it means that this department now has been reduced in stature, been reduced in importance by this government to the point where now everything is done by way of regulation. We have minimized the role of the minister and minimized of the role of the department in this Province. As a matter of fact, for many years it has not been a major department of government, but in recent times it has become a very minor department of government because now it really is setting policies. There is so little help given to municipalities by way of giving them the means to be able to carry out the responsibilities that they have.

I say to the minister that we believe in more autonomy, we believe in setting good policy by the minister and her officials, we believe in the streamlining that this act provides, but we also believe that in adopting this act we have to make sure that the municipalities out there have the means and the expertise to be able to live and abide by its provisions. It is no good to say to a small municipality: Yes, you can do this or you can do that, if you are not going to give them the wherewithal to be able to have the proper training, access to the planning expertise, access to the legal expertise, and access in particular to the financial resources that lets them go and be able to do a good job in administering their municipalities.

The minister made note of certain positive changes. I have noted some of them already. I say to the minister that the old methodology of having the municipality prepare its municipal changes to its planning processes and then having them to advertise these changes and have a public hearing, and then when all that was done had to turn around and do it all over again - because the department also required you to have a thirty day advertisement time and also to have another public hearing - that kind of process was frustrating.

As a matter of fact, in my many years as mayor of a town, and then later on as a mayor of a city, we found it quite frustrating. The difficulty I have is that in making those changes they may be very well for the Mount Pearls of the world, they may be very well for Conception Bay South, they may be very well for Gander, but as we go from the larger municipalities to the smaller municipalities I have great concerns about the small municipalities and how they are going to cope with those changes. I would say here that the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities is dominated and in many ways, I say from experience, is controlled by the larger municipalities. When we say that this particular piece of legislation is good for all municipalities, I have great concerns about the very small municipalities.

I know that the larger towns - the ones that in the larger towns' group in the Federation - and cities can cope with the provisions of this particular piece of legislation. I know as well that the municipal administrators have had input here, but what I have concerns about are the smaller towns across this Province who suddenly will find themselves having to administer this piece of legislation. The minister has already said that there is going to be some training provided, but as we know, it is going to be very difficult for a municipality which has half-time clerk or has a clerk that works one half-day a week or something like that, to be able to intimate knowledge of all the provisions in this piece of legislation and try to administer that in terms of the best benefits to the municipality and to the council that the clerk is serving.

We on this side of the House want to say to the minister it is a positive piece of legislation, but in doing so - I am not going to delay it for very long - I want to say to the minister that there are certain provisions that we want to note.

If I could just draw attention for a few moments to a couple of sections. One of the provisions I wanted to note was right at the end of the act. Clause 113, section 222(1), under the expropriation procedures, says: "A council may, in accordance with Part IX of the Urban and Rural Planning Act, 2000, expropriate land, property or an interest in land or property where (a) the person who owns the land, property or interest refuses to accept the sum offered in writing by the council..."

Expropriation is a very drastic step. As a matter of fact, in my twenty-three years on the council in Mount Pearl only on one occasion did we have to resort to expropriation. We weren't able to get a settlement with an individual on a piece of land needed to extend a roadway, namely Commonwealth Avenue in Mount Pearl at the time.

I just wanted to note that when we talk about expropriating land we had better make sure that we have guidelines in place. Because giving local councils the authority to be able to just go out and expropriate land without having proper in-service done might lead to great concerns, great confusion and great difficulties.

I want to note that the expropriation of lands and houses is a very drastic measure. Because in clause 113, section 222(1)(d) it says that the council may expropriate land or an interest in land or property where, "for another reason the council considers it advisable to do so."

Before we go out and start expropriating land and buildings we had better make sure that we have some good guidelines in place, I know there are guidelines in place in other pieces of legislation, but this particular act, this particular provision, gives some great authority to the councils. I have great concerns about the manner in which some of these provisions might be carried out by some of the smaller councils, because they do not have the resources or the expertise that might be available to some of our larger municipalities.

There are some other matters that we will talk about when we come to the clause-by-clause analysis. Overall, I want to say to the minister that this particular piece of legislation is a positive piece of legislation. We need lots of in-service and the smaller municipalities will need lots of help. We can't continue to see the department washing its hands of its responsibilities to the smaller municipalities because the bigger ones will look after themselves. The smaller municipalities have to look to the minister, and have to look to the planning expertise that is there. It is no good to say to a small community of 300 people: You have a council. Now if you want to do something, you have to go out and do your own planning.

These municipalities are turning off their street lights because they can't afford to keep them on. We are saying they have to go out and hire a planner, hire a consultant, and pay the cost of the commissioner who has been appointed. In many cases it could lead to a situation where things will be done without the proper procedures being followed, not because they don't want to, and in some cases not because they don't know the difference, but because they have no choice. They can't afford it.

I am saying to the minister: Please have a look at the implications of this particular piece of legislation on the smaller units in the Province. There are 290 municipalities. There are thirty or forty that are well able to look after themselves. They don't need the minister' protection or the minister's understanding. When we talk about autonomy, and we are giving local autonomy to municipalities, please make sure that we give some resources as well. We can't let this department become purely policy setting without reaching out to the smaller municipalities and saying to them: We are there to help you. If you can't afford the expertise, we are going to help you make the right decisions.

I know the minister is listening. I know the Minister of Fisheries is certainly listening, because he knows what I am talking about when I talk about the smaller municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about downloading here. We are talking about giving autonomy. Autonomy without resources is no autonomy at all. We are simply saying that you can have the freedom to do certain things under this act if you are a municipal councillor, but if you don't give the municipalities the power, and give them help with the taxation base they have and that they need, this particular piece of legislation will lead to a lot of frustration, a lot of troubles, because not all municipalities have the resources to be able to effectively administer its provision.

During the clause-by-clause analysis, we will have a few more comments.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to say a few words on behalf of our caucus with respect to the legislation, the Urban and Rural Planning Act. This is a new act, as the minister noted, replacing the previous legislation which was due for an overhaul, and the changes that have been made to provide a greater role for the municipalities in planning their own affairs is a welcomed one - with some qualification.

We are appreciative of the changes that provide for greater local control and autonomy in certain areas. I would also like to point out that there are also new obligations on municipalities in terms of requiring consultation to take place before plans are put in place, or regulations put into place. A public consultation is required before the adoption of a development plan or development regulations. That is a pretty important provision. I know the City of St. John's has done that for some time with respect to development proposals, and they have a highly developed system of public hearings for circumstances, and they have used them, broadly speaking, in a very good way.

We do see around the Province, however, increasing obligations as a result of this act placed on municipalities, and there may well be, as a result of that, a number of municipalities who find difficulties and need a great deal more support from the department to be able to carry out their obligations under the act.

We have seen in the debate in the last couple of days, about the great authority the minister has with respect to giving orders to municipalities as to what to do in particular situations where the minister feels councils should act against the transgressor, and all sorts of broad powers being given. Here we are, giving responsibilities to municipalities. I think we have to find a balance between the level of local autonomy and local involvement that we would want to see and, the same time, some degree of control by the Province over issues of which the Province ought to have a major concern.

I can see major planning issues which at one time could not be undertaken without the full participation and approval of the department. In fact, it took a great deal of time in many cases for a plan to be approved, and often developments were held up because the department was unable to handle requests from municipalities to have a plan approved and there was a big backlog. We are now seeing responsibilities for a lot of these things being passed over to the municipalities and there is some question as to whether these municipalities have the resources, the expertise, or the ability to pay for that expertise, to conduct a lot of this activity.

I wonder whether the minister could address that when she clues up debate, as to what provisions her department is making to ensure that the resources are available to municipalities, whether extra funds to hire individuals or whether she is planning to step up support for municipalities, particularly those ones without much in the way of a tax base.

We have seen, over the last number of years, particularly since the cod moratorium, municipalities having to turn off the lights, as it were, turn of street lights, close down some of what would be considered to be basic services, and cut back because they do not have the ability to meet their obligations. We have seen, time and time again, municipalities unable to meet their obligations to service their debt. We have seen government having to step up support for municipalities in those areas, and now we are here imposing new responsibilities on municipalities.

Now, I am not saying we should not give municipalities more autonomy. What I am saying is that it is giving them a great deal of responsibility, and a responsibility for which they may well not have the kind of training they need to handle.

Big municipalities, larger towns and cities in this Province certainly have their own expertise and they are, of course, the ones with the bigger tax base to be able to hire their own dedicated planners, experts who are able to advise them to prepare these plans to deal with changes and at the same time meet their obligations to their own citizens. I don't want to see a whole series of complaints about the responsibilities that small municipalities in particular have.

The basic principles we support. We support having more direct responsibilities in determining their procedures, approving their plan, developing regulations, and amendments to that. There does need to be some oversight by the Province because we cannot have hundreds of municipalities taking a totally different approach to the planning process. There has to be a general approval process that is acceptable to the Province, because there are basic principles that are at work.

There are also, I think, in certain parts of this Province, municipalities - such as St. John's, such as Corner Brook perhaps, and other municipalities - that have special obligations because they are, in fact, the protectors of some very important provincial resources that are important to all of the people of this Province, whether they be particular historic resources, whether they be historic neighbourhoods, whether they be particular matters that are of broad provincial interest. I guess I can use one.

Some might say that the streetscapes of downtown St. John's is not a provincial resource; it is up to the city to do with what they like. They can tear down whole blocks, they can change the regulations to allow certain types of development in the middle of downtown St. John's, despite the fact that it is recognized a historic neighbourhood and historic areas. Some would say that is up to the city; let them do what they like.

I am inclined to the view that this is something that we all, as citizens of this Province, have an interest in, historic preservation.. Perhaps the way to do it is not necessarily through this act but through other types of legislation that would protect historic resources, that would provide mechanisms to ensure that historic buildings were not destroyed.

Perhaps the suggestions I made to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation of developing a historic resource or a historic building bank that would see the Province acquire buildings that might otherwise be subject to demolition or the wrecking ball, and hold them for a period of time until a proper development use has been obtained. We have seen that happen without a policy in place with respect to the King George V Institute and a recent sale has been announced by the government, subject to certain conditions being met.

I see that as a good way to recycle buildings that are of historic interest and importance without seeing the vital nature of these buildings destroyed. We have seen dangers in this city in the last number of months with respect to the Belvedere properties which are considered to be of very important historic interest. Yet, because the owners of those buildings found themselves in a position where they could no longer maintain them and wanted to sell them, the buyers wanted to demolish the building. There is no mechanism in place for this Province to ensure the protection of buildings of that importance, no mechanism either legally or financially to allow the Province to step in on behalf of all the people and ensure that this type of resource can be preserved and protected.

We do recognize the importance of buildings. We have historic designations of historic buildings, historic properties, historic sites. We don't have the level of protection, though, that should be in place to ensure the historic resources of this Province which are under the protection of municipalities today, and if those municipalities don't protect them and don't have the interest to protect them, or they may be responding to pressures from particular developers or citizens, there ought to be an overriding provincial interest and a policy developed whereby that could happen. Perhaps the Urban and Rural Planning Act is not the place to provide that protection, but nevertheless it is an important provincial interest and we ought to find a way to protect that.

We do, however, welcome the establishment of Province-wide standards and benchmarks by which the planning procedures adopted are to be judged. It also provides a streamlining of processes where that is practical and efficient; but the key to it, I suppose, is that it does permit a greater degree of local decision-making and increases the flexibility of the municipal planning system, so it is an improvement over the present system. It is something that we all need to keep a close watch on, as to how it operates, but key to the success of this new legislation will be the ability of municipalities to be able to use that process effectively. The training and level of interest and leadership at the local level obviously has to be able to rise to the occasion. Where in rural Newfoundland basic questions of survival as communities and as councils on a financial level are still being confronted each and every day, I believe that there will be great strains on some municipalities in trying to deal with this new act.

I hope that the minister has contingency plans and special plans in place to ensure that these communities, that all communities, are going to be able to make use of this new Urban and Rural Planning Act for the benefit of their citizens. I hope that this is not just another form of downloading of services that were provided by the Province up until now, that all of a sudden the municipalities themselves are going to have to provide and pay for. If that is the case, if it turns out that smaller municipalities and less well-off municipalities with a poorer tax base are going to be further burdened, then I would oppose the imposition of these further obligations on them. I hope the minister is able to say that there will be no increased financial burden on municipalities by expecting them to comply with the new Urban and Rural Planning Act.

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.

I am very pleased again to speak to the second reading and to move debate of this bill. I think there are a few issues that have been raised - one issue around the expropriation, I think it is important to note - but I will restate, because I did mention in my comments, there are no changes in the expropriation piece. This is a re-alignment from two acts into one act of expropriation procedures. It was, again, just to have a more convenient, logical approach to the whole process of expropriation.

With respect to help, it is very clear. Again, in my opening comments I was very clear that the smaller municipalities that need help can certainly avail of the help they require through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. We are very happy to offer any assistance, as we currently do now. That assistance will be there if they need it. There is a training period associated with implementation of this new bill. Again, it will be done on a regional basis in consultation with the Federation of Municipalities and the administrators, as well as my department. There is a training agreement in place since last fall whereby we undertake the training and professionalization of municipalities through this process.

In terms of any added costs, any other cost associated with this bill would be assessed and put in place at the municipality level itself. There is no cost actually being imposed by the ministry itself. Cost imposed will be put down, in fact, in events, and I will give an example. If a private developer is looking to develop land, rather than have the general taxpayers pay for that out of their taxes the municipalities would certainly have the ability to charge private developers for any costs associated with land development and the process required for land development.

Mr. Speaker, again I would say I am very happy and proud to move second reading of Bill 21, "An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In The Province."

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In The Province," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 21)

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I call Order 19, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act," Bill 22.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act." (Bill 22)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a bill that grows out of an initiative that was announced in the Budget on March 22, announcing that we would instituting a new Venture Capital Tax Credit Program in the Province for the purposes of providing an avenue of capital for local business, small entrepreneurs, who would be qualified applicants to the program once we had it set up and put in place. Because it is a new program, the venture capital structure doesn't currently exist in legislation. This bill is simply enabling legislation to allow us to put in place the fund as an avenue of accepting investments from local investors to a venture capital fund that will eventually flow back to local businesses as a source of capital for their business ventures.

Because this is a new program, this is a new initiative, which currently, as I have already said, doesn't exist. We need the legislative framework in terms of enabling legislation to allow us to proceed to develop, once we have done our consultation with the stakeholders - stakeholders being a group such as labor unions, boards of trades, chambers of commerce, independent business organization representatives, those types of stakeholders - and then we will develop the regulations that will, in effect, govern the functioning of the capital investment fund.

I simply say that the reception that was given to this announcement in the Budget by all stakeholders who would be potentially impacted by it was so positive that I am sure the hon. member on the other side of the House will understand the value of this legislation, this venture capital proposal. I am looking forward to his comments obviously, but, more importantly, his support as we move forward with this new piece of legislation to try and stimulate our economy further and create better pools of capital for investment purposes by the small business community in the Province in particular.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I rise to make a few comments on Bill 22, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act. When I first read this I had some concerns with it, no doubt about that. I made a few notes. First of all, I was wondering about the purpose of the amendment in the first place and had a brief discussion with the minister on that. As he said when he stood to introduce the legislation, it is basically in line, enabling legislation with respect to the Budget 2000 for Newfoundland. It has to do with the intent to introduce a venture capital tax credit program.

I do have some concerns with this because I would like to know - and the minister kind of touched on it - with respect to this point. He said when he has the consultation with the stakeholders he is going to come up with some regulations and what have you, which is probably the normal thing to do. I would have to question what types of businesses this piece of legislation would apply to. What amounts of money could be put into this venture capital program? I am asking exactly what the impact this will have on these companies, on the individuals. What percentages of a tax credit would be given to these individuals? Maybe some companies will want to invest in other companies or small businesses and get the tax credit, or whatever the case may be. So is there going to be limits on this, I say to the minister?

When you get into something like this - we had the EDGE program there a few years ago, and I don't really think it accomplished a lot. It got a few small paying jobs going, I suppose. I don't know if it accomplished what it set out to do. That was supposed to be the be-all and end-all at the time to get the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador going, but in actual fact it hurt some companies here, where people set up companies in competition with the existing companies and got tax credits. They actually got funds. I think it was $2,000 per job they created or something and all kinds of little bits like that.

Also here the minister says: Options include the labour sponsored venture capital tax credit program which is similar to the federal program and programs in other provinces, and the equity tax credit program which is similar to programs in places in other provinces. Again, as we have often seen in this House, in this Province, we see actions taken based on what had happened in other provinces. Sometimes they don't turn out to best actions, I say to you. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador oftentimes lose because we try to follow other provinces. This situation here, obviously, I don't know if we are leading the country here, but it certainly seems that we may be following some provinces. Maybe it has worked, and hopefully it has, and that is what they are basing it on. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we always follow what other provinces do.

He says he is going to be in consultation with the stakeholders in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully, that is a good thing if they are listened to him and the advice they give to the Minister of Finance and to the government is listened to. Oftentimes the people -

MR. TULK: Always.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes. It would be the first time, I say to the Government House Leader.

A prime example is just before the Budget came down, in the winter. Two or three weeks before the Budget comes down the minister is going to have these public forums and have the people come forward and tell him what they want to do. If he believes anybody in the Province would actually think that when they are going to go, a week before the Budget, to a public forum and tell the minister what they feel should go in the Budget, and that gets in the Budget, I would say they have another think coming to them. Because it is a done deal then.

Here is another point. I think they are intending that this, if they get it off the ground soon enough, will be effective for this current year, the year 2000, I say to the minister, and he can address that. So basically, this legislation is going to be retroactive again to January 2000, I would think, if it is going -

MR. MATTHEWS: It will be April 1.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, April 1, the fiscal year. Would you do it that way? Because it has implications for businesses who have their year end, of course, on December 31.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) year end (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: It varies. There is no doubt about that.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. Well, maybe, that could be. That would not be bad then if it goes through the House today. If this piece of legislation gets through the House today it would have to have second reading, I say to the Government House Leader. It would have to have third reading and Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: This legislation we are doing here today, second reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Normally you can only do two steps on a given day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, if you have second reading, Committee, and third reading. You can by leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: You can go second (inaudible), Committee into third reading (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: So, can you go second, Committee and third?

MR. TULK: You cannot go first, second (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot go second and third. (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: By leave. (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, you (inaudible).

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will continue on here now. I have the floor.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What?

MR. TULK: I am glad you asked (inaudible) procedure (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No. All I (inaudible) go on here and say, Mr. Speaker, that again, as I said earlier, if this legislation goes through it is supposed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I can read anyway at all, I say to the minister. When I'm reading I do not need to have a lot of pictures like yourself in the book.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, that is right. I am serious on this piece of legislation. It is a brief, Mr. Speaker, piece of legislation but it has a lot of implications for a lot of people and companies and businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If in fact we can take the minister at his word, and I do, it is enabling legislation. It is just a further step from the Budget 2000 to put a program in place, a venture capital fund in place, which will hopefully enable people to invest money in enterprises, in local businesses and small companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. They will get tax credits for that and it will be a fund. I hope it does more than the Newfoundland Government fund with respect to the immigrant investment that we had going here a couple of years ago. The Auditor General found all kinds of problems with that. So hopefully when and if this gets of the ground it will be something that is positive for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that I am just going to sit down and say thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise now to participate in the debate on An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act. The provision before us, without the explanation of the minister, really talks about giving a tax credit to a person, an eligible investor, and it seems to me that it is very open-ended, allowing the minister to give tax credits to a person who applied for a non-refundable tax credit.

I support the notion of labour sponsored venture capital funds. It is something that we see in a number of other provinces, and perhaps other types of venture capital funds where tax credits would apply. I would just ask the minister if he is in a position to advise the House as to whether this is the way it has been done in other provinces, or have they brought in legislation that said: We would, under certain circumstances, support particular types of venture capital funds? We are talking here about persons, for example, an eligible investor applying to the minister. When these things are done they are clearly done by - at the end of the day, surely someone just fills out an income tax return and it goes off to Ottawa and eventually the whole system works down. If you have a tax credit on your income tax form, it is all done by Ottawa and the balance of the revenue goes back to the province involved, the Province of Newfoundland.

In those circumstances, what are we talking about in terms of an application to the minister? I do not understand why this particular type of enabling legislation would be used. It does not appear to be directed at the kind of funds they are talking about. They are talking about eligible corporations, they are talking about persons getting tax credits. It seems to me that the legislation is awfully unfocused if what we are really talking about is methodologies of providing support for venture capital funds. I wonder if the minister can explain why it is this particular form has been chosen. Because it seems we are being asked to give a far broader level of authority to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and the minister with respect to that. Maybe the minister can clarify that when he closes the debate.

With respect to tax credits generally, one of the things that has been commented on recently by economic analysts and tax analysts and those who are watching what government has been doing, both provincially and federally, is the great deal of expenditures that actually occur by government. I think they call them tax expenditures. We have a budget, and the budget comes before the House. We say: The government is going to spend x billion dollars from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, $5 million is going to be spent on this, $16 million is going to be spent on roads, et cetera. There is a whole raft of so-called hidden expenditures that the Auditor General of Canada has called tax expenditures, that a proper economic analysis of what governments are doing in terms of collecting and spending revenues called tax expenditures.

In fact, it has been estimated - this is a startling figure - on the national level, for example, that there is about $90 billion annually of tax expenditures that are in the form of tax credits of one sort or another, tax deferrals, most of the money going to corporations, but obviously many to individuals who get political tax credits. Child tax credit is another form that has been introduced recently. All of these things together make up the policy decisions of the government as to who to collect revenue from and who not to, who to pay out money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to and who not to. All of them lumped together amount to tax expenditures.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on that in terms - the venture capital funds would be another form of tax exemption. How does the minister propose to cost this sort of thing as to how much foregone revenue would be considered by him to be reasonable in pursuing this? If we are going to amend the Income Tax Act in this session of the House, some time between now and the next budget the government may be ready to put into effect the provisions of the venture capital funds. It was announced in the Budget Speech; it may have been announced in the Throne Speech, I don't know.

The minister is asking to be given authority to set up a regime that is going to cost the taxpayers money. One way or another it is going to cost the taxpayers money. It will cost the taxpayers money in foregone revenue because money that would otherwise be paid to taxes to this Province would be, as a result of this, foregone revenue. I want to ask the minister: Maybe give a mini-budget speech this afternoon. How much revenue does he plan to forego? Nobody else is listening except me and him so we could have a private budget speech. The minister can tell me, and tell Hansard, what expenditure the minister proposes to make under this particular item this year in terms of foregone revenue as a result of tax expenditures that will be enabled by this bill.

We don't really have a very good way of reporting on the cost of tax expenditures: the cost of the EDGE program, for example, the cost of making tax incentives for businesses to develop. What kind of expenditures are we talking about when we give special exemptions? Here it is being done for a reason, and the public policy reason is one that I support. We can see how certain types of venture capital funds can meet a need for equity in the development of businesses in this Province. I suppose it is a way of allowing someone other than government to pick the winners and losers. That is the way they talk about it in economic terms. The people can make their own choices as to which funds they might support, and those funds - make decisions about things and suffer the consequences amongst their shareholders, losing investors or not, as the case may be. I don't disagree with the concept, provided its cost to the taxpayer in terms of foregone revenue is not extensive. Perhaps the minister, when he closes debate, can comment on that particular issue.

Let me go on a bit further about the notion of labour-sponsored venture capital funds. That is one of the ones that was mentioned as existing in other provinces. We do have a number of funds. There is the solidarity fund, I think my colleague from Labrador West referred to as one of the labour-sponsored venture capital funds. Other provinces have - the First Canadian Fund is another one.

AN HON. MEMBER: The First Ontario Fund.

MR. HARRIS: The First Ontario Fund. Labour-sponsored venture capital funds which the labour movement has endorsed, participate in and make available to their members, and some of them have been highly successful in terms of making capital available for ventures and activities in other provinces - not very much here. One or two of the labour-sponsored venture capital funds have engaged in activities here. I know working venture funds that have invested in a couple of businesses but it is an area that has been explored by other provinces but not been explored very much here. The labour movement itself has had Province-wide conferences where they brought in experts to talk about this, trading on the experiences of other provinces.

My learned colleague is becoming more and more learned as he reads. He just advised me of a Province-wide conference that was held where participants from these funds, from across the country, have spoken as to their benefits and also some of the pitfalls that provinces ought to be concerned about.

I hope, when the minister goes about developing further this idea of funds, that there will be a broad consultation with members of this House and perhaps public consultation as well. Certainly it would be advantageous to hear from people as to what they might like to see in terms of the development of this type of support for investment activity in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

On the same vein, this is a subject that I have spoken about a number of times in this House. We do have quite a lot of collective savings in the form of pension plans in this Province. We have the consolidated pension fund, we have the teachers' pension fund, we have the Memorial University of Newfoundland pension fund, and we have a number of other pension funds that invest according to trustee rules that normally restrict them pretty strongly the type of investments that they have. We will find, if we do an analysis and examination, that much of the money, probably most, I don't know what the percentage would be but I venture to say that it was a very high percentage, probably in the eighties or 90 per cent of these funds - aside from the government bond side of it, or municipal bond side of it - would be invested outside of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; much of it invested in the equity markets of Canada and the United States, international equity markets, and very little of it invested in this Province. Very little of our savings in our pension funds - and there are billions of dollars at stake here, ultimately - are invested in these pension funds, which we need to have. We have to have stability. We have to ensure that when the time comes to pay out pensions we have the money there. We haven't done a very good job of that as a public - government hasn't done a very good job of that in the last number of years and pensioners are paying the price for that, but we do have to look at this very huge pool of capital that is generated by the pension funds and by the pension plans of workers in this Province. We have to find ways, as a Province, of ensuring that some of this money, that a proportion of this money, is invested right here in Newfoundland and Labrador to produce and develop businesses, to develop economic activity, to pursue economy activity that is going to have long-term economic benefits for this Province.

Quite often there is an unavailability of capital to pursue projects that are legitimate projects. I am not talking about high-risk projects, but legitimate projects that deserve to be considered but they are not considered because the capital pools available in this Province are too small to contemplate these projects.

I would like to see the day when the Government House Leader will follow up on the notion that he suggested some time ago, that he was very interested in this idea of seeing some of our pooled pension funds and savings of this Province being used to develop economic activity in this Province.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) do it this summer.

MR. HARRIS: He is going to do it this summer. Well, I am going to hold him to that.

MR. TULK: That is the purpose of this piece of legislation.

MR. HARRIS: I am going to put that on the record now, that this summer will see something in the nature of pension funds in this Province, maybe RRSPs or through (inaudible) funds. I hope the minister will join in the debate today and outline some of his plans. I hope he outlines some of his plans, because there is not enough public consultation in this Province about how to do these sorts of things.

We see in Quebec, that government, the Government of Quebec, playing a very strong role in ensuring that investment capital is available for ventures that take place in the Province of Quebec and we see, as a result, quite a bit of patriotic, shall I say, investment that ensures that capital is available for investment within the Province of Quebec. We don't have enough of that here in this Province.

There are very large capital pools in our pension funds which are actually savings, deferred earnings of workers that are deferred until their retirement years, matched, in most cases, by their employer, and we would like to see ways that this capital can be used to enhance the ability of enterprises in this Province.

I say enterprises because some of them are public, some of them are non-profit, some of them are private, that need capital in order to finance their activities. I would like to see the day when we have a very well-established and sophisticated system whereby the savings of our workers and employees are able to be used to enhance the ability of our Province, of our people, to support economic activity, to make a return on that investment, to keep stable pension funds, to provide income from these funds so that they are available to ensure and enhance the ability of people who live in their retirement, but at the same time see that a goodly portion of the capital that is available, and savings of people is available to be used within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

With those qualifications, with those concerns, I say, too, that we don't have a full explanation from the minister as to what this might cost the taxpayer in terms of foregone revenue.... We have no explanation as to what the Government House Leader is talking about. He wants to have enabling legislation now so that some time this summer he will make this grand announcement without any consultation with the people of this Province and pat himself on the back.

I would submit that whatever plans government has would be better enhanced, be more fruitful and perhaps more acceptable, if they involved the people of this Province and the people of this House in greater consultation before they take place.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks on second reading and say we will support the principle of this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER (Walsh):Order, please!

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The comments made by the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, the critic for finance, have been noted. The comments that have been made with respect to this proposed new legislation by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi have been noted. As I said in my introductory remarks, the parameters of the bill in terms of who and how people qualify, the extent to which group of business entrepreneurs eligibility will be made available, will all be developed and made by way of announcement after we do our consultations with the various stakeholders.

The cost to the Treasury is a good point. It is intended to be at a maximum of $1 million in terms of foregone revenues on behalf of the Province. As a matter of fact, if you look in the bill, the bill indicates that it is the intention of government to ensure that foregone revenues or the cost of the Treasury will not exceed $1 million.

It is our intention, in introducing the legislation now, to be in a position to move ahead with the creation of this fund which is tied very closely to the work being done in the department of rural renewal and revitalization before the Legislature sits again so as not to lose this season or this year in getting it up and running.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments and questions. They have all been noted in Hansard and I have heard them. I move second reading of the bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole of the House presently, by leave. (Bill 22)

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,.

Order 20, Bill 24, "An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services." (Bill 24)

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

MR. McLEAN: If we allow these guys to go under, we won't.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, when you are ready. Your mike is live.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to introduce second reading of a new bill, Bill 24, An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services. This will be the first time in this Province that we have been able to deal with the issue of prepaid funerals.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot more people in the Province today who are getting into the process of purchasing their funeral services prior to getting sick or being close to death, so there is a need for us to take some action to ensure that the monies invested by these individuals is secure.

Presently, I believe there is a feeling out among the people who put money into prepaid funerals that their money is in secure hands. I have to say right now that these people have no sense of protection other than the protection of the funeral homes themselves. That is the purpose of this new bill. It is a totally new bill. It is made up of eighteen sections.

We have had extensive consultations with the stakeholders. We know that at the end of the day we are not going to satisfy everybody out there, but we have had numerous consultations, numerous meeting, both with the stakeholders in terms of the funeral homes, but we have also gone to the groups that are most likely to take advantage of this kind of a process and those are the senior groups, the Consumers Group of Canada and a number of others.

Mr. Speaker, when we get into Committee stage I understand there are going to be some questions. I certainly accept that and we will have a debate on that. Let me say that this bill, we believe, is a very good piece of legislation that will give us a full grip and a full handle on the issue of prepaid funerals and prepaid money for funerals in this Province.

I would just like to say that, as a minister, I have not put any legislation forward to this House for approval unless we have gone to the stakeholders, and we have included every group that is involved and every group that has a part to play in this. We started about two or three years ago, meeting with the association of funeral directors and also with others in the industry that are not a part of the association, because the association of funeral directors represents about 80 per cent of the businesses out there. W went out and dealt with the other groups that are not part of this association, as well. As late as a month ago we did a phone survey to all of the funeral homes out there to get some understanding of where they are with the issue of the monies that they have already collected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: No, for prepaid funerals.

We talked to about forty-one of the forty-eight operators in the Province who have indicated to us that they have most of the money that they require in separate accounts or trust accounts that they have collected from these people, in trust accounts at this time, so we don't foresee any huge problem in being able to incorporate this legislation and allow all the funeral parlors and the funeral homes out there to operate efficiently.

There are a number of extenuating circumstances and that is why we have taken note in this legislation and added just a few other sections so that we can deal with circumstances out there that will arise that are over and above the norm. We have put a section in there that will take care of that particular piece.

Now, in terms of the legislation itself, we are looking to -

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Well, I would say to the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, right now the industry tells us that there could be up to $30 million to $40 million that people have paid to funeral parlors on prepaid funerals, and right now there is no protection for those people, none whatsoever. If a business went bankrupt, there is no security for the money that has already been paid for this particular service. The only protection out there at this point is that the funeral parlors get together and consume the loss that a particular business might have absorbed when they go out of business, so there is a great need out there to have this put in place.

We have had consultations, as I said earlier, with many groups out there, all the stakeholders that are involved. We understand there are some concerns, and there always will be when you put legislation in place, especially new legislation.

I guess the main purpose of the bill is to protect the consumer. Our main purpose in this particular department is always to protect the consumer. With that in mind is why we have brought this bill forward. We believe that it is very important that we get this bill through so that we can start the process of requiring the funeral homes to identify all of the money that they have in trust belonging to all other people who have paid for funerals that will come in the next number of years. We will get into the particulars of the bill when we get into Committee stage and debate the particular sections.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. McLEAN: Always.

Mr. Speaker, right now the bill will enable government to license these funeral homes to deal with prepaid funerals and we will also be able to regulate the way that the funeral homes do business in terms of the prepaid funerals. We believe that the whole issue of prepaid funerals is a very important one for the people who put their money in these particular homes. We believe that there has to be some sense of security for these people to ensure that the money is there when they actually pass away and the services are required. Right now we have to trust the business and the industry itself to ensure that these things are well looked after.

There are no rules out there now for prepaid funerals. Presently, the industry operates on its own. There are no set rules for the way that they deal with the money that they collect from all of the people who pay for prepaid funerals.

There has been some discussion of the fact that we are doing a retroactive piece of legislation. This legislation is not retroactive. All the legislation is requiring is that monies paid to the funeral homes prior to the legislation going in place will be given a five-year period in which to ensure that the money that they require to have in trust will be put in trust. It is not retroactive. It is just the fact that we will be requesting that all of the monies that they have collected to date for pre-paid funerals to be put in trust in a five-year period. If there is still an extenuating circumstance, we have a clause in there that will allow the minister to deal with those extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is legislation that the industry themselves have asked for, for a number of years. Going through all of the files that we have been dealing with, back as far as the early 1980s, the industry was in trying to get government to set up rules by which the homes could operate and collect prepaid funerals and then there would be some actual regulation to what they were able to do and not do.

The funeral directors and embalmers association is very much in favor of this legislation and they deem it as an important piece of legislation so that they can suitably do their business. They would also be protected, along with the consumer, in this particular piece of legislation.

There are a number of issues that I will deal with when we hit Committee. I will conclude my remarks now on this particular bill. It is a very important bill and we believe this bill should be enacted as soon as possible to ensure that we deal with the people's public monies in the appropriate fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few brief comments with respect to Bill 24, An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services. I understand that there are going to be a couple of changes and an amendment with respect to some concerns that were expressed earlier and, I believe, communicated to the minister that will be dealt with at the Committee stage; however, I think it is important to indicate for the record as well that the chairperson of the prepaid funeral legislation committee of the Newfoundland and Labrador Funeral Services Association did, in fact, have some concerns which certainly, from my understanding, were expressed to the minister and his officials in the recent past. I believe it is important -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes, and it had to do specifically, other than the few minor issues, which I understand will be addressed by way of amendment later on in the proceedings, but section 17, in particular, raised some concerns dealing with the whole concept and aspect of retroactivity. It was interesting to note that the chair of this prepaid funeral legislation committee stated specifically that the inability of just one funeral home to comply with the proposed aspect of retroactivity could cause the industry and the current pre-arranged or prepaid product irreparable damage. He goes on to state, in raising his concerns, that furthermore it could create concerns for those clients who have prepaid, many of whom are senior citizens.

I guess the issue that is being raised by the chair of the committee, I say to the minister, is that if an issue were raised, or if an issue became public, that, in and of itself, could create, unnecessarily, some difficulty for those citizens, many of whom are senior citizens.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. The point I make is that these are the concerns, I say to the minister, that are being expressed by the very committee, the legislation committee that has been put in place to work with the minister in trying to finalize this legislation.

The other point that the chair of this committee has raised is that, with the retroactive legislation in effect, it is double protection because of the fact that the concept of retroactivity deals with the five-year period previous to.

In addition, there is a point made by the same individual, the Chair of this Committee, that to the best of their information and to the best of their knowledge, since the introduction of the prearranged or prepaid funeral services every prepaid funeral service in the Province has been honored by the membership. I believe it is important that these particular concerns be expressed. They are the genuine and legitimate concerns of the Chair of the Committee, the Committee that has been struck to work with government leading to the legislation. So it is important that these particular concerns be placed on the record, dealing specifically, as the minister has indicated, with the concept of retroactivity pursuant to section 17 of the act.

As I indicated earlier, the other minor points are going to be addressed by way of amendment. The one in particular, I believe, which is very important is found in the definition of funeral service, which is found on page 4 of the proposed bill. I understand that the reference in clause 2(i)(ii), "excluding cemetery services," is going to be dealt with by way of amendment in due course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few particular points. I am not going to cover the same ground that my colleague covered. I did raise a couple of concerns here and I just want to indicate them. One of the things that came to mind was this. Is there a right of appeal? If somebody is not content or has to take issue with that they would go to the courts, and that could be an expensive process. That is one of the points I raised as a particular concern, and I am sure the minister in Committee could respond to that. I won't belabour that point. As my colleague said, I have prepared an amendment that I will move in Committee regarding "excluding cemetery services."

I feel if someone wants to prepay for a funeral, and they want to pay it lock, stock, and barrel to look after their remains forever, basically, they don't necessarily want to have their children or future generations paying for a upkeep of a cemetery or plot. They would like to include all that in the package and parcel, so by eliminating this and deleting that section it allows them to do that. It doesn't prevent them from doing otherwise, but at least it gives the provision. Some people already do that. From my experiences in speaking with some people there, that is already done and a service provide by some. In other areas the families - I know in a lot of rural areas - sort of look after that, and do the upkeep. There are not charges as you would find in more urban parts of the Province. That is certainly a particular concern.

I guess people don't want their children, or whoever may be their beneficiaries, to be burdened with that. That is the purpose, really, behind a prepaid funeral, that they would take care and look after all those costs. From speaking with the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: In Committee. I will give the minister a copy in advance too. When we get to Committee, I will move that.

I had another particular question with reference to page 7. That particular question was connected to clause 5(6), which says: "Money in the assurance fund shall be invested in investments authorized by the Trustee Act." It is the understanding that there would be an amendment to the Trustee Act to allow for the prudent investor rule provision there. I am sure the minister can comment on that particular one. I understand that would be beneficial there, and the minister has indicated he will address that. I will certainly await the minister's response there.

Other than that, the act basically sets down definitions, it looks at the licencing, it looks at withdrawing a licence under the conditions on the compliance factor. The rest of it is pretty standard in terms of what anybody is licenced to do. I'm sure the fees that are established will be appropriate primarily on dealing with the administration as indicated here. There is already a tax on death, I say to the minister. The HST is a tax on death. You never had to pay a tax when you died before. I guess you only die once, I suppose, unless you are a far greater power than us. There is a tax on funerals.

There is one interesting point on that. A question struck me. There is a tax on funerals and we will get to that. If you prepay a funeral cost - let's say you want to prepay $10,000 - there is 15 per cent tax on that. That is $1,500. It is my understanding - the minister can clarify it - that that tax is collected at the point when it is received by the person who is licenced to collect that - or not licenced now, whatever the case may be - for the funeral service. It is not paid to government when the service is rendered, it is paid up front. So these people do not get to enter the taxation part into a trust. It is just the principal amount, and the government will collect taxes. Look at all the money on this $40 million out there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and a fair amount. That would come to government now basically. If there is $40 million out there, they are going to get 15 per cent. That is $6 million they would collect right up front now in HST, even though the service may not be rendered for thirty years. That is money the government has at its disposal now. That is my understanding because of the way the system works. Maybe the minister or the Minister of Finance when he gets up to give his dissertation can tell us something on that. My understanding is that it is collected up front.

That is a point I thought about. That is a lot of money, several million dollars now that the Province has before the service is rendered. Someone who pays the fee in the year 2000 dies in the year 2030, and the government has that 15 per cent - it could be $1,500 in some cases - for thirty years. That can generate a lot of money and a lot of wealth to the Province here in taxation. I might add that tax is overtaxed. Not only is there a tax you pay on dying, you pay a tax basically and they get the interest on that tax for probably thirty years, if they live.

Normally at a point of sale of a good into a store, you pay HST and the people get that good. They do not pay it up front, they pay it at the point of retail sale now. We dealt with GST and input tax credits and all that, that allowed people to write the differences between what they sold and purchased and so on, but under this case it is up front I understand, a lump sum. If you get a $10,000 cheque, the person has to pay $1,500 and that goes right into the coffers. It is supposed to go right into the coffers of the Province.

Those are just a couple of points and I will not belabour it any more. When I get to Committee on that I have an amendment to move there under clause 2 dealing with definitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just going to take a few minutes of the time of the House to comment on this piece of legislation which I believe is beneficial legislation to the people of this Province. There is a habit, I suppose, or a practice in this Province of people, particularly senior citizens, carrying a hold on what they call their burying money. They keep their burying money because that is the one last piece of dignity they want to preserve in their life. It is something I remember hearing about as a young fellow and wondering very curiously what that was all about.

As you grow older and as you recognize our own mortality and the kind of striving people have had to look after their own lives with dignity - and we have had throughout history societies developed in England and in this country and this Province where, in fact, people pay into - in England it is a practice to pay weekly into a burial society, perhaps in your neighbourhood or in your community, where you pay a certain amount of money per week into a organization which looks after your burial when you die. So this is a very important function in people's lives to ensure that they are buried with dignity and given a decent burial. I think that is the term being used by people.

It is very important to the psyche of us as human beings, as part of our culture and our expectation and our habit, to ensure we have a decent burial at the time of our deaths. I guess it is the last important ceremony we will all attend, or at least our bodies will attend. I think most people want to ensure that that ceremony is one which is delivered with dignity, concern and respect, and whatever else may happen in terms of other people paying their respects, that they are given the proper physical care and attention to their last remains.

With that in mind, I find it appalling that some people have taken people's burying money, as it were, or taken money from them and assured them by contract that they will provide for them a particular type of burial, a burial that the person has chosen and has asked someone to undertake.

We have seen in this Province and in other provinces accusations that burying money taken for prepaid funerals has been either absconded with or lost or even - and I think that this bill is aimed to prevent that or prevent it happening in future - using it for cash flow. I don't think that people who prepay a funeral want to see their money used as the cash flow of a business providing funeral services. I think it is not in keeping with their expectations. Not only that, it is not in keeping with their high level of concern and the trust that they place in a funeral business to look after that money.

I think that this legislation is highly appropriate, that it is important. It is more important than many people might think that we provide this protection to people, because it is very close to their heart and soul as their final request in terms of how their remains are to be dealt with. When you ask someone why they keep their money aside for their burials, it is because they don't want to be a burden on their relatives. They don't want to be a burden on anyone else. In a way, that statement is filled with a certain amount of pathos. People who have worked hard all their lives, who have strived to look after themselves and their families, their last request is that they maintain their independence, that they not be a burden on their relatives, that they not be a burden on someone else when they die.

So they look after their burying money. They look after a certain amount of money. In fact, our own laws recognize that in terms of social assistance and social services you are allowed to keep a certain amount of capital as savings so as not to be drawn against for the purposes of income support. You are allowed to collect income support or social assistance even though you might have $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 set aside to look after your burial.

This is important legislation. I think the minister is doing a great service to the people of the Province in bringing this legislation in. I think it is appropriate as well that provision be made to recoup in to trust funds monies that have already been paid into funeral homes and funeral services. It is appropriate to take that out of wherever it is, whether it is in cash flow, whether it is in buildings or equity in buildings, whether it is in expansions that may have been undertaken, or wherever it is. That organization has a responsibility to replace that money and have it in trust. The minister has adopted an appropriate plan I believe to recoup that over a period of time. Obviously to demand it all at once might be a big burden but I think that measure, combined with the assurance fund, should ensure, if it all works, that no person or family find themselves in a circumstance where their death ensues and the company, the organization or the funeral home that has taken money up front, and promised in return a decent burial at the express wishes and at the express cost and payment of a citizen - that no one should be denied that. Because that is a matter of very significant importance to people in this Province. I think that the minister is doing people a service by having this measure brought into this House today.

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

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

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will certainly take the comments that have been provided from across the floor. I will deal with those issues when we get to Committee stage and I will certainly accept the amendment that is proposed as well.

Let me just say in closing debate on second reading that the regulations that will be developed pertaining to this particular act will be done over the summer months, and they will be done in consultation with the association, with the stakeholders and with the consumer groups as well. The regulations will be done in the same manner and process that we have done the legislation, which we believe is the right and appropriate way to do it.

Just in conclusion, we believe that this is a very good piece of legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has said. That is why we want to get this legislation enacted now so that we can get on with it and start protecting the people's funding and money that they provided for the service that will come at the end of their days.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to close debate on second reading of this particular bill.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before calling second reading on the next bill, I would like to call first reading on Motion 3, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," Bill 25.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," carried. (Bill 25).

On motion, Bill 25 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have that bill distributed.

We will move on to Order 21, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2," Bill 23.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2." (Bill 23)

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 on Bill 23. Unlike the act that it replaced, this bill provided discretionary authority for municipal councils to require their members, as well as their senior employees, to file disclosure statements under the Municipalities Act 1999 which came into effect this January, which makes the filing of municipal statements mandatory.

The current provisions of the act stipulate that these statements must contain the following: a list of real property owned by the councillor or employee within the municipality and the percentage of ownership; a listing of corporate shares owned by the councillor or employee outlining the name of the corporation and the number of shares of each; a list of businesses owned by the councillor or employee within the municipality and the percentage of ownership; and also, additional information that the council may prescribe. The current provisions also require that these statements filed by councillors are to made available for public inspection upon request.

No significant concerns were raised by the municipalities with these disclosure requirements during the consultation process until the act was finalized at which point, I understand, the NLFM brought to its convention last November a resolution asking for a change in this particular piece of the Municipalities Act. This emergency resolution was adopted requesting changes to the act in this regard. These concerns were also raised by councillors individually as well as municipal administrators who participated in the information sessions that were held around the Province prior to the enactment on January 1.

As members will remember, this bill was introduced into the House last June. In response to these concerns government, in consultation with the Federation as well as the administrators association, reviewed the provisions of the act around this issue. As a result of this review, all three parties agreed that the current requirements of the act are much too intrusive and require the disclosure of considerably more detailed information than is necessary to ensure that the public interest is protected. Government, the Federation and the administrators are satisfied that these changes outlined in the bill address the concerns that have been raised without jeopardizing the primary objectives of disclosure.

The bill limits the content of disclosure - and this is the body of the change - to: a list of the real property and businesses owned by a councillor or employee within a municipality, a list of the corporations within the municipality in which a councillor or employee holds 10 per cent or more, which is similar and in line with Members of this House of Assembly - 10 per cent or more of the shares - and also a list of the partnerships and sole proprietorships in which a councillor or employee holds a 10 per cent interest or more.

Additionally, and this is very important to municipalities, the bill also removes the requirement for councillor statements to be made available for public inspection and it replaces it with the requirement that, once all the required statements are filed, they are to be reviewed in a privileged meeting of the council by the councillors and by the employees who are required to file the statement.

This form of disclosure, together with other provisions of the act respecting conflict of interest, should ensure adherence to the conflict of interest requirements becoming a self-policing exercise for each council, and the limit and scope of what is required, I think I have already alluded to in my list -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Sure, you can speak to the question afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, I put this act forward in second reading and I would be happy to answer any questions.

MR. SPEAKER(Snow): The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We on this side support the general principles outlined in this piece of legislation. I know that the current provisions of the act, like the minister said, caused some concern with the councillors, the mayors, the clerks and other officials, in that it was rather intrusive.

The only suggestion I have for the minister, if she is listening - and I am sure that if she is not, she should be - is that when this is all discussed at a privileged meeting, in the House of Assembly, I draw to the minister's attention, the commissioner responsible for conflict of interest will each year table in the House a report saying that he has reviewed the conflict of interest of statements and that he finds them either acceptable or with certain conditions attached to them.

In the case we have now, if these statements are to be reviewed at a privileged meeting of the council, and I don't have any great difficulty with that, expect there should be a requirement that the clerk at a public meeting make a statement to the effect that the clerk has reviewed the conflict of interest and that he certifies to the public that he is carrying out his or her job. There needs to be some way in which the public is assured that the process has been completed.

Under the present amendments, there is no guarantee that the public is assured that the clerk or the manager responsible has indeed carried out the job that is supposed to be done, because the privileged minutes of council are indeed privileged. So, if we are going to have some kind of transparency then we need to have - I don't have any objections to doing this in a privileged meeting, but somewhere along the line we have to have a provision in that says that the clerk will certify in the public meeting of council that he or she has reviewed the conflict of interest statements and that he or she is satisfied that the appropriate notations are known to the members of council. At the moment, that is not there.

With that suggestion, Madam Minister, I would suggest that we take it under advisement because that would certainly make sure that there is a public statement certifying that the laws of this Province have been adhered to at the municipal level.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I had only intended to ask the minister a question, but since I have to make a speech I might as well make one.

The provision here that was introduced, or legislation distributed yesterday, deals with the provisions for disclosure by municipal and city councillors throughout the Province of potential conflicts. I noted, when the minister read out her list, she read out the list of requirements for disclosure. I asked her, across the House, what about sources of income from municipal enterprises?

We have real property. Well, certainly a person can have a conflict of interest if there is real property that they own that is going to be affected by a decision of council. If they are a corporation in which they hold 10 per cent or more shares, or a partnership that is similarly 10 per cent or more, or a business owned by that person, but there is another whole category which I would term - or you could be an employee of a corporation. You would have a source of income. You could receive an income as a consultant from a particular corporation within the city as a regular source of income, similarly giving rise to a conflict of interest. I wonder why it is that that is left out? It is certainly part of the disclosure requirements of members of this House, not only to disclose their property and their holdings or their employment and that of their spouses but also their sources of income, regardless of whether they have anything to do with their duties. I wonder why it is that the government has seen to leave out sources of income as a requirement for the disclosure statement.

I did hear the minister mention the words, additional information as requested by Council. I don't see that in the legislation and I wonder what the minister was referring to when she made that statement. Given that, and the fact that we have only had this legislation before us for twenty-four hours or so, I wonder whether it is appropriate to go ahead and pass this legislation today without answers to these questions, or further clarification from the minister or departmental officials.

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.

The list, I think, is clear in terms of what a councillor or employee would have to stipulate in their statements. In the case of a public statement, I think the issue is that the whole reason for the disclosure is that council themselves can feel that the particular council would not be in a conflict of interest and would not in any way be jeopardizing his or her position in decision-making by making those statements. Those statements would not be open to the public, but certainly it would be incumbent upon the staff and the council to ensure that there was no conflict of interest. In fact, while it is not written in that they make a public statement, they are certainly under obligation to ensure that in the filing of these statements there is no conflict and that these people have acted in good faith.

In terms of salaries or income from other sources, again I think that is clear in terms of, if there is an interest of 10 per cent or greater in a particular investment, that would have to be named. If, in fact, there is any said conflict of interest, that would also have to be named in the statement. The businesses and any part ownership greater than 10 per cent would have to be declared but salary itself would not have to be declared unless the salary was being obtained from a source in the community which the councillor owned 10 per cent or more interest in and which may serve to, at some point in time, be a conflict of interest.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, the minister refers to a salary from a business in which they might have a 10 per cent interest. What about an income from a business that they have no interest in but they are merely either receiving it as a source of income or as a salary, a position with a business that they have no interest in but yet could have a municipal effect? Surely there is a conflict if you are employed by or have a major source of income from a particular enterprise that operates in a municipality. It might not have to do with ownership, but a source of income can provide a conflict when the source of income is from a person - it could be a manager. It could be the manager, you could be a significant player in a company that you would have no interest in whatsoever, but has matters before council. What the minister seems to be saying is that there is no requirement to disclose that unless you have 10 per cent or more interest in the business from which that source of income comes. I wonder is that what the minister is trying to say.

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the list that is there, there is also subsection (d) which identifies additional information that the council may prescribe. Again, I think it is important to note that this whole provision that we are putting forward originally outlined ownership outside the municipality and it was agreed, I think, by the Federation as well as others - colleagues of mine - that in fact limiting it to the municipality is certainly prescribing enough in terms of an onerous responsibility. So the council may, themselves, request additional information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have a subsection (d) here.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not there.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: It is not here? Okay, just give me a minute now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, that was in the old act. Let me do it at Committee and I will come back to that.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 23)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 25, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act."

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." (Bill 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to belabour the points in this bill much except to say that some of the language that we see in laws governing the Internal Economy Commission Act dates back to responsible government days. What this bill clearly does is set out the duties of the IEC and the kind of duties that the IEC should carry out. They are more clearly defined in this bill. I would ask my colleagues to quickly move on passing the bill.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few brief comments because it is pretty straightforward and pretty routine. It does include that the accounts here shall be audited annually. I think as members of the House we have no problems with being subject to an annual audit here, and as elected representatives I guess we should be accountable there. We certainly endorse that increased accountability of Members of the House of Assembly, and we support that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say a few words on this piece of legislation before the House. It does two things. It first of all changes the old system where, I believe, the Clerk had to have his own bank account to look after the money. Or the ‘clark,' as used to be said by previous Government House Leaders. The ‘clark' used to have to tot up his accounts from day-to-day. I am sure that has been a burden on the ‘clark' and I am sure that people who handle the Consolidated Revenue Fund can equally well handle the accounts of this House as they have been handling all the other funds.

I think it is symbolic in a way that the funds of this House were looked after by this House, that whatever was voted for the House was looked after internally by the House of Assembly, and that was recognized by the provision that had the Clerk physically handle the funds of the House. That is obviously being changed to bring it into line with the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the normal handling of accounts by government, with provisions to ensure that the Internal Economy Commission and the House retains its autonomy.

Similarly, we have a new provision which requires an annual audit of the accounts of the House of Assembly which I think is appropriate; that there be accountability through an annual audit. We are satisfied to support this bill and that the Internal Economy Commission should ensure that this annual audit is done, and that the auditor be appointed by the Commission as is provided for in the legislation.

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

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 25)

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

MR. TULK: I move that the House resolve itself to the Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment," Bill 12.

CHAIR: Bill 12.

On motion, clauses 16 through 47 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, Bill 21, "An Act To Consolidate And Revise The Law With Respect To Urban And Rural Planning In the Province."

CHAIR: Bill 21.

On motion, clauses 1 through 115 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act," Bill 22.

CHAIR: Bill 22.

On motion, clauses 1 through 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, "An Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services." (Bill 24)

CHAIR: Bill 24, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

You have an amendment, I think, do you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess we are on the title. I just have one particular question here at this point. I have a couple of others on another clause, when we get to it - one amendment, a brief one.

With reference to - I just made reference in second reading and I think the minister is going to address it here in Committee - where there is no provision there for the rights of appeal. Basically you will have to go to the courts. We did bring in legislation or bills here to allow small claim courts and keep down costs on that, so if the minister could give us the rationale behind not having a particular appeal procedure and so on that might be less financially cumbersome for people involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is clause 2. I just had one question generally first.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, on the appeal process, what we found in all of the jurisdictions across Canada that have enacted the legislation for prepaid funerals is that it is automatic for an appeal process to go through the courts. The reason for that is, in this particular piece of legislation, all government is doing is licensing funeral businesses to conduct business on prepaid funerals. Any appeal that would come would be on the basis of government issuing the funeral home the license, and in all other jurisdictions this is dealt with. If there is a problem they will go to the minister, and if the minister cannot resolve it and cannot satisfy the appropriate reasons then the Supreme Court or the court system will kick into play for the funeral homes to further appeal through that process. We don't believe that it should be any different here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I am waiting for clause 2.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 2.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 2, I will get right to the point. I will just move the following amendment. I provided the minister with a copy, and I provided the Table with a copy:

"That Bill 24, An Act Respecting Prepaid Funeral Services, which is now before the House be amended at Clause 2 by deleting from paragraph (i) the words "excluding cemetery services" and the comma immediately preceding them."

I move that these three words "excluding cemetery services" be deleted there. The rationale behind that, I might add, is that when people prepay a funeral they would like to include all services associated. They don't want to encumber their children or future generations to have to cover costs of maintaining a cemetery -

MR. TULK: What you are saying is, if it is included (inaudible) then it should have the same coverage as everybody else (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Right now the act is saying funeral services are defined - they give a definition and they say it excludes cemetery services. I am saying, just leave that out. By leaving that out, it leaves it open. If someone prepays it and that is built into it, that is fine. They have that satisfaction. If it is not there and they decide to go ahead, it does not - it gives the option there, basically. A lot of people, like in a city, don't want to have their children, their grandchildren or whatever, to have the ongoing maintenance of a particular plot. It is built in, it is lock, stock and barrel, and people are happy then. I spoke to the minister on that and I am sure the minister can have a comment on that if he so desires.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Mr. Chairman, we agree with this amendment. I will second it, if I have to second it. We agree with it and we will let that go through.

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are voting on of the amendment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those opposed, ‘nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 2 as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible). To be frank with you, I don't understand what it is and I guess if we have to, when we come back in the fall, we can always pass an amendment to clarify anything that might be there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Do you want to go have a chat? Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's do it now.

MR. TULK: Your officials are okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TULK: Okay.

Mr. Chairman have we passed that bill?

CHAIR: No.

We will just take a minute while our learned colleagues consult with him.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I understand that his officials say they are okay with it. What I understand the intent of the legislation to be is, if you prepay this then the funeral home should be responsible for it. If you don't prepay it, then obviously somebody else is responsible for it. So it is protection for those people who have paid for it in advance.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, when we exclude that from the definition, they have the option to go in and prepay it, including those cemetery costs. To me, the option is not there if they don't desire, if they want to go by conventional method or whatever. If you don't exclude this, you cannot do that because the cemetery service cannot be prepaid and not included, basically. People have a degree of contentment when they prepay their services, that they would like everything to be taken care of down the road. They maybe don't want their plot to be dilapidated and things in the future, and this gives them that option. I don't think it encumbers anyone else from not doing that there under that. I think the minister said his officials are comfortable with that too.

CHAIR: Clause 2 as amended is already carried, so we are on to clause 3.

Shall we deal with all of the clauses now, inclusive?

On motion, clauses 3 and 4 carried.

CHAIR: Clause 5.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: I just have a question to the minister on clause 5.(6). I made reference to it in second reading and I think the minister was going to have a comment. It says, "Money in the assurance fund shall be invested in investments authorized by the Trustee Act."

I am under the impression, too, that an amendment to the Trustee Act will allow the prudent investor rule, to her. That, I think, would be in the best interests of people involved.

I did speak with the minister on this in advance, and I certainly would like to have the minister's comments here in the reading of the bill. I was quite content with what he indicated and he has no problem, I think, indicating that to me.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Section 5.(5), the Trustee Act, there will be amendments brought in, in the fall session of the House, to include prudent investments within the Trustee Act. That will take care of the issue that the hon. member has raised for his particular act as well as a number of other acts. That legislation will be brought in, in the fall.

On motion, clause 5 carried.

On motion, clauses 6 through 18, carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999 No. 2," Bill 23.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

We have been having some dialogue with the minister and I do understand that the minister has been consulting with her officials. We were kind of waiting until that happened because there are certain points she wanted to check. Perhaps I could advise the Government House Leader if there are other matters he could continue with, then we might just delay the proceedings for a moment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is back. We are doing Committee on Bill 23. I understand there was a commitment to talk to some officials about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: So have your little discussion please, folks.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

What I was asked was concerning a deletion on other additional information in subsection (d) that was in the current act, the 1999 act. I think what is important to note is that this really is an augmenting statement in additional to what is already in a previous section. If you were to go back and review 207 and 208 of the act, this being subsection 210, you would see that the issues that you raised have to be disclosed at the beginning of every meeting. So, in fact, that is even more stringent than what is here. What you have seen here are the changes that were asked to be made by the NLFM in the actual written statement.

One example given was this. Say for example in a given council you might only have one businessman, and he might own a number of businesses way outside that would ever have anything to do with the municipality, and he was disclosing everything to the detriment of even wanting to run. So it is covered off in those subsections.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I understand I have leave to introduce second reading, and I have that done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't matter, I have whatever I want on this one.

Motion 3, Bill 25, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act."

CHAIR: Bill 25.

On motion, clauses 1 and 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I wonder, if we go to 5:30 p.m. before we get third reading of those bills, could we have leave to stop the clock?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report having passed Bills 12, 21, 22 and 25 without amendment and Bill 24 with 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, has directed him to report progress and that Bills 12, 21, 22, and 25 were passed without amendments and Bill 24 with amendments.

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

On motion, amendment to Bill 24 read a first and second time, ordered read a third time presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Are we going to read Bills 12, 24, 22, and 25? Are we going to move third readings on these?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I should inform my colleagues that the Speaker has just asked me for third reading of Bills 12 and so forth, but, we haven't done third reading of the other bills yet, have we?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. TULK: We have to start on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker..

MR. SPEAKER: I am moving too quickly.

MR. TULK: I don't want you to get me out of here this evening without my legislation passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we are moving too quickly.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

A bill, "An Act to Amend The Public Utilities Act." (Bill 1)

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

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

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the House, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Let me just ask - because we are following down the Order Paper - is there any particular bill that people would wish to make some points on in third reading?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Bill number what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I wonder if we could then do all of the rest of them in third reading. I will just call the bill numbers, if you don't mind, and we would call third reading on them. Did we do the City of St. John's Act? That was the last one we did, right?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. TULK: Bills11, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 23, 25. In other words, carry all third readings on the Order Paper except Order 17, Bill 12.

On motion, the following bills read a third time, ordered passed and their titles be as on the Order Paper:

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

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

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994." (Bill 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Psychologists Act." (Bill 8)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act." (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Lands Act." (Bill 15)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgements." (Bill 16)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999." (Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act." (Bill 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The St. John's Assessment Act." (Bill 19)

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)

CLERK: There is one missing.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a bill that you missed. That was Bill 25, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act." I move third reading on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

On motion, a bill,"An Act To Amend The Internal Economy Commission Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order 17, third reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Environment Assessment." (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 12.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak briefly at third reading on this bill, an act to amend the Environmental Assessment Act. There was some discussion during Committee stage and during second reading of this bill about a large number of the provisions. In fact, when you look at this bill as a whole, this bill is of very little substance, unfortunately, because it gives so much power - it basically is a bill to give power to the Cabinet to do pretty well what it pleases with respect to environmental assessment because first of all the act permits the Cabinet to decide what it applies to and what it does not.

First of all, though, the scheme of the act, the very essence of the act, section 4 of the act which talks about the application of the act, essentially it means that the act applies to whatever the government decides it will apply to, and that includes whether or not it applies to itself. Even though we have a very fancy and high-sounding section 5 or clause 5 of the act, that says that this act binds the Crown, this act in fact does not bind the Crown. It only binds the Crown to the extent that the Cabinet decides that it binds the Crown.

This act is an act which is full of that kind of hypocrisy. It is window dressing for giving the government the authority to do whatever it pleases with respect to environmental assessment. I think that point needs to be made. It was made at Committee, it was made at second reading, and I am making it here again at third reading because we clearly see the powers left with the Cabinet in this particular piece of legislation are all encompassing. They are all encompassing, and I will point out the several places where they are so encompassing.

Clause 4.(1) says, "This Act applies to all undertakings carried out in the province...." Well, if you stop there you would feel this is a good act. If you carry on, it says: "...unless it is of a class or undertaking exempted under this Act." Well, I guess that means exempted under any particular provisions of this act.

Clause 4.(2) says, "An undertaking to which this Act applies may be designated by regulation." Well, who passes the regulation? The Cabinet.

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." That clears says that you have to have a particular type of regulation, or a particular type of undertaking of the government specified are only the ones that should need to be registered under section 7.

Then we have clause 5, "The Crown is bound by this Act." The Crown is not bound by this act because the Crown, through the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is entitled to exempt any provisions, any particular undertaking, any class of undertakings, any of its own actions, from this act.

Clause 9 of the act says, for example, that once the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has declared a particular undertaking, or once it has been cleared in terms of not being contrary to policy or law, the minister then, using criteria prescribed by regulation, shall determine whether an environmental preview report or EPR is required, whether an environmental impact statement is required, an EIS, or whether the undertaking may be released.

The Cabinet, in addition to deciding what is covered by the act, is now going to decide what the rules are as to whether or not an EPR is required, an EIS is required, or whether it is released. That again is allowing the Cabinet the right to decide all of these things, and not the act itself and not this House of Assembly.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the omnibus powers being given to the Cabinet are set out in section 37. I am not satisfied with the general provisions of article 4, clauses 4 and 5. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is given the power to make regulations under section 37 of the act. We have the subclauses from (a) to (n) which determine the kinds of things that Cabinet may make regulations about.

First of all, they are given the power to define words. Any word that can be defined for the purposes of the act, if they are not happy with the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word, if they are not happy with the interpretation given by a court, if they are not happy with legal interpretation, if someone is giving it to them, saying, you can't do this - that is no problem. The Cabinet just redefines the word. It is a not a problem, I say to the Government House Leader, just redefine the word. If you don't like the legal interpretation that a court gives, if you don't like the legal interpretation that your own legal advisor is placing on it, you redefine the word for the purposes of the act by a stoke of the Cabinet pen.

Clause 37.(b), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can make regulations designating undertakings and classes of undertakings to which the act applies. Mr. Speaker, that is pretty broad, isn't it? That is the one I was talking about. The act applies to whatever the government says it applies to.

Some of the other provisions here are pretty standard in terms of established procedure, but the manner of preparation and submission of and information contained in registrations..." that is pretty standard. What about clause 37(d) which reads:"establishing criteria for the examination of undertakings in order to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required, an environmental preview report is required or the undertaking may be released..."? This is the one I referred to a moment ago.

We have in clause 37 this: "The Lieutenant -Governor in Council may make regulations... (i) exempting a person, class of persons, undertaking or class of undertakings from this Act or a section of this Act". Not only that, you can have a custom made legislation to suit a particular individual, a particular undertaking, or a particular class of undertakings, all of which power is left to the Cabinet, not left to the Legislature. We have no idea, and we won't find out until after an order is made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council through regulation. I find that offensive to this House of Assembly. We are being asked to pass legislation which is totally unacceptable for its lack of opportunity for public review of the regulations, public review of what is happening before it happens, and only by Cabinet fiat.

It is very interesting as well that left out of this act is something that was contained and very important in the previous act. Under the old act, the equivalent to the current clause 15, which describes what is to be contained in an environmental impact statement, the previous act had a provision which is very interesting. The provision in the old act, when they talked about a requirement for the environmental impact assessment, was a proposed program of study designed to monitor all toxic substances and other harmful impacts that would be produced by the undertaking.

The old act contained also a provision that said that the monitoring referred to in that particular clause shall continue throughout the both the construction and operational stages of the undertaking. That has been conveniently removed. I wonder why. Why is it that there is no continued requirement that the proposed study and monitoring take place throughout both the construction and operation of the undertaking that was required? That is left out. A legal interpretation of that being left out would give rise to someone claiming that it was left out for a reason, that therefore monitoring throughout the construction and operational phases of an undertaking under this act would not take place. I find that reprehensible, that you would go and leave that out and renege on the requirement that there be a lack of monitoring throughout the project.

We have grave concerns about the lack of monitoring that in fact would take place. We are concerned that through this new legislation - the old section of the old act required that the government would hold the government responsible for continued monitoring of projects, and it appears now that this will be reduced or eliminated and a form of self-monitoring would be undertaken.

Those are the concerns about this act. The act is as solid as water as a bulwark against environmental degradation because you can stir it up, you can push your hands through it, it doesn't have any solidity because everything of any significance is left to the Cabinet; from the issue as to whether or not the act applies to a particular undertaking, what the criteria are for an undertaking to be going through an EIS or an EPR or to be released. All of this is left up to the Cabinet by regulation. We in the New Democratic Party find this to be contrary to public policy, contrary to the proper protection of the environment, and it leaves too much in the hands of the Cabinet and not enough that has to go through this Legislature for proper study, proper review and proper public debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Environmental Assessment," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 12)

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House I would like to wish everybody in the Legislature, everybody in any way, shape or form connected -

AN HON. MEMBER: Merry Christmas.

MR. TULK: You probably don't know the difference whether it is Christmas or spring. I say to the hon. gentleman that we are closing for the spring session, not the Christmas session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everybody in any way, shape or form that is connected with the House, regardless of their position, a safe and a happy summer. I hope we have lots of good weather. I look forward to seeing them back here in the fall unless there are some by-elections on the other side, and if there some by-elections then we will try to see that your seat is filled by a good Liberal. Other than that, I wish everybody a good summer, on behalf of the government and on behalf of this side of the Legislature.

I would like to make the point that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is out of town this afternoon and I understand the administrators are not available. They are out of town, some of them. Instead of having him attend to the royal assent ceremony in the Chamber this evening, the hon. the Speaker and the Clerk of the House will visit Government House in the afternoon in order to receive the royal assent to some twenty-five or thirty bills that we have passed, so that by tomorrow evening the world is still considered to be safe.

Mr. Speaker, I would move that when this House adjourns today it stands adjourned upon the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from the Province the Deputy Speaker, may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting.

It is moved that this House do now adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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